Do You Thinks It Really Matters What Age You Start Boxing?

Thats still a sample of 10 from from a list of literally 100s. It def. matters what age boxing is taken up as to how successful a fighter is likey to be.

 

Savvy and youth must converge to produce greatness.

It takes about 10 years at an activity to attain mastery, so, a fighter should begin to compete at around age 12 and thus peak in his early and mid-twenties.

Even Marciano had 7 years as a pro under the belt, so also fitting into the above paradigm, when he became champion. And he was fighting even older foes.

But the young fighter must be brought along carefully, always within or close to his own skill level and avoiding an excess of war in the gym.

 

Another 6 (or 60 for that matter) names still doesn't alter the fact that the likelyhood of success is drastically increased if boxing is taken up earler in life.

 

Troll.

 

It works both ways, its not just age.

Managment is more important. Had Marciano not have Al or Louis having Jacobs, they can have all the talent in the word, but they still end up on the back burner.

Willard started RELLY late, and in a few years got a shot vs Johnson.

Marciano turn pro around 24 or so, and got a title shot in less than 5 years.

All depends on the luck of the cards.

A lot of young guys flop in the pros, same as a lot of late starters. And there are a lot of late starters and young guys that went on to be champs in there own right.

Depends on who you know, whos backing you, and how talent you are.

 

So your saying a list of five is a good assessment? Dont give me a guy who had 110 plus fights either. Most of the old timers learned as pros. Greb for example lost his third fight, and drew in his fifth. As I said there is exceptions to the rule. Guys like Bernard Hopkins, Mike Tyson and Mike Grant had limited amatuer experience but had successful careers.

 

Management is also a big factor. Look at Julio Cesar Chavez Junior. Heres a kid with limited experience, but Bob Arum is giving him a lot of no name fights to get him more experience as a pro. Not too tough of tests that he will lose. Hes already had one close call, but came back strong in a rematch.
Then you have decorated amatuers or olympians like David Reid, Jermain Taylor, Francisco Bojado and Fernando Vargas who were moved along very quickly. In some cases it really hurts the fighter, and in others it doesnt.
The more successful promoters and managers can afford to let a fighter develop slower, as is the case with a lot of Bob Arums fighters. Dan Goosen Shelly Finkel and Gary Shaw, are notorious for throwing their fighters into fights they're not ready for.
Bottom line is theres a big difference between the pros and amatuers, but the actual development of technical ability is only enhanced by starting earlier. A lot of fighters who started boxing at a young age, stop at some point and pick it back up again as well.

 

How do you define great technical ability?? I would use a guy like Floyd Mayweather Jr to define great technical ability. Hes defensively and offensively pretty close to perfect or what I would call a complete fighter. Diego Corrales for example had great technical ability, but was lacking in other areas such as defense.
There are very few fighters on the level of a Floyd Mayweather with limited amatuer experience and/or late bloomers, but again, there are exceptions to the rule. Generally speaking for the purpose of this thread, age definitely matters in most cases, just like almost every sport, and career for that matter. I became a much better businessman after I had a decade of experience.

 

Let's try and look at this another way.

If you started boxing tomorrow, would you be a better fighter, or the same level of fighter, in five years than if you had started ten years previously?

 

Yep it's called mussical memory. The sonner you learn it the more the moves become second nature.

 

Anthony Mundine :rofl

Cotto20 is a joker :good