What is the relevance of Amateur Boxing?

Pisco Sour · 06-09-2010 01:15PM #1

First let me start by saying this is not a wind up. I absolutely love amateur boxing and much prefer it to the professional game with so many belts at stake that there is never a true champion. I love the Olympic boxing and seeing Ireland win medals.

But I was just wondering today, what is the significance of winning a medal in Olympic Boxing? In Athletics, the likes of Derval O'Rourke and David Gillick are competing against the very best in the world and an Olympic medal would represent the pinnacle of their careers. But in Olympic Boxing, more often than not an Olympic medal is seen as a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

Is winning an Olympic medal as important to a boxer as it is to an athlete or a swimmer?

cowzerp · 06-09-2010 01:32PM

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

Pisco Sour · 06-09-2010 01:33PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

If that was the case then why did Amir Khan go pro after winning silver at 17. Surely he was young enough to have another 2 attempts at Olympic Gold and still go pro at 25 ( a young age for a pro). Why did Darren Sutherland go pro if winning gold in the Olympics is the most important?

cowzerp · 06-09-2010 01:37PM

Money, 4 years is a long time to wait for the next 1 when you could be becoming a millionaire, plus there was no guarantee that he'd win gold next time out, his silver was probably a dream reached anyway.

mathepac · 06-09-2010 02:25PM

An Olympic medal of any colour is an incredible achievement for an athlete in any discipline, but (IMHO) particularly for boxers. By and large in disciplines other than boxing, a measuring tape, clock, score-board or weighing scales defines the winner in a competition; outside of a knock-out or disqualification, rarities in senior amateur boxing, the opinions of the judges are all that matters. Convincing a majority of the judges in real time (no action replays, no technical match officials here) that the right part of your glove connected with the target area of your opponent is a rare skill; doing that while avoiding taking a scoring shot yourself is an absolute science.

walshb · 06-09-2010 04:38PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Money, 4 years is a long time to wait for the next 1 when you could be becoming a millionaire, plus there was no guarantee that he'd win gold next time out, his silver was probably a dream reached anyway.

Spot on, although in Amir's case, if ever there was a gold waiting for him it was Beijing, in either the LW or LWW division. The talent was very good at both weights, but Khan would have had far too much I think.

Anyway, to the post. I guess the fact that AM boxing and Pro have always been so separate and distinct, that it does differ from many other "amateur" sports, such as swimming, diving, track and field etc. Right now, and for quite a few years, swimmers and track and filed athletes have always been ONE, pro that is. There is no distinction between the amateur track star and the pro star. They are the same.

walshb · 06-09-2010 04:43PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

So true, it is indeed the ultimate goal. The GOLD being the summit, and competing at the games being second. That is why I found it very odd for Bernard Dunne, when on the Late Late Show, he said quite positively that he had achieved everything he wanted to in the sport. Now, that cannot be true, as every boxers dream as an amateur is to represent their country at the Games. I know from my recollection that Dunne was very disappointed not to make the games in Sydney.

Benny Lava · 06-09-2010 07:54PM

All the money is in the professional game and an Olympic Gold significantly increases the figure in the contract.

joepenguin · 06-09-2010 11:31PM

The significance is that its the pinnacle of sport and among athletes its the highest accolade. Should you wish to cross over to the pros youd start off with a superstar deal as you already have a name and a major selling point, people will throw every oppurtunity at you... Audley!
Winning a pro world title gives you more celeb status as its hyped up by the promoters, sponsors, tv etc etc. so it can often seem more important, especially with the misleading title amateur boxing has.

Its a weird set up alright, its not like football where pro > amateur in most cases. With boxing an olympian can be way better than 99% of pros but yet be referred to as an amateur.

gene_tunney · 07-09-2010 01:42AM

walshb wrote: »

So true, it is indeed the ultimate goal. The GOLD being the summit, and competing at the games being second. That is why I found it very odd for Bernard Dunne, when on the Late Late Show, he said quite positively that he had achieved everything he wanted to in the sport. Now, that cannot be true, as every boxers dream as an amateur is to represent their country at the Games. I know from my recollection that Dunne was very disappointed not to make the games in Sydney.

World title > Olympic Gold

mrgardener · 07-09-2010 09:53AM

gene_tunney wrote: »

World title > Olympic Gold

I would have thought that winning an Olympic medal would make the transition to professional boxing easier ie. proper management, endorsements etc.
Surely the ultimate goal is as mr tunney says, a world title (and loads of money)
I'm not knocking the Olympic boxing - i love it, but i imagine that for a lot of boxers, its the best thing that can happen to them UNTIL they turn pro.

Pisco Sour · 07-09-2010 11:43AM

mrgardener wrote: »

I would have thought that winning an Olympic medal would make the transition to professional boxing easier ie. proper management, endorsements etc.
Surely the ultimate goal is as mr tunney says, a world title (and loads of money)
I'm not knocking the Olympic boxing - i love it, but i imagine that for a lot of boxers, its the best thing that can happen to them UNTIL they turn pro.

