Let's get something straight about a fighter's physical prime

[Real King Kong]

We don't know if he's declining. We have nothing to compare the Brook and Jacobs fights with. They were the most skilled fighters he's ever fought.

FIGHTERS DON'T USUALLY LOOK AS GOOD FIGHTING THE MOST SKILLED FIGHTERS THEY'VE EVER FOUGHT.

You can't tell if a fighter is slower...has less snap on their punches...doesn't move as well...doesn't react as well...isn't quite as sharp? There are things that can be measured regardless of opposition...and there are things that come down to his opposition being better. I'm not completely dismissing his better opposition as a reason he looked flat, just like you shouldn't dismiss his age as another reason.

[Robbie Barrett]

You can't tell if a fighter is slower...has less snap on their punches...doesn't move as well...doesn't react as well...isn't quite as sharp? There are things that can be measured regardless of opposition...and there are things that come down to his opposition being better. I'm not completely dismissing his better opposition as a reason he looked flat, just like you shouldn't dismiss his age as another reason.

Go measure them and come back with the evidence.

[Real King Kong]

He started better testing and fought higher caliber fighters... but it was the age only doe

Just like i said in op...anyone who isn't on peds, and that doesn't exclude ggg.

[Real King Kong]

Go measure them and come back with the evidence.

Go come back with evidence he's still in his prime...that's just as ******. We're talking about things we observe, aren't we? Evidence...smh

[Robbie Barrett]

Go come back with evidence he's still in his prime...that's just as ******. We're talking about things we observe, aren't we? Evidence...smh

You just said they can be measured, go fucking measure them then. Don't tell me you can see his decline in speed etc with your naked eye, you're full of shit if you do.

[Real King Kong]

You just said they can be measured, go fucking measure them then. Don't tell me you can see his decline in speed etc with your naked eye, you're full of shit if you do.

You can absolutely see with the naked eye. Go back and watch his fights vs proksa-stevens and then watch his last 3. If you tell me hasn't lost a step, then you're full of ****. You can't tell when a fighter isn't as sharp? Wtf do you look at when you watch fights?

[DreamerUSA]

No, just no. What you're suggesting, that he's still in prime, is completely arbitrary and is based off nothing but 'your eyes'. There is an insurmountable amount of physical and biological evidence that show the peak of human conditioning is in their 20s, and for some sports even younger. You can look at a million different things. Look at the average age of athletes in any physical sport. Look at the age of athletes who compete in the olympics. Look at virtually any boxer ever in the history of the sport. There are many athletes who claim fine victories in their mid 30s, for example Floyd beat Canelo, Kareem Abdul Jabbar had several excellent seasons in his late 30s, and many more. But nobody will ever claim that they were at their peak physical condition. They were more experienced, maybe they were smarter.

But they were past their physical period. You can't argue biology.

You can't argue biology, but you can certainly fight it. Proper diet and excercise can keep a man at or near their physical peak well in to the 40's. As far as why we rarely see athletes in their late 30's or early 40's has to do with the damage they take over the course of a career and little to do with what our bodies are actually capable of later in life. Flexibility, strength, stamina, reflexes, testosterone levels and on and on and on can all be maintained well past 30, if you live that life, like a GGG does.

The only variables are how hard the older guy has to work for it, how much damage he has taken, and the older guys ability to keep up his desire deep into his career. Saying a 35 year old man is incapable of being in his physical prime is just flat out wrong. Sure if you hit 30 and don't put in the work, you slowly slide down an ever increasing decline. I keep beating the drum here, but again, with proper diet and excercise it does'nt have to be the case.

With all that said. The only real measure we can give on a fighter is their performance. And like I said, I've seen nothing from GGG that would suggest he has lost a step.

[Robbie Barrett]

You can absolutely see with the naked eye. Go back and watch his fights vs proksa-stevens and then watch his last 3. If you tell me hasn't lost a step, then you're full of ****. You can't tell when a fighter isn't as sharp? Wtf do you look at when you watch fights?

You're full of ****, there was no clear decline in physical ability in the Brook and Jacobs fight. If there is it's thousandths of a second which no ****er would be able to see with the naked eye. It's usually noticeable with other fighters because you see it in the fights against the level of opponents, you can't see that with Golovkin because he didn't fight his best opponents until the last two fights. There's no measuring stick with in ring performance for Golovkin. Go ****ing measure and come back with the evidence.

[Real King Kong]

You're full of ****, there was no clear decline in physical ability in the Brook and Jacobs fight. If there is it's thousandths of a second which no ****er would be able to see with the naked eye. It's usually noticeable with other fighters because you see it in the fights against the level of opponents, you can't see that with Golovkin because he didn't fight his best opponents until the last two fights. There's no measuring stick with in ring performance for Golovkin. Go ****ing measure and come back with the evidence.

Like i said...go look at the fights. Forget about the word measure, i can see you're hung up on it. I should have used judged or something like that. Anyway, I'm starting to see you don't know much about the sport. Why do you keep changing your name anyway?

[NaijaD]

You can absolutely see with the naked eye. Go back and watch his fights vs proksa-stevens and then watch his last 3. If you tell me hasn't lost a step, then you're full of ****. You can't tell when a fighter isn't as sharp? Wtf do you look at when you watch fights?

I don't know how you can see that considering Golovkin was never quick or athletic to begin with. You probably will look like you lost a step when you fight your best opponents..... if he had fought Dominic Wade in a rematch instead of Jacobs I doubt you'd be making this thread.

Golovkin is past his physical prime most likely but his prime as a fighter? ..... we don't know and it doesn't help that he's fighting his 3 most accomplished and skilled opponents back to back to back. Golovkin being 35 is not the same as Roy Jones being 35.... Pacquaio being 37 or 38 is not the same as Marquez being 37 or 38.