Age isn't directly correlated with being shot or being past prime

This is something I've been seeing on these forums lately and it is just a really dumb jump in logic. Take the fight tonight. People keep referring to Verno Phillips as past his prime or shot, citing that he is 39. He has never looked bad and is coming off one of the best wins of his career, but he is past his prime or shot because of his age? Everyone is different. You can't tell what part of their career they are in just by their numerical age without coming up with exceptions. The source of these conversations seems to have been Calzaghe/Hopkins and everything since. People try to discredit Calzaghe by calling Hopkins and Jones shot/washed up/past their primes, and in some sort of defensive response the Calzaghe squad comes back with the claim that he is past his prime too because of his age. This, again, is dumb logic. Roy Jones Jr ABSOLUTELY is shot. There is no doubt about that. He doesn't look anything like what he used to in the ring. His age makes him more likely to be shot, sure, but it does not make him shot. The deterioration of his talent and skills are what make him shot. Calzaghe and Hopkins? Come on. I've watched them both years and years and years now and neither of them are washed up or shot, and if they are past their time it is just barely. Honestly I don't think Calzaghe is at all, and if Hopkins was ever at his best it was just against Tarver two years ago. Primes as a boxer change from fighter to fighter. Age is a guideline, not an answer. Stop claiming people are past their primes just because of a number. Have some real evidence.