Thats what I was thinking. Compare Sonia O'Sullivan to Kenny Egan for example. Both won Olympic silver. For Sonia O'Sullivan she had to beat the very best in the world to get that medal. Kenny Egan on the otherhand didnt. Were all the best Light Heavyweight boxers in Beijing? I wouldnt imagine so, as many of them are professionals. For an athlete an Olympic Gold is the pinnacle. For a boxer it doesnt seem to be. If it was the pinnacle then you wouldnt see them all turning pro so quickly, until they had achieved the Gold (Amir Khan being a prime example of this).

walshb · 07-09-2010 11:43AM

gene_tunney wrote: »

World title > Olympic Gold

But if you read my first post I did make the distinction between the two
sports. AM boxing and Pro are separate, not like track and field. So, the ULTIMATE goal of the track star is to win Olympic gold. The ultimate goal of the AM boxer is to win gold. Then, the world of pro boxing is the dream, the goal.

Also, what is a world champion these days in pro boxing? It's become quite farcical, where 4 and 5 are calling themselves world champions. Ridiculous.
Verisons of versions as well.

Rob113 · 07-09-2010 01:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Also, what is a world champion these days in pro boxing? It's become quite farcical, where 4 and 5 are calling themselves world champions. Ridiculous.
Verisons of versions as well.

There is no such thing as a World Title anymore. As you said versions of versions, interim champions etc etc. Its become a farce. I reckon an Olympic Gold definitely holds more weight at the moment. In saying that if it was me id hav one shot at it a la Khan then head straight for the pro game as unfortuntely money makes the world go round. How much money did Khan make in the first 4yrs of his pro career?

cowzerp · 07-09-2010 04:09PM

From day 1 there was never just 1 World champ, there was always a few, even back in the day there was world titles and American title which many felt was the world title etc... It's just more blatant now than it was then and the best met each other more than they do now, The 1 real world champ is known to the fans regardless of belts anyway, if there not then there not really the true best anyway.

waterfordkick · 07-09-2010 04:55PM

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

walshb · 07-09-2010 05:25PM

waterfordkick wrote: »

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

Well, I think it's too difficult to really compare. The Olympics for amateurs is where the cream all come together and vie for the Gold, and that man is at that time, the best on the planet.

Like has been said, what is a world title in Pro boxing? There is no actual champ. It all depends on the organisation. The AM game is so clearly
defined, just like swimming and other Olympic sports. They are all alligned to one body. In Pro boxing there are several world bodies.

The game of pro boxing is tougher and a hell of a lot more dangerous and physical, so in a sense, to win a world title as a pro, a legitimate one, would be a tougher ask, in the physical and mental sense.

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 05:30PM

waterfordkick wrote: »

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

Considering the World's are held twice as frequently I would say they're easier to win.

The thing with the Olympics though is once you qualify a good % of the work towards winning a medal is already done. At the World's you have to get through everyone from the very start(bar other fighters at your weight from your country), there is no previous work done.

So once you've qualified for the Olympics already, then yes it becomes easier than the World's, but if you include Olympic qualifying and the event itself then they're equally as tough and when you consider the Olympics is only every 4 years then you have to say it's tougher to medal at the Olympics.

walshb · 07-09-2010 05:55PM

Sorry guys, I misread waterfords post.

He/she was talking about world gold ams and Olympic gold ams.

Now, both are amazing, but the Olympics is just that bit more special, plus, as Big has said, you need to qualify too. It is a more difficult journey.
And, I reckon the games brings out that slight bit extra in each boxer.

Everyone wants the Olympics, more than a world gold.

Also, the games will usually see a minimum 5 fights to earn gold, unless a bye.
And, it is in the games that the best of the best compete. No "duds."

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 06:22PM

walshb wrote: »

Sorry guys, I misread waterfords post.Also, the games will usually see a minimum 5 fights to earn gold, unless a bye.
And, it is in the games that the best of the best compete. No "duds."

While there are no terrible fighters at the Olympics, as everyone who qualifies is at least one of the top fighters from their continent, the Olympics(similar to the football World Cup) isn't necessarily the best of the best as it restricts the amount of entrants from each continent as some continents are much stronger that others(sometimes this differs between the weight-classes).

Some of the fighters that get through from Africa, The Americas and Oceania can be quite weak in comparison to European fighters who didn't qualify. The Americas normally have some of the strongest fighters at the weight(with the USA and Cuba) but they often also bring some of the weakest and as for the other two continents fighters from there are normally average at best(although there are exceptions).

Oceania hasn't had a medallist since 1992(David Tua won Bronze at Heavyweight) and Africa didn't pick up one medal at the last Olympics at all despite having as many participants as the Americas and 7 more participants than Asia did.

In the World Championships not only due you have these weaker fighters but also European/Asian fighters superior to those who didn't manage to qualify for the Olympics. So I don't think you can really argue that the competitive field is any tougher at the Olympics.

walshb · 07-09-2010 06:48PM

Yes, Big, but as you said, it's the qualifying too that must be considered.

Remember, the worlds sees 4-5 fights for the gold, the Olympics 4-5 for the gold, but the other tournaments to get selection are all part of it. As great as the world gold is, and as difficult as it is to win, the Olympic gold is a notch above.

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 09:57PM

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Big, but as you said, it's the qualifying too that must be considered.

