As it happens, I'd be content to cast an actor who can pass for younger (in Begins Bale was 31 playing Bruce Wayne at varied ages between his teens and 30), but I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision - bearing in mind that that's an age where many athletes and sportspeople are viewed as having their best days behind them.
That comparison really makes very little sense. Sports and acting are two completely different things. The requirement for an actor is to act, and secondary, to look the part (which makeup and camerawork can help a lot with), rather than, say, to run really fast across the court to catch the ball coming from the other side of the net.
Thank you for missing the point entirely.
As Admiral Young
said, Batman would have to have the power, fitness and stamina of an athlete. He doesn't have superpowers to fall back on, just his fitness. And athletes tend to peak in their late 20s/ early 30s, which is why I'm saying that it would make sense for the actor playing him to be in that age group. I said that if, as in Batman Begins, Batman was starting out aged 30, it might not make an awful lot of sense - he'd have missed his peak years of fitness.
Also, I never actually said that the actor playing Batman had
to be in his 20s, I merely defended Dark Gilligan
when he expressed the viewpoint that the actor playing the lead should
be in his 20s. I didn't say I agreed with him entirely. I in fact said that having an actor who was in his 30s could pass for being in his 20s would suffice.
So maybe the next time before you quote me and throw in a rolleyes, you'd actually try to read and understand what I said!