Why Did People Think Errol Spence Was Good?

He was good just fairly one dimensional he had a good jab and size

 

Boxing fandom are the most consistently disrespectful unpleasant fans I’ve ever been apart of.

 

I don’t see it personally. Twink is just coming off of a gift draw against a mediocre fighter he dragged up from a lower weight class and spent the last year ducking the rematch.

Twink is the better natural athlete and has better 1 punch power but Spence was better at throwing punches in bunches, had the better jab and better workrate. In the end, neither were ever top p4p level fighters but more like borderline top10-15.

 

I think the rumours that he gave Floyd fits in sparring contributed to the hype quite a bit.

I don't think Spence would have beaten Brook if GGG hadn't done half the hard work, and Kell - foolishly IMO - did the crazy weight yoyo of 147>160>147

 

People thought he was good because he was good, even very good, he just wasn't a future great as his fans touted him to be. He had good fundamentals, an entertaining style and so a lot of people jumped on the hype train.

He was never going to be one of the greats of this era, he wasn't disciplined and professional enough between fights, his style relied a lot on his physical attributes, to break guys down, he simply wasn't complete enough to ever be truly great.

 

His best skill wound up being his biggest weakness and that was weight cutting. Enormous WW frame and his cut versus Bud went as wrong as a cut can go.

Was the best from PBC though I dont really know what that means

 

So you thought he was NOT good? That's just dumb. Of course he was good. The accident killed his career.

 

Not sure why all the hate for Spence Jr. I think he was good not great. I don't remember him getting too much hype, but I could be wrong given that I'm not watching boxing as much as I used to. He ended up dominating welterweight during a weak era. I feel that way about most of the boxers right now. I'm not exactly electrified by Crawford or Canelo either. Spence Jr. was always a bit one dimensional and relied on being the bigger stronger guy, but I really think the car crash ruined Spence Jr's physical potential as well. Once I saw the beating Crawford put on him I also knew he was done at the top level.

I think he will be remembered as a solid, but not great belt holder. A champion who rose up when Pacquaio and Mayweather retired, Thurman abdicated trying to unify the division, Spence Jr unified 3 of the belt, then kept the seat warm until Crawford came along. I mean look at welterweight now. No one decent in the weight class, no one trying to unify.

 

Kell Brooks world class. Michael Zerafa went the distance with him and got flogged. But he considered that a win.

 

Thinking he was special in some kind of historical nebulous concept kind of way and being wrong is forgivable.

Thinking he was mediocre and never even good, and thinking you're smarter than the other group inherently because you always thought that... much less forgivable. Not unforgivable, but much less forgivable. I would serve to avoid both of these things in the road and pretty much have managed to do that over the years.

 

Sure Spence sucked really bad.
He was what 135-12 including winning 3 CONSECUTIVE US national titles.
Beat what about 4/5 champions, was a world champion and lost TWO bouts.
I mean I have no idea why anyone would consider that as being "good".

 

He makes this thread 3 years after Crawford beat him. Why not earlier? He's a Tszyu hater.

 

Spence was very solid and one of the better welterweights of his time, but I never thought he was historically good or good enough to be favored over any great/borderline great fighters. Solid jab and fantastic body puncher, but he was always fairly mechanical, a bit plodding, and reached/telegraphed a lot. Seems like a nice, down to earth guy though and I wish him nothing but the best in retirement.