Do fans use a boxer's "youth" as an excuse for his flaws?

[Aztekkas]

I see some fans call a 27 year old man in Errol Spence Jr a boy and or young . Others called Broner a kid and passed off his ******ity as a reflection of his "youth".

When Canelo lost to Floyd Mayweather Jr. it was because he was too green. He was a kid and inexperienced... riiiiiight . However, I find it interesting that since his loss, l haven't seen Canelo be called a kid or a boy. What further intrigues me is the fact that Spence Jr. Just so happens to be older than Alvarez and I have seen the young, boy and kid label thrown around rather frequently.

Is it because of their respective pro experience and years in the game? If so and that's the manner in which those labels are being applied then I can forcibly see why they are used in such manner. Alvarez has been a pro since 15 years of age, in other words he's been in the game for 11 years and thus a veteran. Spence Jr. Has been a pro for 5 or so years, a rather fresh and "young kid" in terms of experience. If that's the case, would Lomachenko be seen as a kid? Would his loss to Salido be forgiven since it happened when he was still young?

Personally, I don't believe that that's how those terms are being used. When Broner was a rising star and was running around doing ****** stunts he was called young, a kid and a boy. When he lost to Marcos he was still young, a kid and still had room to grow

Those terms give a fighter's fan base an excuse to find an easy way out of hot water. Broner was and has always been an amazing waste of good talent. Canelo is a limited counter puncher and tried to school a teacher . Spence Jr. Is a grown ass man with a razor thin resume and is about to take his first meaningful fight here shortly. Etc... etc...

That "he's young, he a kid, the boy is growing" excuse is played out. Atleast in my book. A loss is a loss and a flaw or flaws remain unless corrected.


Do fans use a boxer's "youth" as an excuse for his flaws? Do they confuse youth with inexperience in the pro ranks?

[Thraxox]

Alvarez was 22 years old when he fought Mayweather, he just got his first test from Trout and just went on straight ahead against the p4p no.1 He was rushing in too fast, and also the catchweight hurt him plus the inexperience. It was obvious why Canelo gets beaten, May at that moment was just knee and thigh above Alvarez despite being 36.

[Kigali]

I see some fans call a 27 year old man in Errol Spence Jr a boy and or young . Others called Broner a kid and passed off his ******ity as a reflection of his "youth".

When Canelo lost to Floyd Mayweather Jr. it was because he was too green. He was a kid and inexperienced... riiiiiight . However, I find it interesting that since his loss, l haven't seen Canelo be called a kid or a boy. What further intrigues me is the fact that Spence Jr. Just so happens to be older than Alvarez and I have seen the young, boy and kid label thrown around rather frequently.

Is it because of their respective pro experience and years in the game? If so and that's the manner in which those labels are being applied then I can forcibly see why they are used in such manner. Alvarez has been a pro since 15 years of age, in other words he's been in the game for 11 years and thus a veteran. Spence Jr. Has been a pro for 5 or so years, a rather fresh and "young kid" in terms of experience. If that's the case, would Lomachenko be seen as a kid? Would his loss to Salido be forgiven since it happened when he was still young?

Personally, I don't believe that that's how those terms are being used. When Broner was a rising star and was running around doing ****** stunts he was called young, a kid and a boy. When he lost to Marcos he was still young, a kid and still had room to grow

Those terms give a fighter's fan base an excuse to find an easy way out of hot water. Broner was and has always been an amazing waste of good talent. Canelo is a limited counter puncher and tried to school a teacher . Spence Jr. Is a grown ass man with a razor thin resume and is about to take his first meaningful fight here shortly. Etc... etc...

That "he's young, he a kid, the boy is growing" excuse is played out. Atleast in my book. A loss is a loss and a flaw or flaws remain unless corrected.


Do fans use a boxer's "youth" as an excuse for his flaws? Do they confuse youth with inexperience in the pro ranks?

You're butthurt about Spence

We get it.

