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

Is it just a coincidence that currently fastest man on earth and the best tennis player in the world are both 35/36 years old?

 

the fastest man in the worls isnt the fastest man anymore, hes on the slide and reguarly getting pipped. Bolts not the same anymore. More to the point, sprinting is categorically not a cardio sport.

the best tennis player? williams is awesome but you dont think shes one in a million? look at the next 5 after her, they arent anywhere near as old as she is. You have to figure in that you are looking at the best tennis player ever to grace the planet - she would beat graff and the others for sure. though at 35 even shes not the same.

 

I'm taking about Gatlin who's just won the 100m world championships at 35 and Williams would be lucky to win more than one game against the 36 year old Federer.

 

I certainly believe fighters decline physically, that's a biological fact.

However due to factors such as experience, technique and years of perfecting their craft a fighter can be better at an advanced age than they used to be.

 

yes but only if they were not equipped to reach their full ability earlier. something held them back behind those who were good and able to develop normally.

in other words, slow learners.

 

Just like you.

 

How could they gain championship experience and years of technique at an earlier age?

 

like other did it at the earlier age. they managed it. anyway to chop, it they learned slower than others did.

 

Bit of a stupid thread really.

Of course you can be better at 35 than 27, this is a fact and cannot be disputed.

However of course there is a decline with some physical attributes which begins late twenties generally.

Things you seemingly discount though are experience and also strength. It is a fact that you would be stronger at age 35 than 27, if training remained consistently, reason being muscle mass takes a VERY long time to build. And then of course experience, as many other posters have pointed out.

If boxing was purely physical you would have a point, however it's massively psychological, so to say someone cannot be better at 35 than 27 is ludicrous.

 

Floyd who beat Canelo is better than any Floyd that came before him imo.

That may be a bad example cos I know his intelligence is questionable so he probably is a slow learner, but the point I make is, the best boxer of our generation, gave his best and most complete performance at an advanced age, imo.

 

I think that the list that you just provided is enough to conclude that it is in fact possible to be in your prime even at 35. Wasn't that what the tread was about?

 

I've seen some people genuinely argue that Foreman was better during his comeback than his prime lol.

 

It's suspicious as hell. Federer is having perhaps his greatest season since 2006 if not ever. Tennis requires movement and reflexes. Now Federer is the GOAT, but 30 is generally considered ancient in tennis. There's no strategy in sprinting either, just run as fast as you can. If you aren't at least considering raising an eyebrow, you aren't thinking this through.

 

30 is considered ancient in tennis? The top 5 male players in the world are all 30+ dude.

 

You know, 40 would of been a better age than 35, lol

Yes the body begins to slow down after 30 for most but you wait until you hit your 40s, that's intense.