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

You can always rely on OvidsExile for list

 

I wonder if dart players get drug tested?

 

Physical prime at 35 probably not, but while physical attributes is important in boxing, it's not the end all, we are talking 35 here not 50, so depends on style, skill, experience and type of opponents some 35 plus fighters can still have success, a few even performed better, not necessary stronger.

 

I was looking over that list of the top 100 fighters down in Classics and maybe 3 or 4 had any success beyond the age of 35. A lot of them were retired by that age and the ones that carried on mostly pick up a lot of losses from then on. If you look at their records, yes, it looks like a bomb just goes off at 34-35 and they aren't the same anymore. Except, except, except in the last twenty years or so... for some reason.

 

we must be evolving at hyper speed.

 

Why 35? Why not 33 or 37? You really have no idea what you're talking about. any fighters improve well after 30-it's a mental attitude for improvement that's required not just physical or genetic gifts. George best retired at 27 no gifts could overcome his problems, Ray Leonard originally at 25-came back better than ever. Modern nutrition and training means 35 is nothing to overcome at all.

 

agreed but power is the last attribute to go....in mayweather's case, his power deceased as he moved up in weight not bc of age. he still pops just as hard from the training videos. but his pegs and reflexes are def not as good

 

Felix Trinidad, Antonio Tarver, and Pavlick disagrees with the original post

 

Some of the rare instances in which a fighter may have been at his best at 35 or older:

Lennox Lewis: I think most would agree he was at his best with Emanuel Steward, as he worked out some of the kinks and technical flaws. He was quicker in the early 90s. For example, the right hand that dropped Ruddock was pretty damn fast, as was the left hook and right hand that hurt him at the beginning of round 2. But overall he was less effective, such as with that ugly looping right hand, the openings he left which cost him against Oliver McCall, more telegraphed punches. I guess his prime was 1997-2000? 32 to 35? He turned 35 in 2000 with that trio of fights against Michael Grant, Frans Botha, and David Tua.

Bernard Hopkins: you could argue his peak performance was at 32 against Glen Johnson.

This content is protected

You could argue it was at age 36 against Felix Trinidad. As we all know, he had great performances even in his 40s. I'd say his prime was from 1996 to, I guess, 2003? 31 to 38? He looked very good when he beat the crap out of William Joppy. Hopkins stayed fighting at a world class level for such a long time without any big declines in performances like most fighters.

Evander Holyfield was probably in his heavyweight prime in the early 90s. However, he adjusted well and improved in other areas despite physically slower. I've heard some viewpoints that he was in his heavyweight prime in 1996-97. Not sure if I agree, probably not, but it is true that he was bigger, stronger, more experienced against big guys, and better tactically. Holyfield said after beating Tyson that he learned how to fight more controlled. He had been so brawl-happy, but fought a smart fight against Tyson. He picked his spots when to trade, when not to, clinched a lot to nullify Tyson's attack, and pushed him around. He was physically stronger up close.

I'm not sure exactly what age Wladimir Klitschko was at his best. Maybe his early 30s? He was more fun to watch in his pre-Steward days but ultimately more effective after he started working with Steward. He became terrific at keeping distance and also using spoiling tactics to nullify his opponents' offense.

 

I am in no way a professional athlete but it is true as you pass your 35 year mark your body starts declining. I have noted that on myself. Of course with a pro it will be the same, not always the case, but those are exceptions. Good examples will be Sergio Martinez as he got older he got better and Hopkins. But your body does start declining in the mid 30's.

 

35 will not bother Golovkin, the cut downs on age is called wishful thinking by the haters. Age depends on the individual boxer, some it bothers and some it does not. 35 is not that old anymore.................Golovkin still has the timing, distance, chin, stamina, and the power........................he will probably retire at age 38...................the boxing world will miss such an exciting fighter.............

 

at heavyweight it is possible. and more recently boxing with the watered down fighters guys can fight ok getting older. But back in the 1980s, a guy who was 34 or 35 below heavyweight had a hard time hanging in with younger guys..

 

show me evidence he has slowed down? is your only evidence the fact he has jumped up in competition ? because usually you dont look that good when you fight elites

 

Oh you know the story as well as me

How do you think it's possible? Cause he's the only one swimmer to achieve that at age 35 so far.

Do you think his 9-year retirement kept him fresher and 'younger' than the other swimmers?