If it was permitted for world champion professional boxers to compete in the Olympics how would they go?
My guess is that they wouldnt win that many medals because of the difference between amateur and Pro boxing.

also is it just me but seeing pro tennis players and basketball players in the Olympics just doent seem right?

If it was permitted for world champion professional boxers to compete in the Olympics how would they go?
My guess is that they wouldnt win that many medals because of the difference between amateur and Pro boxing.

also is it just me but seeing pro tennis players and basketball players in the Olympics just doent seem right?

Trrmo, do you know the boxer in your avatar?

What are u crazy. They would kill the AMAteurs

What are u crazy. They would kill the AMAteurs

No they wouldn't.

put a journeyman in and it would possibly be fair, but in a seasoned pro whos got some KO power and then it gets unfair... don't forget, many "boys" compete in the olympics.

No they wouldn't.

What he said...... Most number 1 amatures are better than pros. (unless the pro is in the top 10-40. it might be less depending on the division.)

What he said...... Most number 1 amatures are better than pros.


don't forget, if olympics came, then the no 1 PROs would enter the game... i.e. manny pacquino, joe calzaghe...

Its a four round fight remember, The amateur has very little chance of knocking out the pro but the straight down the middle, In and out amateur style could do well to score points.

It depends on the style of both fighters though.

Trrmo, do you know the boxer in your avatar?

That is Les Darcy, one of the best middleweights ever.

I think the pros wouldnt do that great because the top amateurs are superquick point scoring machines who fight only 4 intense rounds. Pros need to pace themselves more and train for endurance. Pros also can wear down their opponents over 10-12 rounds, hard to do in 4 four rounds.

The pro's aren't trained to fight the way you have to, to be effective in Olympic boxing. They wouldn't get the amount of KO's they're accustomed to because the fights are shorter, the gloves have more padding, and they wear helmets.

It's like claiming a distance runner would beat a sprinter. Not in a sprint, he wouldn't.

The pro's aren't trained to fight the way you have to, to be effective in Olympic boxing. They wouldn't get the amount of KO's they're accustomed to because the fights are shorter, the gloves have more padding, and they wear helmets.

It's like claiming a distance runner would beat a sprinter. Not in a sprint, he wouldn't.

That been said tho most pro fought good amature backgrounds.

That been said tho most pro fought good amature backgrounds.

Sure, but that was, in the cases of top pro's, at least 5, and more likely, 10 years ago. That's a lot of training to fight in another style/scoring system/ fight duration. That will definitely diminish their chances against the best am's who are fine tuned physically, technically, and tactically to fight in the most effective way for 4x2 minutes.

If you turn it around, that is why someone like Yuriorkis Gamboa, who is definitely one of the most talented fighters out there, has to start out fighting 4 rounders, then 6 rounders, and so on. He has to adapt to the differences. So do the pro's, if they had to go back.

Sure, but that was, in the cases of top pro's, at least 5, and more likely, 10 years ago. That's a lot of training to fight in another style/scoring system/ fight duration. That will definitely diminish their chances against the best am's who are fine tuned physically, technically, and tactically to fight in the most effective way for 4x2 minutes.

If you turn it around, that is why someone like Yuriorkis Gamboa, who is definitely one of the most talented fighters out there, has to start out fighting 4 rounders, then 6 rounders, and so on. He has to adapt to the differences. So do the pro's, if they had to go back.



That post and the one about the sprinters makes alot of sense...Hard to even go against that.

I think that is the answer that ends it... but of course some pros would still dominate the AM olympics.. The likes of : Roy Jones, Margarito, ARCE, Paul williams, Joe Calzaghe, Mostly because of their very active/unique styles...
Mayweather could win one.. counts on the punches landed right.. and the counters help... vast skill over the AM fighters like jones.


Those picks sound CRAZY anyone?

That is Les Darcy, one of the best middleweights ever.

I think the pros wouldnt do that great because the top amateurs are superquick point scoring machines who fight only 4 intense rounds. Pros need to pace themselves more and train for endurance. Pros also can wear down their opponents over 10-12 rounds, hard to do in 4 four rounds.

I'm impressed, I am a massive Darcy fan. Have read a few of his biographies and am doing a Sports History course with a historian who has written several historical pieces about the man. A very interesting story.

That post and the one about the sprinters makes alot of sense...Hard to even go against that.

I think that is the answer that ends it... but of course some pros would still dominate the AM olympics.. The likes of : Roy Jones, Margarito, ARCE, Paul williams, Joe Calzaghe, Mostly because of their very active/unique styles...
Mayweather could win one.. counts on the punches landed right.. and the counters help... vast skill over the AM fighters like jones.


