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

logically, so then this is a world record that he set at 35?

 

I assumed you were making that claim. It's really irrelevant to whether it is totally impossible for a 35 year-old to reach his peak at 35 since it would not be providing statistical evidence but just an isolated example.

BTW
In order to avoid such an overgeneralization, the qualifiers, "most" "the majority" ""85%" etc. needs to be used.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jtagg/overgeneralization.htm

 

obviously youre just arguing without knowing what it is that youre arguing, so i will fill you in.
at the last olympics, anthony ervin won the gold at the age of 35, returning to training at the age of 31 after abandoning competition from the age of 22 to the age of 32. so you have absolutely no idea how his times would have compared at the age of 28, with the times he clocked at the age of 35. does that answer your question why he didnt?

 

They wouldn't be in their physical, athletic prime but boxing is about a lot more than that. I think Hopkins peak came when he was around 36. Any physical deterioration was more than compensated for by the experience he'd gained, the intelligence (and willingness to learn) and the changes and improvements he made to his style.

He's obviously an outlier but he was unquestionably better at 36 than he was at 28.

 

That's totally irrelevant to the flawed logic you are employing.
As I clearly pointed out but to no avail, you are using the common fallacy of overgeneralization and making it worse by basing it on scanty evidence or no relevant evidence at all. Of course such a mistake stems from total ignorance of what constitutes cogent reasoning which you obviously are lacking.

BTW
In order to discuss boxing one need not employ in personal attacks against those who differ in opinion. Personal attacks, such as you are obviously fond of deploying, only serve to stifle discussion and ultimately result in no communication at all.

 

then why even bother asking me why he didnt post better times when he was 28?

 

If you build your style around physical attributes you will get worse with age (after around 30). But if you compensate that loss with experience and a change of tactics I don't see why you couldn't be as good at 35 as before. Physical prime is pre 30, mental prime is post 30.

The average athlete is probably past prime in his 35, but in no way would I say it impossible to be at your best.

 

Because I am trying to get you to reason.

 

im there. if you think its reasonable for a 35yo to be physically superior at 35 than he was at 28, then yeah, we are going to disagree on that, and on the definition of reason.

 

I'd argue you PHYSICALLY can't get better after 30. Unless you started off out of shape.

Somewhere around 25-26 is physical prime

 

what personal attacks? if youre talking about my interaction with some other poster, and you still want to yank my chain, then why complain when you already know my responses are going to make you emotional.

 

Actusally Anthony Ervin who won gold at 35 in swimming!!! (one of the 'youngest' sports) performed better than at 19, when he won his 1st Olympic gold.

He then retired from sport at 22 and came back at 31. His personal best result was set at 35.

 

Im physically much more formidable NOW than i was in my 20's at ANY time...you dont know what your talking about. I myself shatter your theory.

 

Yeah but he was still better overall in the mid 70s. It's hard to picture Foreman in his mid 20s losing to Tommy Morrison, needing a gift to get past Alex Schultz, and going life and death with Alex Stewart. I'd pick him over Evander Holyfield as well.

Foreman did well though to still be very effective when he was old. His reflexes were slower but for his age, they were exceptional.

 

youre not even out of your teens.