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

Yeah he can still bring it.

 

Experience counts for a hell of a lot in fighting, it's not so black and white.

Go watch a nature programme, the old experienced Lions often defeat their younger challengers. Of course the old Lion eventually gets too old and decrepit and is overthrown.

 

Isn't turn over at the top like every 2 or 3 years? Lions are whores.

 

Holy **** golovkin nutriders already making excuses.

 

Acquisition of skill and knowledge can provide a fighter with the means to perform better in his thirties than he did in his twenties. For example, maybe the younger version didn't know how to jab properly or protect his chin efficiently and was susceptible to getting KOD or losing on points. Or maybe the younger version didn't know how to pace himself properly and tended to gas out at approx. mid-fight? Or maybe the younger version liked to party and eat like a swine and always came to a fight below par.

 

Step 1: Pacman is an invincible superhero
Step 2: An invincible superhero can never lose
Step 3: Therefore, anytime Pac loses he has to have been cheated or robbed

Just remember this is the only thought process half of the posters on this forum are capable of and it makes threads like this entirely more fun and hilarious to read.

 

Experience and technical competence can compensate for athleticism. There's a reason the top 10 P4P list around 2011 featured mostly fighters in their mid-30's or older.

Mayweather
Pacquiao
Marquez
Martinez
Froch
Klitschko
Hopkins

 

Joshua nuthuggers love theory about Wlad being prime in his 40, I guess its too painful for them to think that 30 -35 year old Wlad would have destroyed british stiff. And yes Joshua is just a poor man's wlad.

 

hopkins says hi

 

GGG excuse thread already made.

 

I saw your atrocious score when looking through the Jacobs/Golovkin RBR, what's your excuse for that?

 

It's not an arguable point, no fighter is better at 35 than 27. Wlad's reign past 35 was due to a pathetic heavyweight division. That he actually lost to Tyson Fury ,a hilarious heavyweight if I've ever seen one is testament to the divisions weakness.

 

It depends on the fighter. We have footage of Archie Moore in his youth and in his late 30s. While he looked more athletic as a young man he was wild and sloppy, and seemed a much superior overall fighter in his late 30s, and his record reflects that.

It also depends on the match ups. Outside of a few astonishing performances such as Duran vs. Barkley and Moore vs Lavorante, older fighters tend to struggle against younger men with significant height and reach advantages.

 

I think my point could still stand though. Starting boxing that late means he would still be learning boxing tricks at a later age.

But if you don't think so, then lets take Nate Campell as an example. He started boxing late enough that he wouldn't be able to peak until probably after his physical abilities slightly declined.