Those picks sound CRAZY anyone?

Roy Jones would do terribly at the age he is now (in fact he's to old to even be allowed to fight).

Margarito wouldn't be able to catch the mobile guys at his weight.

Paul Williams... Maybe, he's got a good reach for the weight, which is a big plus in the am's.

Calzaghe... Maybe, he's kinda got an am style to a certain extent.

Mayweather is the one I would believe in the most (though he failed to win gold when he was amateur).

Random but i think Kostya Tszyu would have done great had he somehow gone back into amateur fighting, His style never really changed.

Margarito would lose fights by a wide margin in the amateurs, Too slow and clumsy.

Roy Jones would do terribly at the age he is now (in fact he's to old to even be allowed to fight).

Margarito wouldn't be able to catch the mobile guys at his weight.

Paul Williams... Maybe, he's got a good reach for the weight, which is a big plus in the am's.

Calzaghe... Maybe, he's kinda got an am style to a certain extent.

Mayweather is the one I would believe in the most (though he failed to win gold when he was amateur).

ooo well of course i meant a younger more active jones... about 8 yerars ago. but yea your right .. now he'd just be too tired and un-active...

Margarito?::hmm.. dont think his constant throwing would help?

I knew people would like calzaghe and williams.. its a given. No Arce? power and quickness with the activity?

and mayweather.. yea he's never strolled far from his style ever.

ooo well of course i meant a younger more active jones... about 8 yerars ago. but yea your right .. now he'd just be too tired and un-active...

Margarito?::hmm.. dont think his constant throwing would help?

I knew people would like calzaghe and williams.. its a given. No Arce? power and quickness with the activity?

and mayweather.. yea he's never strolled far from his style ever.

Calzaghe wouldn't be ALLOWED to fight in the amateurs. He slaps. He would keep getting told to punch but he just cant.

Roy Jones would do terribly at the age he is now (in fact he's to old to even be allowed to fight).

Margarito wouldn't be able to catch the mobile guys at his weight.

Paul Williams... Maybe, he's got a good reach for the weight, which is a big plus in the am's.

Calzaghe... Maybe, he's kinda got an am style to a certain extent.

Mayweather is the one I would believe in the most (though he failed to win gold when he was amateur).

Mayweather wouldnt get touched by any of these kids.. demetrius andrade looked very sloppy , alot of those kids look sloppy .. pros make u pay for your mistakes and sloppy fighting... Any top pro would beat the Amatuers, you guys are talking about champs fighting in the amatuers.. im sorry it wouldnt even be close... its like comparing colege football to professional..

Mayweather wouldnt get touched by any of these kids.. demetrius andrade looked very sloppy , alot of those kids look sloppy .. pros make u pay for your mistakes and sloppy fighting... Any top pro would beat the Amatuers, you guys are talking about champs fighting in the amatuers.. im sorry it wouldnt even be close... its like comparing colege football to professional..

What looks sloppy to you is a completely different style of fighting, dictated by the short rounds, the scoring system, and the fact that they wear better padded gloves and head gear. They fight like that because it works, and if it looks sloppy to you, well, it's clear to me that you're missing a lot of subtleties in what goes on. Stay in your bubble though, by all means. :)

ooo well of course i meant a younger more active jones... about 8 yerars ago. but yea your right .. now he'd just be too tired and un-active...

Margarito?::hmm.. dont think his constant throwing would help?

I knew people would like calzaghe and williams.. its a given. No Arce? power and quickness with the activity?

and mayweather.. yea he's never strolled far from his style ever.

Margarito's constant throwing would help anybody good facing him. You gotta really look at how these guys fight, it's far from what goes on in pro boxing. Notice how anyone trying to walk (or run) their man down gets schooled by counterpunching and footwork. 4x2 minutes is not enough time to walk a world class amateur down, and Margarito would dig his own grave trying to do it.

Don't know about Arce. He'd be at a disadvantage, because it takes an acute awareness of what you need to do to get your punches registered by the judges. You have to drill that stuff again and again, to be succesful at it, at that level, and it's just very diffeent from what he's accustomed to.

Look at Javier Molina, a good solid pro style American fighter. He got schooled so bad by Bulgarian Boris Georgiev because he didn't understand how to fight amateur style. He tried to walk him down, like any good American pro would, and that style just doesn't work. Sure Georgiev is good, but I saw him get a schooling like that, himself, a couple of months ago, by Frankie Gavin, so there are even better fighters out there.

