Like I said guys, I buy completely that ages 25-30 are where people often get better, it's been my experience as well.

My only argument is that it is not a result of increasing levels of physical fitness, but skills which are less dependent on that physical fitness, i.e. a fighter that has learned finesse, structure, form, has a deep grasp of the strategy of what he is doing etc. and can be more efficient than someone younger who often times is relying more on "brute force".

Yes what I am saying in an isolated medical point, but it's something quite relevant, if you try to fight at 30 like you did at 18, in general you will fail.

Im with zac myself.

Basically all physical attributes are on a decline from that age, and if your constantly at your physical peak, your going to go downhill.

everyone makes a good point, but in effect most people have the advantage at a younger age. If you disagree, just look at any competitive sport. sprinters, swimmers, billy goat wrestlers, whatever the sport, it is mostly dominated by younger folks.
Boxing, look at Ali or Frazier, Roy, anyone. they all got old

As mattj said, of course there are exceptions, where mentally someones skill evolves and actually improves them, but 99% of the time it doesnt happen.

Zach is 'technicaly' correct, in regards to the isolated physiology in question.

However, as physical performance is reliant on so many other variables, this nugget of truth should not, in any shape or form, be used as a basis for defining a persons physical potential.

Look at that, an argument where everybody is right. Bring on the peace and love. Or I will shoot you.