Remember, the worlds sees 4-5 fights for the gold, the Olympics 4-5 for the gold, but the other tournaments to get selection are all part of it. As great as the world gold is, and as difficult as it is to win, the Olympic gold is a notch above.

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

Pisco Sour · 08-09-2010 12:51AM

Big Ears wrote: »

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

But is it not harder to qualify for the Olympics than it is for the Worlds? Surely that has to be considered aswell?

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 01:59AM

04072511 wrote: »

But is it not harder to qualify for the Olympics than it is for the Worlds? Surely that has to be considered aswell?

Of course it is, which if you've read my posts above you'd have realised I've acknowledged this. The only qualification criteria for the World's is to be the nominated fighter from your country(which normally requires you to be the best in your country and also be worth the expense of sending to the Championships).

walshb · 08-09-2010 10:07AM

Big Ears wrote: »

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

Big, on average it is 5 fights for BOTH tournaments. Hey, there very well could be examples of 6 fights to win either, but on average I would say it is 5

I know Ray Leonard won 6 fights at the 76' games to earn gold, and his defeated finalist, Aldama, also had 6 fights.

I cannot recall 6 fights at the worlds. There may well have been, but recently, the average for both tournaments is 5.
Lomachenko, a recent winner, had 5 at the 2009 worlds. He also had 5 in Beijing.
Correction: Frankie Gavin did have 6 to win gold at the 2007 worlds.

Rigondeaux in 2001 and 2005 had 5 both times to win gold at the worlds.

Carruth had 4 at the 92' games, and Sutherland, had he made the 2008 games final, would
have had 4 for the gold. This would be rare, as I imagine 6 would be rare.

I will try to get some past stats for the worlds and see just how many of the recent winners had 6 fights.

The 2007 worlds did see a fair few winners have 6 fights. But, conversely, there have been
many winners that have had 5 to win gold. I would say more over the years.

The 2009 worlds being the most recent also see many 5 fight winners. Some 6 winners too.

BTW, I would consider 2003 recent, and Povetkin had 4 fights to earn world gold
at super heavy. Looking at both tournaments (fights wise) I think it's much of a muchness really.

The Davestator · 08-09-2010 05:48PM

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

I wonder do the world champs know deep down that they are not really the best in the world when theyre lying in bed at night. Its pretty hollow unless you unify the division IMO

walshb · 08-09-2010 05:54PM

The Davestator wrote: »

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

I am not entirely with you regarding this statement? Are you saying that an Olympic gold medalist wins every time he faces a reigning world champion, amateur or pro?

Hissing Sid · 08-09-2010 06:59PM

The Davestator wrote: »

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

Explain Pete Rademacher then.
Olympic heavyweight gold in 1956, pro debut in 1957 was a world title fight which he lost to Floyd Paterson.

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 07:27PM

walshb wrote: »

Big, on average it is 5 fights for BOTH tournaments. Hey, there very well could be examples of 6 fights to win either, but on average I would say it is 5

I know Ray Leonard won 6 fights at the 76' games to earn gold, and his defeated finalist, Aldama, also had 6 fights.

I cannot recall 6 fights at the worlds. There may well have been, but recently, the average for both tournaments is 5.
Lomachenko, a recent winner, had 5 at the 2009 worlds. He also had 5 in Beijing.
Correction: Frankie Gavin did have 6 to win gold at the 2007 worlds.

Rigondeaux in 2001 and 2005 had 5 both times to win gold at the worlds.

Carruth had 4 at the 92' games, and Sutherland, had he made the 2008 games final, would
have had 4 for the gold. This would be rare, as I imagine 6 would be rare.

I will try to get some past stats for the worlds and see just how many of the recent winners had 6 fights.

The 2007 worlds did see a fair few winners have 6 fights. But, conversely, there have been
many winners that have had 5 to win gold. I would say more over the years.

The 2009 worlds being the most recent also see many 5 fight winners. Some 6 winners too.

BTW, I would consider 2003 recent, and Povetkin had 4 fights to earn world gold
at super heavy. Looking at both tournaments (fights wise) I think it's much of a muchness really.

Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight are different, in the Olympics the maximum number of fights need to win Gold/Silver at Heavyweight is 4, although that is also the minimum number(unless withdrawals from injuries occur). The World Championship's at Heavyweight/Super-Heavyweight require 5/6 depending on the year so nowdays a fighter is guaranteed at least 1 if not 2 more fights at those weights in the World Championships compared to the Olympics. You can consider 4 tournaments ago recent if you want but it doesn't change that fact that things have been different since.

In most weight-classes at the World Championships the majority of the field are now required to win 6 fights to win Gold, a disproportionate % of those winning Gold come from those in the part of the draw with only 5 fights so you list individual examples of fighters winning Gold in 5 fights if you want but considering all the men equal most fighters will have 6 fights to win Gold from the onset. Of course most fighters are required to win 5 fights to win Gold at the Olympics(except Heavy and Super-Heavy where it's always 4) but the point still stands that the World's generally requires more fights and as I said before I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I'm definitely of the opinion that once you've qualified for the Olympics it's easier to medal at it(including winning Gold) than at the World Championships.
But overall in a fighters career it's much easier to win World Championship medals than Olympic medals.