Look out for Mexican featherweight Reyes, he's very pro style as well. As soon as he meets a top fighter, he's gonna get a lesson, because it just doesn't work under am rules.

You also have to consider that a lot of the guys you're watching at the Olympics are the Mayweather's and RJJ's of tomorrow. The reason it'll take them a few years to be top pro's is the exact same factors, only in reverse; they need to adapt the physical, technical, tactical abilities to a different style of fighting, more, and longer rounds.

It's almost two different sports, and the top guys training the right way for one will be the best at it 95% of the time.

surely a world class pro boxer with KO power, can KO a 17 yr old boy with a bodyshot?

You also have to consider that a lot of the guys you're watching at the Olympics are the Mayweather's and RJJ's of tomorrow. The reason it'll take them a few years to be top pro's is the exact same factors, only in reverse; they need to adapt the physical, technical, tactical abilities to a different style of fighting, more, and longer rounds.

It's almost two different sports, and the top guys training the right way for one will be the best at it 95% of the time.

Hey, punch, who are your favorites to shine at the olympics this year, the guys with the future in pros that is?

I thought this post would get you going Punchdrunk!

well I tend to agree with you on this subject. But I dont think that the difference between Pro and amateur is as big as the difference between a long distance runner and a sprinter. Just looking at the two types of runners there is a huge difference.

Pros can get away with alot more holding and pushing which would not be tolerated for a second in top amateur competition. So a pro who does that to his advantage couldnt in Amateur.

By the way two Ecuadorian boxers made it through the first round, I am Australian (the Aussies arent doing well) but I want to see the Ecuadorians do well as it is my adopted country, Ecuador has only once won a medal at the olympics (in walking)!

What looks sloppy to you is a completely different style of fighting, dictated by the short rounds, the scoring system, and the fact that they wear better padded gloves and head gear. They fight like that because it works, and if it looks sloppy to you, well, it's clear to me that you're missing a lot of subtleties in what goes on. Stay in your bubble though, by all means. :)

that style of fighting would not work against a mayweather, cotto or any top pro boxer... it dont matter if its 1 minute rounds.. javier molina woulda got schooled by that kid in 3 minute rounds too.. i know its slightly different but not that much different in terms of pro champs cant beat these kids.. gimme a breaak

personally, i think amature boxing should be either three or four three minute rounds. and it shouldn't have the whole three out of five judges 1 second push button scoring system. it should just be three judges scoring on a ten nine system. amature boxers coming out of the olympics shouldn't have to retool their fighting style for the pro's, the amature's should prepare them for the pro's.

You also have to consider that a lot of the guys you're watching at the Olympics are the Mayweather's and RJJ's of tomorrow. The reason it'll take them a few years to be top pro's is the exact same factors, only in reverse; they need to adapt the physical, technical, tactical abilities to a different style of fighting, more, and longer rounds.

It's almost two different sports, and the top guys training the right way for one will be the best at it 95% of the time.



Yea i can definitely understand that...

personally, i think amature boxing should be either three or four three minute rounds. and it shouldn't have the whole three out of five judges 1 second push button scoring system. it should just be three judges scoring on a ten nine system. amature boxers coming out of the olympics shouldn't have to retool their fighting style for the pro's, the amature's should prepare them for the pro's.

And that would be GREAT!!!!



Calzaghe wouldn't be ALLOWED to fight in the amateurs. He slaps. He would keep getting told to punch but he just cant.

LOL......:You_Rock_

The best am's would beat alot of pro's. The guy did say world champs, which is impossible as they are under a different rule code. Even if they did, then of course most of the am's would lose but i bet a few who are pretty much professional am's would kick arse. Cubans would be the main one's but a few others would too as they are more suited to the AM format.

they would get outpointed

different styles, basically different sports

like punchdrunk said a marathon runner and a sprinter

that style of fighting would not work against a mayweather, cotto or any top pro boxer... it dont matter if its 1 minute rounds.. javier molina woulda got schooled by that kid in 3 minute rounds too.. i know its slightly different but not that much different in terms of pro champs cant beat these kids.. gimme a breaak

Yet Mayweather and Cotto both failed when they went to the Olympics under those exact rules! Having trained to fight under totally different rules for a decade+ is not gonna enhance their chances at success. Even a blind man would see that.

Hey, punch, who are your favorites to shine at the olympics this year, the guys with the future in pros that is?

