Does the age you start at really matter that much in boxing?

Of course it does. It's not just about learning technique. It's about comfort and instincts. When you do something as a child... it becomes second nature. So, what someone who started as an adult has to think his way through, you are doing it without thinking. There is no substitute for learning that comfort of being in there from a young age, throwing punches and having punches thrown back at you. It's not the easiest thing in the world to get used to. Obviously the more comfortable you get with that, and the more experience you have in doing it... the better you are going to be at it. That goes for every sport. Go to a wrestling tournament. You can tell right away which kids had been wrestling since they were little kids. Their fluidity and reaction time is just leagues above the other kids.

This doesn't mean that nobody can start late and find success. However, if that same person started earlier they would be even better.

 

the age means enough but to me it isusing defense as the main standard. I live in Dallas now, but I come from California. I used to go to California fight cards, and all the fights were brawls with no defense. That is one thing I never understood about west coast boxing where I was from. They did not use defense as the standard, they used offense and they thought boxing was about heart and winning a brawl. Everyone cheers and the fighters there stay in the spotlight a couple of years and then lose at the championship level. I would watch guys from the east coast on tv and think, wow these guy use a jab and straight right hand and put their punches together. So it taught me it was training and how you learn how to fight which really matters at the higher level. If you want a great crowd then brawls are fine. Age is ok, but if you don't have defense a boxing career does not last long. Look at the guys in my avatar. All east coast fighters. great jabs and technical skills. Don't get me wrong, I love a good brawl. One guy I loved watching fight and I saw him at the forum was Genaro Hernandez. He was a technician and a great boxer. I loved his style, and I think he was from the west coast, yet he fought like an east coast fight- and so was Oscar. But they went into amateur fighting and learned their craft there, which teaches them the technical skills which are taught more on the east coast.

 

It matters in any sport, not only boxing. If you start something as a youngster, by the time you're 20, you'll not only have an excellent grasp on the fundamentals, but also good general experience which cannot be taught.

But it's not like it's a complete train smash if you start late. It just means your room for error is a lot smaller.

 

As others have said boxing is a skill learnt over time. There is definitely an advantage to starting young and ideally every boxer would start as a kid.

But there is also an advantage of being involved in any sport at an early age, it takes years to build up the physical conditioning that world class boxers have and if you are already in great shape when you start boxing then this is also beneficial. Martinez is a prime example of that, though the early losses suggest it still took him time to gain the level of skill and ability he currently has.

Then you get the genetic freaks. Guys like Foreman who had his first pro bout in late 66 then won the Olympic gold medal in 68 and was world champion in 73. Not very many fighters achieve so much having so little experience. But there is no denying Foreman was more skilled later in his career, even a genetic freak like himself may have benefited from starting boxing at an earlier age.

 

unless you're some savant, yes. case in point, seth mitchell. athlete, power, no skills that come with experience in the sweet science whatsoever, ko'd by a motivated, well schooled, blown up cruiserweight.

 

yes it does, it helps a lot if you started out young. The skills are learned alot at a young age and takes time to hone them. You would notice most who started late(in their 20s) are less skilled and specially poor at the world stage.

 

ok. so your saying if your a 29 year old 160 pound outta shape nobody who smokes weed all day can suddenly stop ....start training like all hell change his bad habits eating ect...and dedicate hiself to trainig its fiesable that me may amount to a decent well schooled fighter in 3 years? beacuse thats me:hat sad to say:roll:

 

most people who don't start at early age are crude and don't go anywhere unless they are genetic freeks. Vitaly was able to transition into boxing, but kickboxing is pretty close to boxing.

 

As a general rule, Fighters learn the basics in the lower levels of the amateur ranks. That's very important because even something as simple as a proper jab feels totally unnatural when you first start learning.

The idea that "practice makes perfect" is a myth. Practice makes PERMANENT! Perfect practice makes perfect. That's why you'll find that the vast majority of world class boxers started out with a good trainer at a very young age.

 

I imagine at HW you could get away with starting late (20-25) if you had the natural speed, strength and chin to cover up the lack of experience. Natural atheltisicm can go a long way.

 

Depends what a persons' sport history is.
If you've never done any other sport it for example certainly won't let you maximaze certain physical assets such as speed (which, If I recall correctly the body is most sensitive too around the age of 12).