The Davestator I'd like to see you clarify that aswell, do you mean for instance that James Degale was better than any Middleweight in the World either amateur or pro and under the rules of either code when he won Gold in Beijing ?

As this discussion goes overall Amateur boxing and professional boxing are two different codes in the same way that Association Football, Gaelic Football, Aussie Rules, American Football, Canadian Football, Rugby Union and Rugby League are all different codes of the one thing(Football).
Okay you can probably match they as similar in the way that Rugby Union is to Rugby league or American Football is to Canadian Football but they're not the same thing and as such achievements between the two can't properly be compared.

walshb · 08-09-2010 08:05PM

Big, as far as I know, the majority of champs from 2009
were 5 fight champs. So, it's inaccurate for you to
claim that the majority need 6 fights to win.

I won't swear on that, but I am nearly sure.

You also claim that at heavy and super, it is ALWAYS
4 fights to win Olympic gold.

So, explain Savon winning three golds, and having 15 fights (5 per games)

It is not a case of me knowing anything. I have provided many
examples where world golds were won with 5 fights, and ONE
with 4 fights.

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 08:56PM

walshb wrote: »

Big, as far as I know, the majority of champs from 2009
were 5 fight champs. So, it's inaccurate for you to
claim that the majority need 6 fights to win.

I won't swear on that, but I am nearly sure.

You also claim that at heavy and super, it is ALWAYS
4 fights to win Olympic gold.

So, explain Savon winning three golds, and having 15 fights (5 per games)

It is not a case of me knowing anything. I have provided many
examples where world golds were won with 5 fights, and ONE
with 4 fights.

Check it out Walshb, you'll find that from the start, the majority of fighters are faced with 6 fights to win Gold.

For the Flyweight, Bantamweight, Featherweight, Lightweight, Light-Welterweight, Welterweight and Middleweight divisions the majority of fighters were faced with the task of winning 6 fights in order to win Gold from the draw. Just under 50% at Light-Heavyweight and Heavyweight.
In some weights only a handful of fighters were offered the opportunity to win Gold in 5 fights. I can't remember if any seeding was in place for the tournament but it would certainly make sense if there was, because as I stated before a disproportionate amount of the winners had only won 5 fights and a lot of the big names were in that part of the draw even when that part of the draw was very small.

As regards the part in bold, I stated always is, not always was. I'm aware that the 16 participants only in the Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight divisions was introduced in 2000 and that before that a fighter may have to fight 5 times to win Gold. Hence while you'll see Savon actually has only 14 wins from his 3 Olympic Golds.

I'm talking about the way things are, you are listing examples from 1992/1996 and 2003. In the next Olympic games in 2012 there will only be 16 participants at Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight, it will take 4 fights to win Gold at those weights, that's the way the system is. The 2011 World Championships will require 5/6 fights to win Gold at those weights, no less, that's the way the system is and will be for the foreseeable. future.

So when you said it takes 4/5 fights to win Gold at the World's and 4/5 fights to win Gold at the Olympics you were wrong. A fighter can no win World Championship Gold in 4 fights anymore, and a Heavyweight/Super-Heavyweight can not win Olympic Gold in 5 fights(or more) anymore. Maybe things have just gotten mixed up but it seems to me you didn't know that and what also seems clear to me is you're unaware that most fighters are faced with the prospect of 6 fights to win Gold at the World's.....that much is a fact, it's the way the system is.

In 1904 George Finnegan had to fight twice at the Olympics, once to win the Gold at Flyweight and once to pick up Silver at Bantamweight. He also fought a fellow American in both of those bouts. What does that have to do with the way things are now ?, sweet **** all.

colly10 · 08-09-2010 10:30PM

gene_tunney wrote: »

World title > Olympic Gold

I would agree with this, I think it's a greater achievement. In saying that, the amateur and pro game are very different.
If you gave me a choice right now and gave me all the talent required to either win olympic gold or a world title I would take the world title no question.

They require a different style and skillset though

walshb · 09-09-2010 10:01AM

Big, I am not gonna split hairs with you over it, as noted, the Olympic Journey is what makes the games that bit better and more special. Point noted on the 6 fights for the worlds, at the start of the draw. There are generally more entrants in the worlds. And, as therer are those
Olympic qualifiers, the tournamnet as a whole is tougher.

The Davestator · 12-09-2010 11:14AM

The Davestator wrote: »

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

I wonder do the world champs know deep down that they are not really the best in the world when theyre lying in bed at night. Its pretty hollow unless you unify the division IMO

Balls - totally wrote that wrong! What I meant that a pro world champ beats an olympic champ every time in either pro or amateur rules.

megadodge · 13-09-2010 10:05AM

The Davestator wrote: »

Balls - totally wrote that wrong! What I meant that a pro world champ beats an olympic champ every time in either pro or amateur rules.

I would disagree quite strongly on that point.

I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of Olympic champs would beat their pro equivalents over 3 or 4 rounds using amateur rules. The skill levels in am are way higher. There are quite a lot of pro world champs who rely a lot on strength, toughness, conditioning and power. They would often have been very ordinary amateurs, simply because over 3 or 4 rounds those attributes don't really come into play against a superior skilled fighter.

