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

Vlad was fighting quite well at age 35, so was Vitali.........................Golovkin still has the skills, timing, distance, defense when needed, and power!!!!!!!

 

i think the same thing applies - gaitlin is not in a cardio sport (cardio, if you dont know, is where it counts with age), and if you dont think federer is one in a million, more so than williams..then.. i dont know what you think. Hes taken full advantage of the miraculous consecutive poor injurious runs from his three rivals too. that wont last.

 

yeh he shoudda said its a turning point in cardio posts, you are on the fade in cardio terms from there.

 

of course, its just the opposite of the general pattern.

 

lol

old floyd was slower than young floyd, less adventurous. again floyd is a one in a million type case,with a style built for longevity. hes not a established pattern, thank heavens.

 

Young Floyd doesn't beat prime Canelo.

 

really? u really rate canelo that well? whats he dont to prove it.

 

Well enough to beat the best SFW around, yeah. Who's that today? Lomachenko?

I'd certainly favour Canelo over Lomachenko.

 

there are cases you can provide some case for it such as archi moore being a solid one. Or recently cowardzaghe, not in the same league as moore but he was a bumkiller eternal in his 20s yet had learned enough to beat an elite kessler at 35 (albeit when kess was crocked, not when he was fully fit).

 

i mean reality,

 

Yeah if Loma Vs Canelo was announced next, I would favour Canelo to beat him.

 

ok but i still mean reality

 

Obviously in reality the fight won't get announced because who would pit a SFW against a LMW/MW fighter.

As i said younger Floyd of the SFW and LW days wouldn't be able to beat Canelo in my opinion.

I just don't think Floyd was as good back then as he became.

 

Yes I agree it's certainly normal to have declined at 35, 100% agree.

However the OP states its biologically impossible to be better at 35 than 27, which is categorically not true.

 

yes someone who was too backward in his 20s certainly qualifies if they start learning in their 30s.