the way I see it is, children take training and discipline less seriously than a seriously motivated 18-25 yr old who really wants to become a boxer. I believe the later you start, the better chance you have of becoming a decent boxer. (inless you're still lazy and unmotivated)
like I said to the other guy, nate cambell started at 28 yrs old (amateur) so did tony thompson.
dude ure at univertisy u prob wont have time and if u start at 18-25 u gota better chance tyo go pro dude shut the hell up most of the greats and good boxers started young and if u start at 8 u have a good 10years to get fit perfect skills and loads more while at 18 ur strap for cahs and over stuff
Rocky Marciano and Nigel Benn didnt start boxing until they were in their 20's. I think they both started boxing cos they were in the army. Then again both of them had aggressive KO power.
Eubank didnt start until he was about 16 and Audley Harrison (lol) didnt put on a pair of gloves until he was 19 and managed to win a gold medal at the olympics.
If you're starting boxing to become a star then you wont ever make it. You should start boxing cos you love it then if you train religiously for about 5 years you might find your good enough to go pro.
[QUOTE= If you're starting boxing to become a star then you wont ever make it. You should start boxing cos you love it then if you train religiously for about 5 years you might find your good enough to go pro.[/QUOTE]
you pretty much hit the nail on the head,im not expecting to become the next world champion, but i would like to compete at a decent level as i love the sport and all the training has to offer me
Problem is many of the people that you listed that started at those ages had great talent. Not sure how many of the posters on here looking to start boxing at that age have that kind of talent, or anything close to it. Never hurts to try and see though.
Tweet
Comment