Future in the pros... Warren at flyweight, Matvey Korobov at middle, and Billy Joe Saunders and Demetrius Andrade at welter.

mayweather was ROBBED at the olypics dude, he iced that bulgarian, it was kinda close but floyd deserved to win

and the idiot saying pros would win, ITS DIFFERENT SPORTS MAN they are basically separate, the ams would school em

just like if an am was chcucked in a pro ring straight away without any adjustments to their style they would get mauled

I thought this post would get you going Punchdrunk!

well I tend to agree with you on this subject. But I dont think that the difference between Pro and amateur is as big as the difference between a long distance runner and a sprinter. Just looking at the two types of runners there is a huge difference.

Pros can get away with alot more holding and pushing which would not be tolerated for a second in top amateur competition. So a pro who does that to his advantage couldnt in Amateur.

By the way two Ecuadorian boxers made it through the first round, I am Australian (the Aussies arent doing well) but I want to see the Ecuadorians do well as it is my adopted country, Ecuador has only once won a medal at the olympics (in walking)!
I agree, it's not a perfect comparison, but the training, tactics and techniques required to succeed are quite different noneteless. That is why you see amazing amateurs like Mark Breland (who is probably top5 p4p ever at am) disappoint as pro's, and guys who didn't quite hack it as am's who go on to become all time great pro's.

BTW, Wlad would do well in these olympics.

Pros can hit harder, they just throw the right down the pipe and square the 19 year old in the face knocking him out cold.

Pros can hit harder, they just throw the right down the pipe and square the 19 year old in the face knocking him out cold.

Very real chance of that happening... Very real chance of it not happening too.

Lots of movement in the AM's.... and HEAD gear. and nice pillow gloves maybe.

It's really simple and some of the stuff written on this thread makes me wonder whether some of you box or not.

If small time gym pros went against those in the olympics they'd get killed because it's the best of the amatuers vs. small time proffessionals. But let's say we pit best vs. best. Olympic standard amatuers vs. world known pro's. I think generally the pros would win, almost all fights with the few exceptions, esp' with Cuban fighters where some of them, through out the decades, tend to be as good, if not better, than the pro's but refuse to turn professional.

Now here's some very very simple points that the braindead of you miss;

1) You always go through the amatuers. The top pros all went through the amatuers too, they know how it works, what to do and the top ones, generally, walked through the amatuers.

2) Amatuer bouts, even olympic, are fast but not as fast as many of you tend to make out. A seasoned pro' could easily keep up with the pace, knowing he needn't conserve energy which leads to #3;

3)Pro's are conditioned for 10, 12 rounds. This means if you said to them, look you're going into the olympics they'd so ok, slightly change their routine to include more bursts and use their energy which they would usually conserve. Asking a seasoned pro' to fight a 3-4 rounds is not going to scare him. If you just dumped a pro' in the olympics then maybe, just maybe, he'd find it hard to adjust for the first round. But if the Olympic commission allowed it I think only the dumbest of the dumb would continue to train for a 12 round pro' bout if the fights will only be faster but short bouts. The pro's fitness would handle it, comfortably.

4) You all talk about knock-down/out punches like they're not important in amatuer boxing because a knock down only wins 1 point and amatuers is more about points and you're not taught to knock out. Simply answer is, A) a knock out/TKO means the same in both styles, you win. B) If you take a big ass punch it effects how you fight, amatuers, who are less conditioned for these will probably find it more difficult to take it on the chin.

And i'm bored of writing basic stuff. End of the day, there's a reason why the Olympic Commission says amatuers only (with the exception of a few sports, which I don't understand) and that is because the professionals who would get into the Olympics would wipe the floor with them.

It's really simple and some of the stuff written on this thread makes me wonder whether some of you box or not.

If small time gym pros went against those in the olympics they'd get killed because it's the best of the amatuers vs. small time proffessionals. But let's say we pit best vs. best. Olympic standard amatuers vs. world known pro's. I think generally the pros would win, almost all fights with the few exceptions, esp' with Cuban fighters where some of them, through out the decades, tend to be as good, if not better, than the pro's but refuse to turn professional.

Now here's some very very simple points that the braindead of you miss;

1) You always go through the amatuers. The top pros all went through the amatuers too, they know how it works, what to do and the top ones, generally, walked through the amatuers.

