[Litotes]

OP is wrong. Sports people winning into their mid to late 30’s is the new norm, across many sports.

Guys like Medvedev and Zverev are not diminishing physically, they have other issues that’s hurting them.

Which sports? Athletics WC is just over and I didn't notice many 30s winners. Age of winners in 2025:

100m: 24
200m: 28
400m: 21
800m: 21
1500m: 26
5000m: 24
10000m: 28
110m hurdles: 24
400m hurdles : 28
3000m steeplechase: 28
High jump: 29
Pole vault: 25
Long jump: 20
Triple jump: 32 (first one)

The throwers were older, but that's no surprise, in pure strength events with zero endurance needed people have always lasted longer.

How does this compare with 30 years ago, 1995? Let's see age of winners in 1995:

100m: 27 (+3)
200m: 28 (0)
400m: 28 (0)
800m: 22 (+1)
1500m: 25 (-1)
5000m: 20 (-4)
10000m: 22 (-6)
110m hurdles: 24 (0)
400m hurdles: 25 (-3)
3000m steeplechase: 25 (-3)
High jump: 29 (0)
Pole vault: 31 (+6)
Long jump: 23 (+3)
Triple jump: 29 (-3)

So - one winner past 30 in 2025, one winner past 30 in 1995. Average age was about the same. Where is the trend of people lasting longer? Not here, obviously. Do you have other individual sports we can check? Team sports are less interesting to compare with tennis.

 

[Litotes]

Have you watched any boxing recently? Most guys are peaking in their 30's and people close to 40 are regularly undisputed champions of their weight class.

The current top 5 rated pound per pound fighters are aged 37, 38, 32, 34 and 40.

That’s not really a change though. In the 90’s we had Foreman and Holyfield as champions, as old or older than the current bunch. Way before that Sugar Ray Robinson was still competitive past 40. We’re looking for evidence that current champions are getting older than in the past, and boxing doesn’t give us that. It just tells us boxing has always been a sport where you can compete for a very long time.

 

[Litotes]

Firstly, the big 3 did not peak in their 30s, that’s not what happened. They peaked in their mid to late 20’s, but their level was so high they could still win late into their 30’s due to how high their level was relative to others. It requires more than just a massive level though, it requires also a world class level of desire and commitment, sustained over a long period of time. Not anyone is just going to be able to do it.

Secondly, in athletics there are still people like Justin Gatlin who set his personal best at 33 and won a world championship at 35.

You can also just look at other tennis players though. David Ferrer was 30 when he won his first and only Masters1000 event. He was 31 when he reached his first GS final and finished a career high year end rank of 3. Then there are women too, like Jessica Pegula who made her first GS final at 30.

Not everyone is going to be able to have succcess late into their career but the possibility exists now for anyone with the right combination of attributes, and the tennis scene is a million miles away from the days of the 80’s when people were finished at 26+.

Gatlin has been caught doping so that might explain his longevity, he got a long break from competitions mid-career. Being a top athlete produces much wear and tear on the body. And doping will of course help you in competitions even long after you stopped using it (assuming he stopped at all).

People weren't all finished at 26 in the 80's either, Jimmy Connors reached his last slam SF at 39 in 1991. But much of the reason for poor longevity in the 80's was technical advances. That's why all the 17-year old winners came then. Easier to start off playing with modern raquets than have to change from wooden ones mid-career. The youngsters were helped this way to push aside the veterans.

Another reason the also-rans last longer might well be improved economy. Prize money + sponsor money for a David Ferrer at 30 in 2012 or a Gael Monfils today was a lot more than for a David Ferrer-like player or Gael Monfils-like player in the 80's. That surely changes the calculations, whether or not to keep playing.