Over 12 rounds the pro would win virtually every time.

walshb · 13-09-2010 12:53PM

Mega, that is a blanket statement. One must consider that in both PRO
and Amateur you have the duds, the good, the very good and the exceptional. This is how one must look at it.

No one can tell me that the best amateur in the world beats the best pro
over any distance. What rules? Headgear? How would that really aid a 147 lb amateur against say, Floyd or Manny, or Williams?

1 round, two rds or whatever, the best pro could go hell for leather
for those three rds, and he would still have that extra stamina.

Imagine telling Manny that this fight is only 3 rds, so you don't have to be concerned with conserving energy for a 12 rounder? Holy sh!t.

Skill levels? Again, this is like comparing apples and oranges. They're different skill sets, not levels.

Floyd Mayweather was a great skilled amateur, and is a great skilled pro. BUT, nobody can say that he was more skilled as an amteur, he was simply
skilled in a different type of way.

You are saying that the vast majority of Olympic champs, the absolute best, would beat their pro counterparts over 3 or 4 rds? Well, if you are using the BEST amateurs, then you need to compare with the best pros.

I don't give a sh!t, no way am I betting that any amteur Olympic champ beats
a Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayeather, Gamboa, JML, Williams, Berto, or any other top pro over any distance. The pros would walk right thru them. They are different animals altogether.

Take say the best ever heavyweight, Teo, or Savon. They would not stand a chance IMO
over three rds against a Tyson or Foreman or Ali, under any rules, headgears or not.

cowzerp · 13-09-2010 01:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Mega, that is a blanket statement. One must consider that in both PRO
and Amateur you have the duds, the good, the very good and the exceptional. This is how one must look at it.

No one can tell me that the best amateur in the world beats the best pro
over any distance. What rules? Headgear? How would that really aid a 147 lb amateur against say, Floyd or Manny, or Williams?

1 round, two rds or whatever, the best pro could go hell for leather
for those three rds, and he would still have that extra stamina.

Imagine telling Manny that this fight is only 3 rds, so you don't have to be concerned with conserving energy for a 12 rounder? Holy sh!t.

Skill levels? Again, this is like comparing apples and oranges. They're different skill sets, not levels..

The best amateur is a points scorer, the best pro is probably not-amateur boxing means your probably the best at hitting and not been hit over a 4 rd match, Pro boxing is way more about power, aggression and there is plenty of time to get back into the fight when behind-in amateur when you are winning its much easier to maintain that lead..

I would put the olympic champ as heavy favourite against most pro's in an amateur match on computer scoring, on the old paper scoring i would favour the pro, this is part of what sucks about amateur boxing imo..

The scoring is stupid and leaves out so many elements of Boxing.

walshb · 13-09-2010 02:07PM

cowzerp wrote: »

The best amateur is a points scorer, the best pro is probably not-amateur boxing means your probably the best at hitting and not been hit over a 4 rd match, Pro boxing is way more about power, aggression and there is plenty of time to get back into the fight when behind-in amateur when you are winning its much easier to maintain that lead..

I would put the olympic champ as heavy favourite against most pro's in an amateur match on computer scoring, on the old paper scoring i would favour the pro, this is part of what sucks about amateur boxing imo..

The scoring is stupid and leaves out so many elements of Boxing.

Paul, I am well aware of the subtle differences.

You seem to be implying that it's all down to scores and cuteness and that.
KOs can and do happen in amateur boxing. I have seen many.

Simple. A top pro would walk thru a top amateur. So, NOTHING to do with 9 minutes, scores etc. They would KO the amateur. That is my point.

Over three rds, the pro wouldn't simply be thinking about a points win. He would do what he has to do, and if that means a brutal KO, from a body or head shot(s), he will do it.

Manny gets in ring with best amateur. Do you think he is saying to himself, "there is no chance I can KO this guy over 9 minutes. I just
hope I am as skilled and slick and cute as he?"

Amateur match on computer scores means sweet **** all, IF the pro gets in there and just walks thru the guy and knocks him
out. UNLESS, you want to bring in a NEW rule that says that
the PRO cannot win via KO???

Call me stupid, but, Sticking a headgear or Manny, Floyd, Gamboa, JML and some other top
pros, and letting them get down to business over 3x3 mins, computer scores, or whatever, they
will walk thru the amateur and end it a deal before the last round.

No top amateur below 150 lbs lasts three rds with Manny Pacquaio, headgear or not, computer
scores or not. It's a brutal KO loss for the amateur.

Paul, would you make the best amateur a heavy favorite over Floyd or Manny over
3 rds, with headgear and computer scoring?

cowzerp · 13-09-2010 02:15PM

head guards mean shiit, they wont stand and trade and wont get knocked out either!!

otherwise the top Olympic boxers would be knocking each other out-they dont as the way its layed out does not suit knock outs, the top amateurs would not engage and would barely be hit over the range of an amateur fight..

Pro boxers would not just walk true, thats like they just become super human-there not, there just the top of the pro game..

Thats why many of the top pro's where not top amateurs..
the ones that where top would get in there and compete and might win they dont prcactise for amateur boxing and that has to be remembered.

walshb · 13-09-2010 02:19PM

cowzerp wrote: »

head guards mean shiit, they wont stand and trade and wont get knocked out either!!

otherwise the top Olympic boxers would be knocking each other out-they dont as the way its layed out does not suit knock outs, the top amateurs would not engage and would barely be hit over the range of an amateur fight..