2) Amatuer bouts, even olympic, are fast but not as fast as many of you tend to make out. A seasoned pro' could easily keep up with the pace, knowing he needn't conserve energy which leads to #3;

3)Pro's are conditioned for 10, 12 rounds. This means if you said to them, look you're going into the olympics they'd so ok, slightly change their routine to include more bursts and use their energy which they would usually conserve. Asking a seasoned pro' to fight a 3-4 rounds is not going to scare him. If you just dumped a pro' in the olympics then maybe, just maybe, he'd find it hard to adjust for the first round. But if the Olympic commission allowed it I think only the dumbest of the dumb would continue to train for a 12 round pro' bout if the fights will only be faster but short bouts. The pro's fitness would handle it, comfortably.

4) You all talk about knock-down/out punches like they're not important in amatuer boxing because a knock down only wins 1 point and amatuers is more about points and you're not taught to knock out. Simply answer is, A) a knock out/TKO means the same in both styles, you win. B) If you take a big ass punch it effects how you fight, amatuers, who are less conditioned for these will probably find it more difficult to take it on the chin.

And i'm bored of writing basic stuff. End of the day, there's a reason why the Olympic Commission says amatuers only (with the exception of a few sports, which I don't understand) and that is because the professionals who would get into the Olympics would wipe the floor with them.
I don't think you necessarily have to go through the amateurs in the United States to be a pro. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

It's really simple and some of the stuff written on this thread makes me wonder whether some of you box or not.

If small time gym pros went against those in the olympics they'd get killed because it's the best of the amatuers vs. small time proffessionals. But let's say we pit best vs. best. Olympic standard amatuers vs. world known pro's. I think generally the pros would win, almost all fights with the few exceptions, esp' with Cuban fighters where some of them, through out the decades, tend to be as good, if not better, than the pro's but refuse to turn professional.

Now here's some very very simple points that the braindead of you miss;

1) You always go through the amatuers. The top pros all went through the amatuers too, they know how it works, what to do and the top ones, generally, walked through the amatuers.

2) Amatuer bouts, even olympic, are fast but not as fast as many of you tend to make out. A seasoned pro' could easily keep up with the pace, knowing he needn't conserve energy which leads to #3;

3)Pro's are conditioned for 10, 12 rounds. This means if you said to them, look you're going into the olympics they'd so ok, slightly change their routine to include more bursts and use their energy which they would usually conserve. Asking a seasoned pro' to fight a 3-4 rounds is not going to scare him. If you just dumped a pro' in the olympics then maybe, just maybe, he'd find it hard to adjust for the first round. But if the Olympic commission allowed it I think only the dumbest of the dumb would continue to train for a 12 round pro' bout if the fights will only be faster but short bouts. The pro's fitness would handle it, comfortably.

4) You all talk about knock-down/out punches like they're not important in amatuer boxing because a knock down only wins 1 point and amatuers is more about points and you're not taught to knock out. Simply answer is, A) a knock out/TKO means the same in both styles, you win. B) If you take a big ass punch it effects how you fight, amatuers, who are less conditioned for these will probably find it more difficult to take it on the chin.

And i'm bored of writing basic stuff. End of the day, there's a reason why the Olympic Commission says amatuers only (with the exception of a few sports, which I don't understand) and that is because the professionals who would get into the Olympics would wipe the floor with them.

Exactly. Punch said mayweatheR and cotto Lost Olympics and they wouldn't succeed nowhere as if technically they didn't get much better as boxers since 19 years old-!!!!

You don't HAVE to, but like I said at the top, let's talk best vs. best. It'll be hard to find a top pro' boxer who hasn't been through the amatuers.

Exactly. Punch said mayweatheR and cotto Lost Olympics and they wouldn't succeed nowhere as if technically they didn't get much better as boxers since 19 years old-!!!!Whoever said that is a moron. Ignore him! Everyone knows Mayweather was robbed at the Olympics.

Exactly. Punch said mayweatheR and cotto Lost Olympics and they wouldn't succeed nowhere as if technically they didn't get much better as boxers since 19 years old-!!!!

Don't misquote me, thank you very much! ****ing read what I said before putting words in my mouth! I said they've spent a decade working on different techniques than those used in amateur boxing.

Another point you guys are forgetting (or rather, don't know, because you obviously don't know **** about top level amateur boxing), is that the amateur style has changed a lot in the last ten years, because the judging has changed. This means that the tactical and technical aspects of am fights are now very different than they were when these guys were am's.

It's really simple and some of the stuff written on this thread makes me wonder whether some of you box or not.

If small time gym pros went against those in the olympics they'd get killed because it's the best of the amatuers vs. small time proffessionals. But let's say we pit best vs. best. Olympic standard amatuers vs. world known pro's. I think generally the pros would win, almost all fights with the few exceptions, esp' with Cuban fighters where some of them, through out the decades, tend to be as good, if not better, than the pro's but refuse to turn professional.

