I think its an interesting one this one. Exactly how and when do people think a boxer can be named or no longer named a prospect? Is it age, number of fights, notable wins, titles? For instance, it's easy to see how successful amateurs like Gavin, Groves & Stephen Smith who've just turned pro are prospects, but is Kell Brook still a prospect now he's had 20 fights and won the British title? In a way he still is if you see him as a potential world champion but in another he's started to prove his potential and its now a case of just how far he can go. So how do you define who is or isn't a prospect? And also, what makes you label someone a good prospect? Their amateur career? Their style? The form they show in their first few fights? Be interested to hear your thoughts guys.
I think the ability to adapt and learn and show this in contests as they move forward...:yep To be able to accept and take negative criticisms when they come from performances that are not what paying punters and journalists are expecting...:yep It is not just about the fighting ingredients that define a prospect, dedication, determination and disipline with a good balance of confidence, mental strength and natural ability...:yep
Depends on context. I'd still call the likes of Cleverly and Brook prospects in their own right, they are prospects for world titles. Unless they are actually world champions already or seasoned journeymen they are prospect at some level. Some guys are prospects for British titles, its about knowing levels.
When they contest a world title fight imo or lose at domestic or European level then they lose the tag prospect. If they win they keep it until they reach the world stage. It's very much open to interpretation.
