No fighter can be at his best at 35 and over. It's biologically impossible.

Serena Williams the "tennis" player is a biological man in many ways, just look at those muscles and the physique. An actual man clears up in female tennis.

And 100 metres is track and field yawn- track and field is the sport that the kids who are no good at anything else get into. Its a sport for the equivalent of athletic special needs.

All the top athletes in the USA for example are in other sports. Other sports that pay way more and involve a team game.

 

Considering the fact that Hopkins, JMM, and Mayweather were likely steroid cheats and Foreman, Walcott, and Moore were heavyweights with a longer shelf life that really winnows things down, doesn't it? You're basically left with Martinez, Duran, Chavez, and Zaragoza.

In the case of Duran, he'd actually peaked when he was 30 and whooped Ray Leonard. He picked up a string of losses over the next five years, whereas previously he'd gone 72-1 so no, he wasn't prime anymore even though he was still technically functioning at a very high level. He's taking losses to Laing and Sims who he probably should have beat and getting flatlined by Hearns. The fact that he still had one last hurrah in him against Iran Barkley is little short of amazing.

Chavez' defeat by De La Hoya when he was 34 actually signaled the end of his career since he had no more meaningful victories after that and picked up a string of losses. Basically, Chavez was capable right up to that event horizon and then the wheels came off. He might have been able to hang with Ivan Robinson at 43 but at 38 Kostya Tszyu crushed him. His days as truly elite were over.

Zaragoza and Martinez I really don't know what to make of. They are anomalies. But still they are like two guys out of literally like a hundred million. If you aren't that one in a hundred million guy then you are probably not still an elite boxer at the age of 35. If that's all you want that one in a hundred millionth possibility then fine, but the odds are so far against that for all intents and purposes Tinman is correct and boxers are done functioning at the highest levels by 35.

 

That proves little in the context of boxing.

As explained in my previous post.

 

Floyd started very early but still 35 was his best performance for me.

 

This content is protected

It's biologically impossible, but chemical enhancements make it a possibility. The roided demon that Pac faced in IV was the best version of Marquez to ever step inside the squared circle. That night, Marquez was one of the most dangerous welterweights ever.

New body? Check.
Thundering power? Check.
Limitless stamina? Check.
Speed? Check.
Timing? Check.

Basically, it was like Megatron's transformation into Galvatron and Memo Heredia is Unicron.

 

Physically, i totally agree. My guess is the peak years physically are probably somewhere between 24 to 32 varying from gene pool to gene pool.

But boxing is a thinking sport, so a boxer can become a better boxer psychologically as they mature. I know for sure my body is not what it was 5 years ago (i am 34 years of age as i write this), but i can assure you that i am a much better boxer than i was at a younger age, because i am have more knowledge in dealing with adversity in the ring, as well as a more mature approach on how to tackle different obstacles in the ring.

As with other areas of life we generally become smarter with age.

 

The Floyd who fought Corrales would not have beaten the Canelo who fought Floyd.

No way.

 

Absolutely, if you don't count everybody who performed well post 35 the list is quite short.

 

Exactly, so even though he had aged considerably, other factors such as experience and weight meant he was better equipped to face Canelo at 35 years of age rather than 25 years of age.

There's more to boxing than being physically prime.

 

35 is the new 15.

 

Just wanted to say: Thank you!

Wlad at 41 just can't be Wlad at 31.