why is the Italian opening labeled a beginner opening?

The terms classical and hypermodern make me wonder what ever happened to modern. Modern is the missing link of chess. Vanished without a trace?

I have seen advice somewhat like that:

"... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today.
The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ...
In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game.
For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

However, I do not remember anyone ever saying that one "must" start by studying "players like Greco , Morphy and Anderssen".

Modern players sometimes decline the gambit, even at the risk of being called a sissy. Bunch of bean counters just playing to win, or at least to avoid losing. No sense of style. Where is the beauty in this modern, scientific chess?

But that's the romantic / modern distinction. Whereas classical is contrasted with hypermodern.

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/3718.pdf

I always took it to mean where you *begin* rather than when you are a developed player you move away from beginner stuff. See #21 above.

Sure but look out for the fried liver attack