Now here's some very very simple points that the braindead of you miss;

1) You always go through the amatuers. The top pros all went through the amatuers too, they know how it works, what to do and the top ones, generally, walked through the amatuers.

2) Amatuer bouts, even olympic, are fast but not as fast as many of you tend to make out. A seasoned pro' could easily keep up with the pace, knowing he needn't conserve energy which leads to #3;

3)Pro's are conditioned for 10, 12 rounds. This means if you said to them, look you're going into the olympics they'd so ok, slightly change their routine to include more bursts and use their energy which they would usually conserve. Asking a seasoned pro' to fight a 3-4 rounds is not going to scare him. If you just dumped a pro' in the olympics then maybe, just maybe, he'd find it hard to adjust for the first round. But if the Olympic commission allowed it I think only the dumbest of the dumb would continue to train for a 12 round pro' bout if the fights will only be faster but short bouts. The pro's fitness would handle it, comfortably.

4) You all talk about knock-down/out punches like they're not important in amatuer boxing because a knock down only wins 1 point and amatuers is more about points and you're not taught to knock out. Simply answer is, A) a knock out/TKO means the same in both styles, you win. B) If you take a big ass punch it effects how you fight, amatuers, who are less conditioned for these will probably find it more difficult to take it on the chin.

And i'm bored of writing basic stuff. End of the day, there's a reason why the Olympic Commission says amatuers only (with the exception of a few sports, which I don't understand) and that is because the professionals who would get into the Olympics would wipe the floor with them.

1. They don't all go through the amateurs. Some of the top pros didn't do so well as amateurs, and some of the top ams don't do so well as pros.

2. They are fast paced. No one ever claimed a top pro wouldn't have the stamina. My point is that they're not used to the level of activity in such a short round mentally and that takes more than a little adjustment to adapt to, just like it takes some time adjusting to the pros, where you have to settle down a little and take your time. There's also a bunch of technical aspects (more on that in #4) that are completely different, not to mention the amount of feinting, and different techniques the pros aren't accustomed to.

3. Again, not a fitness issue. And by the way, if they can't adjust in the first round, fights over, tehy've lost. As Rau'shee Warren, he'll tell you.

4. I agree KO's are the most effective way to win a fight. I have to disagree with everything else you said; it's the pro's who will have to adapt. Because of the pace of the short rounds, and the movement they're not used to (not even when Mayweather was am did he move as much as they do now), a pro will, like a top am, very rarely be able to sit down on his punches like he's used to, he'll have to use his feet a hell of a lot more than he's used to, and it may come as a surprise to you, but you don't hit as hard when you're up on your feet. Especially when you're not used to it, so this actually favors the am fighters. Add to that the bigger gloves and the headgear, and it's all in the am's favor.

Who's braindead now? :spankme:

1. They don't all go through the amateurs. Some of the top pros didn't do so well as amateurs, and some of the top ams don't do so well as pros.

2. They are fast paced. No one ever claimed a top pro wouldn't have the stamina. My point is that they're not used to the level of activity in such a short round mentally and that takes more than a little adjustment to adapt to, just like it takes some time adjusting to the pros, where you have to settle down a little and take your time. There's also a bunch of technical aspects (more on that in #4) that are completely different, not to mention the amount of feinting, and different techniques the pros aren't accustomed to.

3. Again, not a fitness issue. And by the way, if they can't adjust in the first round, fights over, tehy've lost. As Rau'shee Warren, he'll tell you.

4. I agree KO's are the most effective way to win a fight. I have to disagree with everything else you said; it's the pro's who will have to adapt. Because of the pace of the short rounds, and the movement they're not used to (not even when Mayweather was am did he move as much as they do now), a pro will, like a top am, very rarely be able to sit down on his punches like he's used to, he'll have to use his feet a hell of a lot more than he's used to, and it may come as a surprise to you, but you don't hit as hard when you're up on your feet. Especially when you're not used to it, so this actually favors the am fighters. Add to that the bigger gloves and the headgear, and it's all in the am's favor.