Pro boxers would not just walk true, thats like they just become super human-there not, there just the top of the pro game..

Thats why many of the top pro's where not top amateurs..
the ones that where top would get in there and compete and might win they dont prcactise for amateur boxing and that has to be remembered.

Ok, BUT I would really love to know HOW these amateurs would be able to survive against Manny whilst SCORING and avoiding him. It's Manny Pacquiao.
OR, out slick and outscore Floyd Mayweather?

You said the pros aren't superhuman, so what about the amateurs?

Picture it? Manny OR Floyd in the ring and a top amatuer has to try and hit them and avoid their fire for 9 minutes? No ****ing way. Manny for ONE hits far too hard, is fat too agrressive and fast and vicious for any amatuer to
survive for 9 minutes.

You say the top amateurs would not engare/trade? So, how can they score? They have to
at sompe point throw shots, be in range and it is then that THEY are vulnerable, just
as the pro is. The key difference is that the PRO would more than likely be
hitting a deal harder and could take it a deal better.

Going back in time for this one. Would anyone hear
back Felix Savon against Mike Tyson over three rds?

Savon would be slaughtered, no matter how slick and cute he tries to
be. Slaughtered.

It comes across that you are making out that pros aren't really all that
great, vicious and brutal unless it's 4 rds and more?

I can just picture Manny licking his lips when told by Roach
that this fight is 3 rds, and you don't even have to bother about
energy conserving. He'd be like a mad dog in there. There would be killings.
Mad dog but so vicious, precise, fast, heavy and accurate.

Line up a bunch of top amatuers. Each one would be carried out

cowzerp · 13-09-2010 02:22PM

Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Tyson all amateurs that went from not knocking everyone out in amateur to blasting people out in pro's, they simply had more time to do it and lower standard of opponents to do it too..

walshb · 13-09-2010 02:34PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, Tyson all amateurs that went from not knocking everyone out in amateur to blasting people out in pro's, they simply had more time to do it and lower standard of opponents to do it too..

Paul, I think we'll do a poll for the craic.

Really, who would you back, Tyson in 1986 vs. Savon from 1992-2000, 3 rds?
Headgear if you like, comp scoring too?

megadodge · 13-09-2010 03:13PM

As usual Walshie you're exaggerating to the point of going completely off-topic.

I said "the vast majority of Olympic champs would beat their pro equivalents over 3 or 4 rounds using amateur rules".

That obviously does not mean "all". And the reason I mentioned that is because of the fighters you mentioned - namely Mayweather. His skill levels are excellent, better than almost anyone, however, lest it be forgotten he couldn't even win an Olympic or World championship as an amateur (please don't let anyone talk crap about bad decisions, his defeat could have gone either way and he should have lost to the Cuban in the previous round), yet now under amateur rules which he doesn't box under or train for he'd "walk through" any top amateur???

Do all the top amateurs suddenly get some virus that means their chins turn to glass when facing a pro over 3 rounds? Do they suddenly forget all their training and defensive tactics and try to mix it with a potentially harder puncher? You're making them out to be complete idiots!

I know you have a big thing for aggressive fighters, which is why when Sutcliffe won the nationals so spectacularly you thought he should have been given the boxer of the tournament whereas I thought JJ Nevin was the class act. I basically stated that in the next international comp they competed in I would back Nevin to go farther than Sutcliffe as he had the 'hit and don't be hit' style that the top amateurs have perfected whereas Sutcliffe fights more like a pro.

I was proven right.

The 'hit and don't be hit' style is so effective simply because they only have 3 or 4 rounds. It would be almost be impossible to keep it up for 12 where the strength and power come into play.

I'm quite confident that while Manny's skills have improved over the years, he would have problems hitting an Olympic champion for 3 or 4 rounds. Plus if he hit him there's no guarantee that the am's chin can't take it. As you said you've seen many KO's in the ams (not as many in recent years though) so the top guys obviously have been hit hard many times. I find your talk of "been carried out", "killings" and "mad dogs" absolutely ludicrous. It's so insulting that I'm genuinely shocked.

Do you think James de Gale's pro opponents over his first two years have been as good as nearly all his am opposition in his last two years there?

Paul put it perfectly when he said "they simply had more time to do it and lower standard of opponents to do it too..".

walshb · 13-09-2010 03:26PM

Well, now, you should know well how big a fan of the AM game I am. Nothing but huge respect for their commitment, talent and skills.

BUT, the top pros are completely different. It's a different game, and you are saying that the top ams would beat the pros, (am rules, in genera). Well, I gave Mayweather and Manny as examples. I could list more if you like.

We disagree, no big deal. I will gladly bet my money on Manny, Floyd, Gamboa, JML and some others to take out the best amateurs over 9 minutes with headgear. That has NOTHING to do with dissing the Amateurs. So, don't make out that I am calling them idiots. That's ridiculous. I never said anything close to that.

I asked a question on Savon and Tyson. No answer yet. I would back Tyson by brutal KO win.

