The skills of Errol Spence Jr

He is basic just he is good at being basic, basic doesn't mean no skill it just means textbook fundamentals of boxing. Well said. I have Errol winning in fact when the fight was made I had Spence stopping him but Bud’s confidence and most of the boxing fraternity is leaning to Bud is making me rethink which is weird. My vision is based on the fact that I don’t think Bud can withstand the onslaught. Now that I think about it again Bud was caught with a right hand and went down which was wrongly waved off as a push...... Spence by knockout, that’s my last and final answer

Tim Duncan didn't have the athleticism of Chris Webber. Didn't have the shooting of Sheed. Didn't have the strength of Karl Malone. Didn't have the hops of Stoudamire, but he was a hell of lot better than all of those guys just being "basic".

Do you feel the same way about GGG, Hagler, and McCalum? GGG and hagler are way more versatile. Prime ggg had amazing foot work, head movement, combos. There's a reason why ggg won worlds and silver at the olmypics while spence got his ass beat by a khazakh and never placed. Spence has slow heavy feet and no lateral movements. For ggg, Look at the ishida ko how he timed and set that up. Hagler was also great at rolling punches and was a switch hitter. Spence is straight up and down in a straight line no head movement only one way. He's gonna get his ass beat bad.

But did you watch the video? The analyst is saying that Spence is not "basic" From my observations and estimations, I rate Spence Junior as a text book fighter. Solid Jab, good footwork, his defense is good but nothing amazing 'Just solid enough', solid at putting his punches together and is loyal to his tactics. Spence Junior really does not do anything wrong, he is ether good or great in all area's etc.

But did you watch the video? The analyst is saying that Spence is not "basic" Youre arguing terminology, a word can mean different things to different people, for me basic is textbook skills often taught by the book, the sugar in boxing is athleticism with cat-like reflexes, think ballroom dancing compared to break-dancing.

Spence Junior is a text book, very correct fighter. So he does nothing really wrong, or fundamentally he makes less technical mistakes then some of his competitors. Many top fighters of late when you really analyse them, have all been textbook fighters. Usyk is a text book fighter, he does nothing technically that is in my opinion THAT creative or unconventional. Anthony Joshua is also a text book fighter 'Tyson Fury in comparison is not a text book fighter, with that comes a awkwardness for his opponents but? Fury is from what I have seen, more likely to make unforced errors at a higher rate than both Usyk & Joshua 'In 95% of Fury's fights, he will make unforced errors even against non-world level fighters'. Crawford is not as text book as Spence Junior, but again? I don't think he is as unconventional as a fighter like Fury, or Wilder. Note: Floyd Mayweather Junior was also a text book fighter, I have never considered Mayweather as a flashy flamboyant fighter, and he did nothing really outside of the correct text book type move's etc. But did you watch the video? The analyst is saying that Spence is not "basic"

Saul Canelo Alvarez is basic too right? No! I am not the biggest Canelo fan but I think it's 50/50 against any ATG Middleweight including Hangler, Gerald, Monzon...etc

Straight up and down mr flat footed is gonna get his ass beat. Do you feel the same way about GGG, Hagler, and McCalum?

I think "basic" means one thing to some people and to others it means something else. I'd wager to say that for most people, calling someone "basic" means bare bones, average, not spectacular or noteworthy. Yep I agree its the terminology, basic in boxing style is the opposite of SRL , Roy Jones, Sweet Pea, more like Winky Wright, McCallum, Arguello, Monzon etc, the Sugar in boxing is the opposite of basic..

Saul Canelo Alvarez is basic too right?

I think "basic" means one thing to some people and to others it means something else. I'd wager to say that for most people, calling someone "basic" means bare bones, average, not spectacular or noteworthy. I think it would be better to say "he's a fighter who excels at and relies on the basics" rather than to call him a basic fighter. Because, you're right, even the denotation there isn't the same at all.

Really I can name a truckload through history that were basic no special effect fighters that won many titles,, I feel you you don't understand basic in the context it is being used. Um ok? I guess.

He is basic just he is good at being basic, basic doesn't mean no skill it just means textbook fundamentals of boxing. I think "basic" means one thing to some people and to others it means something else. I'd wager to say that for most people, calling someone "basic" means bare bones, average, not spectacular or noteworthy.

Being basic doesn't win you 3 championships. Shalom Really I can name a truckload through history that were basic no special effect fighters that won many titles,, I feel you you don't understand basic in the context it is being used.

A lot of fighters could stand to be more "basic". Most fighters, even at the elite level, lose because they make mistakes with their fundamentals. Defensively, they overreach, pull straight back in the same line, get sloppy with their hand placement during or after the attack, get caught flat footed, enter without the jab or head movement, disengage in the same pattern, etc. Offensively, they don't commit to the body, they don't cut off the ring, they don't vary the power, pace, or placement of their attacks, etc. All of these things are basics or fundamentals, but get neglected even at the elite levels. And we're not even talking about feinting, angles, setups, positional attacks and defenses, and other more advanced things. When people get knocked out, it's almost always because they neglected a fundamental. And think about what works well and leads to stoppages. Fundamentals like the 1-2 or 1-1-2, 2-3/2/7, check hooks, timed overhands with head offline, and pull/slip/roll counters account for the huge majority of stoppages. All basics, but there's a wide gulf between doing them, and doing them with mastery. EVERY fighter benefits from going back to basics, not just working on complex things. There aren't really that many fighters who are really good and consistent about the basics every time. But those things are the basics because they work.

Spence Junior is a text book, very correct fighter. So he does nothing really wrong, or fundamentally he makes less technical mistakes then some of his competitors. Many top fighters of late when you really analyse them, have all been textbook fighters. Usyk is a text book fighter, he does nothing technically that is in my opinion THAT creative or unconventional. Anthony Joshua is also a text book fighter 'Tyson Fury in comparison is not a text book fighter, with that comes a awkwardness for his opponents but? Fury is from what I have seen, more likely to make unforced errors at a higher rate than both Usyk & Joshua 'In 95% of Fury's fights, he will make unforced errors even against non-world level fighters'. Crawford is not as text book as Spence Junior, but again? I don't think he is as unconventional as a fighter like Fury, or Wilder. Note: Floyd Mayweather Junior was also a text book fighter, I have never considered Mayweather as a flashy flamboyant fighter, and he did nothing really outside of the correct text book type move's etc.

He is basic just he is good at being basic, basic doesn't mean no skill it just means textbook fundamentals of boxing. Your boy Jeff Fenech he was basic too right.

Straight up and down mr flat footed is gonna get his ass beat.

He is basic just he is good at being basic, basic doesn't mean no skill it just means textbook fundamentals of boxing. Being basic doesn't win you 3 championships. Shalom

people not saying hes not skilled he just isnt elite skilled like crawford.