Who's braindead now? :spankme:

Mayweatehr wouldnt have to move he could just stand in the pocket and make the opponent miss and come back with combinations.. if u watched the cotto vs margarito fight cotto would smash these amatuers.. bigger gloves and headgear ok.. ive seen kids get knocked out in sparring so that padding thing is a bit overated.. u saw when sadam ali got hurt he fought different the rest of the way.. thats what jaycoe is saying.. if u get hit with a punch as hard as ur not used to it doesnt have to knock you out it can change the whole momentum and the way a person approaches the fight.. one counter combination of a 1, 4, 2 from cotto if it dont knock the kid out the kid is not fighting the same way after.. If Andrade goes to the pros and fought pavlik or margarito hed be knocked out in the first 3 rounds most likely the 1st with or without headgear .. so that 4 round 2 minute argument is garbage..

Andrade has a chance to become a world champ as do alot of these olympic boxers but they need to become better boxers for it to happen they are too green for the champions i dont care under what circumstances they fight.. they are still boxing

Some amateurs like Mario Kindelan would win, but alot may be battered as in general the quality is less. Even though some countrie have full time fighters, most of their comp is part time. You will get some winning, but best v best the pro's might do a job being more experienced in both fields.

Depends which pro's the top 50 Pro in the world would proberbly KO or heavily outpoint the AM's. Although it depends which AM fighter your looking at Cubans tend to be very pro like in there tendancies. Fighters like Savon, Kindelan would fair pretty well.

It's really simple and some of the stuff written on this thread makes me wonder whether some of you box or not.

If small time gym pros went against those in the olympics they'd get killed because it's the best of the amatuers vs. small time proffessionals. But let's say we pit best vs. best. Olympic standard amatuers vs. world known pro's. I think generally the pros would win, almost all fights with the few exceptions, esp' with Cuban fighters where some of them, through out the decades, tend to be as good, if not better, than the pro's but refuse to turn professional.

Now here's some very very simple points that the braindead of you miss;

1) You always go through the amatuers. The top pros all went through the amatuers too, they know how it works, what to do and the top ones, generally, walked through the amatuers.

2) Amatuer bouts, even olympic, are fast but not as fast as many of you tend to make out. A seasoned pro' could easily keep up with the pace, knowing he needn't conserve energy which leads to #3;

3)Pro's are conditioned for 10, 12 rounds. This means if you said to them, look you're going into the olympics they'd so ok, slightly change their routine to include more bursts and use their energy which they would usually conserve. Asking a seasoned pro' to fight a 3-4 rounds is not going to scare him. If you just dumped a pro' in the olympics then maybe, just maybe, he'd find it hard to adjust for the first round. But if the Olympic commission allowed it I think only the dumbest of the dumb would continue to train for a 12 round pro' bout if the fights will only be faster but short bouts. The pro's fitness would handle it, comfortably.

4) You all talk about knock-down/out punches like they're not important in amatuer boxing because a knock down only wins 1 point and amatuers is more about points and you're not taught to knock out. Simply answer is, A) a knock out/TKO means the same in both styles, you win. B) If you take a big ass punch it effects how you fight, amatuers, who are less conditioned for these will probably find it more difficult to take it on the chin.

And i'm bored of writing basic stuff. End of the day, there's a reason why the Olympic Commission says amatuers only (with the exception of a few sports, which I don't understand) and that is because the professionals who would get into the Olympics would wipe the floor with them.

shut up, have you ever had a fight? how long have you boxed for? exactly now shut up, you know little to nothing about boxing and boxing techniques. punchdrunks a ****in trainer so trying to argue with him about something you know **** all about just makes you look like a petulant little *****

Depends which pro's the top 50 Pro in the world would proberbly KO or heavily outpoint the AM's. Although it depends which AM fighter your looking at Cubans tend to be very pro like in there tendancies. Fighters like Savon, Kindelan would fair pretty well.
Plus they wil know the amateur game well. Apart from Cubans and the odd few others, very few am's are at that level though.

Still you, because you're looking at the fundamentals and not taking into consideration the human mind. Believe what you want to believe, doesn't bother me, but a top professional would beat top amatuer. Everyone is afterall entitled to their own opinion - so long as they know that if it doesn't parallel with mine they accept it's wrong :boxing: haha.

Mayweatehr wouldnt have to move he could just stand in the pocket and make the opponent miss and come back with combinations.. if u watched the cotto vs margarito fight cotto would smash these amatuers.. bigger gloves and headgear ok.. ive seen kids get knocked out in sparring so that padding thing is a bit overated.. u saw when sadam ali got hurt he fought different the rest of the way.. thats what jaycoe is saying.. if u get hit with a punch as hard as ur not used to it doesnt have to knock you out it can change the whole momentum and the way a person approaches the fight.. one counter combination of a 1, 4, 2 from cotto if it dont knock the kid out the kid is not fighting the same way after.. If Andrade goes to the pros and fought pavlik or margarito hed be knocked out in the first 3 rounds most likely the 1st with or without headgear .. so that 4 round 2 minute argument is garbage..