You speak of chins. Do you not believe that amateurs and pros are
different regarding this. Subtly I mean. As maturity, increased training and toughness KICKS in, a fighter will improve his ability to withstand a shot.
Pros specifically train a deal harder to take shots, more shots and harder shots. It is not a case of them
being equal, am and pro.

Nobody can tell me that Clay, for example, in 1960 (AM)/1961/1962 had the equivalent chin as Ali in 1974. This applies to all young amateurs who go from the amatuer game
to the pro game. I really wish people wouldn't try to compare them as if they are the same.

You talking about SKILL LEVELS being greater? It's not skill levels, it's skill sets.They have different SKILL sets, so why do you insist on claiming the amateurs are more skilled? That makes no sense.

Anyway, I did post a poll. You can vote of you like.

What is so shocking about Manny brutally beating a top amatuer. Why is that shocking to you?

It's a TOP pro, a brutal and devastating PRO against an amateur fighter. How is that shocking?

It has ZERO to do with a sleight on the amateur; it's a simple case of a man who is the best
pro in the world, a killer who is trained to hit hard for 12 rds, stepping into a ring against a man
who is NOT trained to the same degree. AND, the man who is trained to go 12
hard rds of viciousness is now told that energy conserving is not a factor. This
would bring out the "mad dog." Pacquiao told he can go hell for leather without fear
of tiring? Wow, that would be too dangerous.

Would I criticise or slate a top amateur should he get whupped by Manny
Pacquia over 3 rds? No way. It is Manny Pacquiao.

Also, how in the hell is it insluting? Anyone who thinks Manny KOs a top
amatuer over three rds is somehow insulting the amateur? That is strange to
say the least.

megadodge · 15-09-2010 09:46AM

Ok, rather than go into a long reply, I'll ask you a quick question.

If "going hell for leather" (super aggressive) would be so effective under amateur rules, why don't all the amateurs do it?

Surely if they don't have to worry about tiring then it's the way to go?

walshb · 15-09-2010 10:32AM

Mega, you honeslty think that an AM and a Pro going hell for leather
over 9 mins is the same thing?

This is my whole point. A pro is a comletely different animal. They are trained to a far higher degree. Punching, power, stamina, chin, all around body tougness, etc etc. It's the laws of the pro game. Hell for leather with top pro would be a lot more frightening than
hell for leather from a top AM I would imagine. And by 'hell for leather,' I am not talking about wild; but controlled and skilled ferocity.

AMs are specifically trained for 9 minutes. Yes, they could go for more if pushed, but they would not have the same stamina/endurance/intensity as
a top pro. A pro would be getting warmed up after going hard for three rds, an amteur would be reaching the absolute limit. A top pro could put so much more into the 9 mins without lessening the work rate and ferocity? Why? Well, that is simple. They are far fitter overall. This is too obvious.

BTW, any reason why you, a guy who obvioulsy has boxing experience and knowledge, came out with "amateurs being way more skilled"? Skill set mean nothing to you? Also, the term skill is quite subjective. Depends on what one sees as skilled, doesn't it?

All I wanted to point out was that when comparing, one must compare like with like. I did concede that the top AMs would more than likely defeat the run of the mill pro over 9 minutes. But comparing the top AMs with the good/great pros is completely different. I would favour the top pro most times.

Names: Not just Manny and Floyd.

Froch/Kesler/Ward/Dirrell/Abraham/Berto/Khan/Gamboa/JML/Pascal/Dawson.

These names would IMO have too much of everything for a Kenny Egan/Berteyibev/Diaz/Lomachenko/Selimov etc....

megadodge · 15-09-2010 02:33PM

Let's put it this way, when really top amateurs turn pro, they usually do quite well - as witnessed by the names on your pro list above. Froch, Ward, Dirrell, Khan, Gamboa, Pascal were all elite amateurs. Given that they have done so well in the pros (over a 4 times longer distance) what makes you think that when they were ams they would have been overwhelmed by the same opposition in 3 rounds?

Now, think of those top amateurs that haven't done well over the years Jorge Luis Gonzalez, Duane Bobick, Tyrell Biggs, Audley Harrison, Henry Tillman, Peter Rademacher - and that's only the (super)heavies. Did these not succeed in the pro ranks because of lack of skill? No, it was virtually always because of a lack of stamina and durability. They could usually hold their own early on but just couldn't maintain it. They were never outslicked from the start to the best of my knowledge.

You said it yourself - "AMs are specifically trained for 9 minutes". They train for that time period only and all it's eventualities, which means they are at their best over that duration. I honestly believe when it comes to footwork, overall defence and punch accuracy the top ams are well ahead of the top pros in these particular areas which is why for a mere 9 minutes a pro who wasn't a top amateur would have major problems hitting the am while being picked off with light but accurate counters.

If you look at the stats in world title fights (obviously we're not talking of various mismatches here) how many actually end in the first 3 rounds? Not that many. That's because the longer the fight the easier it becomes to hit someone as they tire and lose concentration. That's where strength, power and durability come into play much, much more than skill.

You talk about Tyson/Savon. I have no doubt Tyson would win as I always thought Savon a wee bit overrated and he definitely didn't have a hectic chin. But by the same token I could mention Rigondeaux (who coincidentally is making it look so easy in the pros at the moment) taking on any given pro world champ in history over 3 rounds and the current amateur rules and there is no way I would back against him! I doubt you would either.

