Will age stop being used as an excuse on this site now after last night ?

[Chunk..]

Hopkins at 43 looked sensational last night against the 26 year old Pavlik, can people now see that Hopkins wouldn't of signed for the fight unless he thought he would win? Exactly the same as Roy wouldn't of signed to fight Joe unless he thought he would win?

It can't be just about the money?

[ferocity]

Its for the money and the love of the sport. They got tons of money but the love of the sport keeps them around.

And age is defined fight by fight. Had Pavlik pulled out a ko in the later rounds, you still couldnt' use the age factor.

[Easy-E]

No, age is not an excuse, it is a fact. Fighters age, and as a result are not as good as they were in their primes.
Just because Hopkins beat Pavlik does not mean age is not relevant.

[Chunk..]

No, age is not an excuse, it is a fact. Fighters age, and as a result are not as good as they were in their primes.
Just because Hopkins beat Pavlik does not mean age is not relevant.

I think in some circumstances age is a legitimate excuse, but it plays a back seat role to the experience, ability and heart of the fighter who is effected by it, as Hopkins showed us last night.

Its funny, Hopkins was a shot, over the hill fighter when he fought Calzaghe, now the same people who thought that then are now signing petitions to get him into the hall of fame ASAP.

It's a catch 22, age will slow you down, tire you out, but it is invaluable for the experience that is attached to it.