But we're talking tennis here, no? Why bring up other sports? Explain why you rarely see (or don't see) any tennis pro who still plays at high level in their 40s. Yeah, because they're not as physically fit to sustain such intense individual sport like tennis.
2 things:
1) Ask yourself why most 40,50 yo are out of shape. Do you ever consider the fact that 40 year old people don't have as much free time as young people as they have jobs, family and other things to worry about? This alone can tell you 40s is not the prime age for any sport, let alone tennis. Now it's easy to criticize them for being lazy and making excuses for not working out because you're not them and you don't experience the same life (yet).
2) Even if the 40 yo guy has as much free time and has the same workout routine as the 20 year old guy, he won't be as physically fit as the 20 year old. It's basic anatomy and biology. Your bones got weaker and more prone to injury as you get older, it's a biological FACT and there's nothing you can do about it. Also, do you realize that to be as strong as a young guy, the old guy has to work 10x harder? The process is more difficult. (first he has to lose weight then work on flexibility then strengthening,.... whereas a young guy doesn't have these problems in the first place)
Thus saying 40s is the prime age for rec tennis is pretty ignorant.
Yes
You rarely see players in 40s playing high level tennis mostly because of 1 thing (yes physical decline is a factor but not as much as this).
Because high level sports are brutal, 4-6hours of intense hard work and physical grind and in time wear and tear of the body starts piling up.
In rec tennis there is not such insane physical demands or loads so the wear and tear is not as big.
1.This point is ridicilous, because you did not say "you most likely improve faster and more than curious so its likely and probable that you reach a higher level in the same timespan"
You said "Its a FACT that you improve faster" and to make things worse u even claim its a fact that i should reach a higher level in 2 years than he did in 6 (3 times longer playing time), did you make that difference up? Where is the limit in your imaginary thought up difference? 6 times longer playing time until the footing is equal? Lol
My point is you did not say that its most likely and most plausable that i would improve faster but that its a fact, which means absolute.
So that means you also have to argument in absolutes now, not relatives.
An 50yo not having the same amount of time is not an absolute, its relative.
A 50yo might have more time than a certain 20yo, so you cant base ur argument on this.
You also cant base ur argument that the majority of cases are like this, because thats also relative.
An 50yo having more or less time, having better talent and coordination or less, having more money or less or more or less oppurtunity to play etc... those are all relative things that depend on each individual and not facts.
What if a 50yo guy had more time, more money, more oppurtunity to play, more coordination, better athletic background etc... than a 20yo, would it still be a fact that he would progress slower?
So you cant say this is a fact, you can say that most likely the 20yo should progress faster which I agree, but it doesnt mean that its certain that thats the case.