Is it possible for any fighter to be better after age 35 than before?

without a doubt.
there's the thing of experience, still learning new things, being settled in control of your own anxieties.
And there's enough medication around that can slow down the effects that aging has on your body, or even enhance your body at a point there should only be decline.

 

occasionally yes, but its usually because they simply are very slow developers or were simply too limited to fulfil their potential earlier.

however that doesn't mean their maximum potential physical assets haven't faded lower than their younger, higher potential. it has, invariably. for instance joe cowardzaghe was a smarter boxer as he got older, peaking when facing Kessler at age 34. but his greatest asset stamina was starting to dwindle shortly after, though you'd not notice it because it was elite level stamina.

incidentally Hopkins fought at a much higher pace with similar ability when younger. I'm pretty sure he wasn't "better" when he was older, simply better managed, and a clever dirtier self-pacer

 

Hhmmm Archie Moore comes to mind.

Also George Foreman.

That's just two of the top of my head.

For the most part athletes peak well before 35 but...

Experience has value.

 

Very rarely. If someone IS that good that late in age, than it's most probably due to the fact they started boxing at a late age (i.e. 18 years old.)

To the TS- I don't like the examples you gave as all those fighters you mentioned were better before they turned 35. Hopkins was a menace back in the late 90's and fought in a different manner than he did say in the mid to late 2000's. Marquez also fights in a different manner than when he was younger; he essentially changed his style to a more action-packed form after losing to Chris John overseas in Indonesia back in the mid 2000's.

 

Pacquiao is a better, more complete boxer now than he was before the knockout. He's substituted loss of athleticism with ring IQ, so yes.

 

Archie Moore is an interesting pick. I might have to agree with that, but just because he won the LHW title at such an advanced age doesn't mean he was a better fighter at that point. He was a helluva fighter back in the 40's as a non champ and beat fighters in many divisions. It was just in that era it wasn't that easy back than to get title shots.

I don't agree with Foreman though. i thought he was at his best back in the 70's when he was a ruthless SOB that was devastating the HW division.

 

wow, good post Herol :good

older foreman did a slew of things so much better in his OLD career than he did in his YOUNG one. Even if we vote the young foreman as the better one we can see how with a bit of age a fighter can get better in many ways.

 

foreman wasnt better at 40 than he was at 24. but he was better at 40 than he was at 35 haha.

Moore, Hopkins.

 

I think Martinez could have handled Margarito, at 160lbs anyhow.

Humans are complex beings, and all sports including boxing have a huge mental factor as well.

Plus there are also other factors. Like in case of Martinez. Though he felt "good" below 160lbs.... it wasn't until he basically wasn't cutting any weight at all that he started performing better. His punches from odd angles that previously were simply effective became dangerous. His athletic style was best served by coming in at 100% possible health.

Of course I think it was the weight that let him improve, but regardless he was still a better fighter at 36 than he was at 26.

 

physical wise everything hurts more in training than when you were younger

youre recovery periods are longer
you are stiffer in the mornings
you put on weight easier
massage
staying in tip top shape and not letting yourself rest in between fights helps the best / but old injurys or more injurys occur more frequentluy and take longer to heal.

there are exceptions .

you can look in the same shape at 50 as you were at 25 , but at 25 you could eat mars bars /party /sleep all day and you could still be in shape if you worked out and trained.
as father time goes on you have to live spartan and train like a demon and be lucky with injuries.

 

they can become smarter and more technical but no way One will become stronger or faster at or after age 35 then before

 

George Foreman was not better in his comeback than he was in the 70s. He worked on some of his weaknesses, such as pacing and relaxing in the ring, and experience always helps, but overall he was still a better, more effective fighter in the 70s.

Does anyone see the Foreman of the 70s just squeaking by Alex Stewart, and losing soundly to Tommy Morrison?

B-Hop is arguable. I'd say his prime was 1996-2001, ages 31-36. If you want, maybe you can stretch it out a couple years to 2003 at 38. I liked the methodical way he tore apart Joppy at all ranges.

Archie Moore fought at a very high level at an old age. As far as actually being better after 35? I don't know. How great was he when he was a contender waiting forever to get a title shot?

 

Stevenson

 

Very possible. Sometimes experience/maturity>physical prime.

Define what you mean with ''better''.
After 35 you've physically declined compared to when you were 25. However, with experience comes maturity and sometimes a seasoned mature fighter beats a young hungry lion.

Good examples to me are Hopkins, Casamayor, Floyd.

Obviously when you're shot to pieces like Mosley or Fernando Vargas it doesn't matter any more how seasoned you are.