Andrade has a chance to become a world champ as do alot of these olympic boxers but they need to become better boxers for it to happen they are too green for the champions i dont care under what circumstances they fight.. they are still boxing

Do you watch amateur boxing at all??? Are you involved with it, at international level??? I am. Mayweather would not be able to stand in the pocket and score, because points are very rarely registered at that range. Case in point: The style of fighting that he has adapted in his years as a pro is ineffective in the amateur scoring system.

The more you guys try to come up with arguments, the more you expose your ignorance of the subtleties of boxing.

Read what I said about punching power etc., again, because you missed it first time around. Point is: the style and movement used, will take away a lot of the punching power of the pros.

just a question punch, if amateur style is so effective against pro style, why don't more people use amateur styles in pro fights? (the 4 rounders etc).

just asking, not trying to sound rude or anything.

just a question punch, if amateur style is so effective against pro style, why don't more people use amateur styles in pro fights? (the 4 rounders etc).

just asking, not trying to sound rude or anything.

Because the judging of the fights is different. The judges don't sit there and register individual punches, so running around like that will give the appearance that the other guy is dominant. The 4 rounders are preparation/education/practice/development for eventually going on to fight 8-10-12 round fights, so you want to use them to develop a style that is effective over those distances. Using a style that is effective under the am rules would be foolish, as you'll have learned nothing about howe to fight once you get to the longer fights.
If you look at some of the guys coming over, they actually are fighting more like amateurs in their first fights, it's a process. I train a couple of rookie pros myself, and we train a lot different now, so they can adapt to that different style/rules. I also train a few good ams. When they spar each other, the am guys do really well when they move around on them, setting the pace higher. the pros don't get much done if they go 4 rounds.

In any sport, you develop the best techniques to suit the rules you're competing under. In hockey, the rinks are smaller in North America than what they use in the rest of the world. that makes the game more physical. The level of success each country has, can be impacted greatly by which size rink they use at the winter Olympics, for instance.
Imagine they took away the offside rule in soccer. Would the game change? Would the tactics emplouyed need to be different? Hell yeah. It's all about adapting the right strategies and techniques for the rules you compete under. and the guys training 24-7 for a certain set of rules will generally fair a lot better than those who do not. Also remember that the best ams at the Olympics going on right now, are the RJJ's, Mayweathers, and Sugar Ray Leonards of tomorrow, so it's not like you can just say Cotto is much more talented. Why did he lose early at the Olympics then? To a guy he pummeled over a longer distance in the pros, no less. The pro style/distance suited him better, while the other guy was better under Olympic rules.

I think a few people on thread are getting a lil twisted!

This thread isn't asking "who has more skill, a professional or amateur?" Its asking how a professional would perform in the olympics. Olympic boxing has a different rule set and it takes specific tactics and strategies to win amateur bouts. This without doubt gives an experienced world class amateur the advantage over a seasoned pro who has got used to fighting 8 to 12 3 minute rounds.

Similar to what Punch was saying I'd liken it more to a 400m sprinter in a 100m race. Yes a 400m runner is naturally quick, strong and has a **** load of stamina, but they're not trained or accustomed to that drive, explosiveness and acceleration out of the starting blocks required in the 100m sprint.

It'd make quite an interesting exhibition bout though. A pro fighting under Am rules!

put a journeyman in and it would possibly be fair, but in a seasoned pro whos got some KO power and then it gets unfair... don't forget, many "boys" compete in the olympics.

this is my thoughts exactly. but you got those cuban guys. teofolio stevenson and that dude felix savon, i am pretty sure all those guys did was amateur ****. so they were ****in' around in the olympics at age 30 I would imagine because either Teo or Savon won 4 golds if my memory serves me correct. but I'm talkin' about two of the best amateur heavies ever in recent memory, so it is a rare occurance by and large...

The deal breaker and reason this is prohibited, is because alot of the good professional boxers already have very lengthy amateur resumes, thus giving them more experience than your average olympian...except maybe one of these guys from cuba who take it so serious into their 30's.

now, if they were to allow the non top professionals take place, I think it would be more evenly matched. the ones with amateur experience would still have the advantage. I think that the guys getting hit the most would be the professionals with zero amateur experience (guys who instinctually punch and slug instead of box (many ****ty pros do it) would truely get beaten down), going up against amateur olympians; with very few exceptions.