Explain the claim that Errol Spence has poor defense, please.

:conf


Slightly more reasonable:

 

I know are set against giving him any credit, but come on, that's utterly pointless to even mention in this context.

I am here addressing the declarative statements that some are making that his defensive boxing skills are empirically bad, as if they have a body of evidence to support that stance. They don't.

The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. I've made no wild claims about him being amazing defensively or the best since Pep. I'm simply resisting the idea that we have seen enough holes, consistently, to say that it constitutes a glaring weakness or that he is going to get sliced up by the first elite he faces. That is, to my view, just wishful thinking/grasping at straws/making shit up on the part of those determined from the start to hate on him no matter what.

So he was caught with a single good punch over eight rounds by a tough journeyman in Lartey? Oh wow. So convincing. Except, not really, stacked against the opposing arguments of all the shots he slipped against better opposition than Lartey (CVH, Algieri, Vargas, Cruz) while doling out his well-distributed body-head attack.

For how offensive-minded he is his defense is actually on point, as far as I can tell. If you shifted him too much further in the direction "don't get hit" mindset, lowered his work rate a tad, a few less chances taken - he'd be labeled a "runner" same as with a Rigondeaux or Cory Spinks or Mayweather or Ivan Calderon.

People are just itching for reasons to come down on him, but unfortunately for them, he isn't giving much legitimate fodder. So they have to fantasize.