There are so many 'world' champs whose main forte is NOT skill, who rely on strength, power and conditioning to wear down/KO their opponents and these guys are in the main just flat out NOT as skilful as the very top amateurs. Look at Rocky Martinez last week, Ricardo Mayorga, Rocky Marciano, Marco Huck, Vic Darchinyan, Jake la Motta etc. etc. These are just off the top of my head, but there are so many more.

I think that under the old amateur rules, what you're saying would definitely apply, but under the computer system it's completely different.

walshb · 15-09-2010 02:50PM

Mega, I guess what I find odd is the way you seem to think that
MAYBE these top pros will go into the AM rule fight and try to compete like the AM does, which is mainly cute, sharp, tight and like a fencer more so.

Take Manny. What if he says to himself, "I don't care that I have a head gear and that 5 men are sitting at computers. I am going to KO JJJ, or Diaz, or Vastine. I am going in there to destroy. **** computers." I am not talking about OLD and NEW style amateur fights.
I am talking about the TOP pro not giving a damn, and simply going in to either win or to KO. It is still moving, punching
and hurting. Sure, the AM might be cute and defensive, but he has to engage and open up at some point.

BTW, I did mention that the likes of Kindelan, who I find to be unreal, would have a very strong chance over 9 mins vs. Floyd or others. He was that cute and slick and good. Add in Rigondeaux too. To me, these lads are real exceptions. Conversely, there are also
TOP pros thru history that could get to them and do the job. So, for every great AM one throws up, one could throw up
a greater pro. Example: Welter Juan Hernadez, amazing. Would beat many, but call me mad, Ray Leonard
or Hearns from 1981 as pros KO this guy within 9 mins. That applies to the OLD and NEW Amateur rules.

In general, I think the great PRO will just have too much firepower, intensity and that for a Kenny Egan, Beterbiyev, Lomachenko etc.

Savon was a three time Olympian and 6 time world champ? Overrated?
Tyson eats this guy, and no god damn headgear or computer helps him.
I know you did agree on this selection.

It appears to me that you and Paul are picturing these top pros going in there and trying to fight like the amateur? Why would they, when they could just as easily go in and fight their normal way, BUT with more intensity and firepower and aggression.

If one looks down the list of TOP AMs now, I see none that could beat the equivalent TOP pros at the weights.

walshb · 15-09-2010 03:04PM

megadodge wrote: »

Let's put it this way, when really top amateurs turn pro, they usually do quite well - as witnessed by the names on your pro list above. Froch, Ward, Dirrell, Khan, Gamboa, Pascal were all elite amateurs. Given that they have done so well in the pros (over a 4 times longer distance) what makes you think that when they were ams they would have been overwhelmed by the same opposition in 3 rounds?
.[/B]

Ok, take one guy, say Froch as an amteur. Very good. BUT the best pro Froch was a whole deal better in a lot of ways. That is why I think they cannot compete and win over 9 minutes. Sure, the AM Froch could do well vs. the early pro version of himself, but the best PRO Froch I feel would overwhelm the best AM Froch in 9 minutes. That is top pro boxers. They are on a different level in so many ways.

colly10 · 15-09-2010 06:58PM

megadodge wrote: »

That obviously does not mean "all". And the reason I mentioned that is because of the fighters you mentioned - namely Mayweather. His skill levels are excellent, better than almost anyone, however, lest it be forgotten he couldn't even win an Olympic or World championship as an amateur (please don't let anyone talk crap about bad decisions, his defeat could have gone either way and he should have lost to the Cuban in the previous round), yet now under amateur rules which he doesn't box under or train for he'd "walk through" any top amateur???

He won a bronze olympic medal in 1996, he was only 19 at the time, he would be far more talented and stronger than he was back then

megadodge wrote: »

I'm quite confident that while Manny's skills have improved over the years, he would have problems hitting an Olympic champion for 3 or 4 rounds. Plus if he hit him there's no guarantee that the am's chin can't take it.

With his speed, workrate and combination punching, I would be very surprised if they could avoid him for 3 rounds (considering they have to engage to score points themselves)

megadodge wrote: »

Do you think James de Gale's pro opponents over his first two years have been as good as nearly all his am opposition in his last two years there?

No, the reason for that is they believe that despite his good am career, he is nowhere near good enough for top pro opposition so they put him in against nobodies to give him more experience. They could put him in against someone like Bute or Ward but he would be destroyed

megadodge · 16-09-2010 08:49AM

Mega, I guess what I find odd is the way you seem to think that
MAYBE these top pros will go into the AM rule fight and try to compete like the AM does, which is mainly cute, sharp, tight and like a fencer more so.

The exact opposite is what I think - the pros will fight like pros and that's the very reason I think for 9 minutes the amateurs would be able to avoid them. In that timeframe they most certainly could keep moving and not need to engage. Over 12 rounds - no way, they would have to engage and hit harder in order to keep the pro off plus the fact that they would be far more tired, but it's not 12 rounds!!

Could you answer the following question please - Why is it that the tactics you espouse (all-out aggression) are currently so ineffective in the amateur game?

What is the relevance of Amateur Boxing?

Comments