Here you go

[Aztekkas]

Alvarez was 22 years old when he fought Mayweather, he just got his first test from Trout and just went on straight ahead against the p4p no.1 He was rushing in too fast, and also the catchweight hurt him plus the inexperience. It was obvious why Canelo gets beaten, May at that moment was just knee and thigh above Alvarez despite being 36.

Mayweather would always be levels above Alvarez. Saul has shown growth in his craft since the fight, but he hasn't stemmed out from his comfort zone. He polished off his counters but has yet to learn how to cut the ring off and apply pressure for a full 12 rounds or so.

He's a good fighter, he will just never be a great enough boxer to outbox Floyd. That gameplan he had going into the fight was underwhelming and embarrassing. Nothing he has shown since tells me he would have done any better in a fight against Floyd in the later stages of his career.

Plus, it wasn't like Alvarez hadn't fought well over 40 other times in his career at the time he squared off with Mayweather Jr. Did any of those fights prepare him for Floyd? Nah, but in my opinion it wouldn't have mattered. Alvarez didn't and doesn't have the right tools to even be competitive against Mayweather.. aside from his size.

You're butthurt about Spence

We get it.

Here you go

K. If that's all you got from my post then idk what to tell you.

[GhostofDempsey]

Each fighter peaks at different junctures of their careers. It is a combination of age and experience. Some fighters take 40+ fights to peak, others may do it in less than 30. Some peak in their mid-20s, others improve with age and fight at their best well into their 30s. There is no one size fits all age/experience tool to measure a fighter's prime.

Look at the excuse people use to hate on Loma. Ah, he lost his second fight to Salido, he's 29 and has 400 amateur fights he should be fighting the caliber fighters he is in with for just his 9th fight. Meanwhile, if you point out that Floyd fought a guy in his 9th fight that was 1-13-1, his defenders are quick to point out his youth at the time, "oh he was only 20 years old", despite a lengthy amateur career. There are certainly double-standards when it comes to age and experience argument.

[juggernaut666]

You dont go by age you go by number of FIGHTS . Its that simple no need for a story. You learn in the actual fight ,thats how you progress .Most guys make the most development at around 20 /25 fights .

Spence resume and number of fights suggest hes 2 years away from hitting his peak. HW's tend to mature later .

[Larry the boss]

Each fighter peaks at different junctures of their careers. It is a combination of age and experience. Some fighters take 40+ fights to peak, others may do it in less than 30. Some peak in their mid-20s, others improve with age and fight at their best well into their 30s. There is no one size fits all age/experience tool to measure a fighter's prime.

Look at the excuse people use to hate on Loma. Ah, he lost his second fight to Salido, he's 29 and has 400 amateur fights he should be fighting the caliber fighters he is in with for just his 9th fight. Meanwhile, if you point out that Floyd fought a guy in his 9th fight that was 1-13-1, his defenders are quick to point out his youth at the time, "oh he was only 20 years old", despite a lengthy amateur career. There are certainly double-standards when it comes to age and experience argument.

how the hell does that make sense?

[Mukuro]

Being young means you have a chance to correct things and become more refined. It doesn't mean you will. It is apparent when a guy is not ready for the top level though, and needs more experience. That is about the only time I might mention it.

[GhostofDempsey]

how the hell does that make sense?

Doesn't make sense, but you have Floyd fans on here who slam Loma for losing his second pro fight to a seasoned veteran and won't give him any credit for his wins over quality opposition because he's 29 years old and has an extensive amateur career. Yet, they give Floyd a pass for his first 9 fights because he was only 20 years old or only had 100+ amateur fights. Excuses, hypocrisy...not surprised.

[LockardTheGOAT]

In the case of Canelo, it was definitely an excuse. He was only 22, but he also already had 40+ professional fights under his belt, plus every physical advantage possible over Floyd - youth, size, and strength - barring speed and skill. He simply lost to the better fighter. He'd still lose today. Until Floyd turns 45 or 50 and stops training altogether, he'd likely always be levels above Alvarez.