Why 35? It's not like some kind of timebomb suddenly goes off inside the human body when you reach 35 that assures your physical decline. If you take care of yourself, you can be in as good physical shape when you're 35, 36, 37 as you were when you were in your early 30s. A boxers prime, is about way more than just his physical peak anyway. Many guys have been at their best over the age of 35.
6 of the fighters on the current p4p list are in their 30's. Im willing to bet its been like that for the last 30 years.
Fighters get smarter with age and a more experienced fighter with a bit less physical attributes can still be overall better than he was at a younger age.
Boxers, and athletes in general, are almost certain to lose something by their mid 30s. Hand speed, foot speed, legs, reflexes, etc...Even the fighters who remained fast in their mid 30s were almost certainly quicker 10 years earlier. Fighters can try to make up for it in other ways by improving in different areas. Whether or not certain fighters are more effective overall in their mid 30s can be a debate. But it's rare.
Totally normal for a 35 year old to put on 20 pounds of muscle and move faster than he did in his 20s. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Very well, but you ought to back that up with a lengthy list of boxers who actually were at their best 35+. So far we have Hopkins, Foreman, Moore, Walcott, Martinez, JMM, and Mayweather who held it together pretty well. I'll even give you Daniel Zaragoza. Julio Cesar Chavez didn't really go downhill until about then. Duran wasn't the same but he had success after 35. That's most of 'em and the newer ones are very suspect when it comes to roids. Anyone who's not a heavyweight with huge punching power doesn't appear to last after 35. Please, name some.
Of course they're not physically better, but boxing is not all about physical attributes it's about knowing how and when to use your physical attributes. A guy who is 10 championship fights more experienced at 35 can have more IQ than his 32 year old self and be a tougher prospect to beat, even if he is physically less impressive. It's the age-old question - would 25 year old Floyd Mayweather beat 35 year old Floyd Mayweather? What about Wlad? It's not as simple as just saying the younger stronger guy would win, because it's not always true.
Variable factors involved. Fighters with long amateur careers or who turn pro young or have many professional fights must likely will have peaked by 35. Hagler and Leonard example. Are some exceptions like Sergio Martinez and Bernard Hopkins but they turned pro late.
2007 Floyd Mayweather Jr. 30 Manny Pacquiao 29 Juan Manuel Marquez 34 Bernard Hopkins 42 Joe Calzaghe 35 Israel Vazquez 30 Miguel Angel Cotto 27 Ricky Hatton 29 Ronald (Winky) Wright 36 Rafael Marquez 32 1997 Oscar De La Hoya 24 Roy Jones Jr. 28 Felix Trinidad 24 Pernell Whitaker 33 Evander Holyfield 35 Terry Norris 30 Junior Jones 27 Ricardo Lopez 31 Ike Quartey 28 Mark Johnson 26 1989 Mike Tyson 23 Julio Cesar Chavez 27 Pernell Whitaker 25 Michael Nunn 26 Antonio Esparragoza 30 Meldrick Taylor 23 Azumah Nelson 31 Raul Perez 22 Virgil Hill 25 Marlon Starling 30 Couldn't find 87's list. Ring only started keeping a top 10 in 1989. But Esparragoza is the only fighter 30 or over on the 1990s list and there are only 2 guys in their thirties for 2000 Roy Jones (31) and Lennox Lewis (35). I'd be willing to guess that if they'd kept lists in the pre-steroid era the ages would skew even lower. I took a stab at a 1977 p4p list: 1977 1.Roberto Duran 26 2.Miguel Canto 29 3.Wilfred Benitez 19 4.Alexis Arguello 25 5.Carlos Palomino 28 6.Wilfredo Gomez 22 7.Carlos Zarate 26 8.Vicente Saldivar 34 9.Esteban De Jesus 26 10.Danny Lopez 25