Originally posted by killakali
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why do people praise guys with long amateur careers?
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Motorcity Cobra View PostNobody respects a fully grown 24 year old beating up on teenagers. That's why everybody is against pros fighting in the Olympics.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by killakali View Posti did. look at errol spence and oscar valdez. almost the same age as lomachenko when they turned pro
Comment
-
Originally posted by Motorcity Cobra View PostAnd they are the exception as well. Three out of 100 is 3%. Guys that turn amateur at a later age are usually guys who started fighting later. Guys who are decent amateurs but wouldn't really be a good pro. Cubans who have no other choice. And guys who are good enough to be pros but for some reason they want to beat up on younger competition and lower skill level. That's why I'm not impressed about the dominant reign of Cuban gold medalist who beat up teens. They didn't have a choice but fighting guys below your skill level doesn't impress me. We saw what happened when a praised amateur got into the ring with a journeyman who knew every trick in the book. Amateur's don't prepare you for that. Fighting lesser skilled journeyman early on your pro career preparers you for that.
Using your example we should ridicule Tim Duncan and Peyton Manning for staying in school 4 years and facing inferior competition instead of turning pro earlier to get better competition and schooling. smh
Comment
-
It's not that rare for fighting to turn Pro in their mid 20's these days? I know Froch was about 25. The likes of Postol, Wilder, Kovalev and many more were all around mid 20's, give or take a few years. It's not that uncommon
Anyway, i totally understand the point you're trying to make though but the likes Loma and Rigo were great amateurs even when they were the young fighter fighting and beating the older men, that's why they're praised and why they won so many medals and competition. They had been winning since they were the kids, which is they they're such decorated fighters.
Could they have turned pro earlier and competed? yeah, of course but it's not their fault that younger amateurs weren't coming through and better than them, like they did as kids.
You're taking the words "amateur" and "professional" a bit too literally maybe. You could easily translate your logic all the way to the professional game and just say "why should Andre Ward get any praise for any win, when he's clearly just more skilled than all his opponents so far??" - well, that's not his fault is it?
With that said, i don't think pro's should be allowed in the olympics. A lot of amateurs get their funding and motivation to go to the olympics and it can springboard their careers into the pro game, so i don't think it's fair for a guy already in the pro game to take a step back and take the place of somebody who needs it more.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paulie Walnuts View PostPeople saying Pros competing in the Olympics is dangerous etc don't seem to realise there's fighters as good as the best Pros competing in the amateurs anyway. Lomachenko is a good example, so is Rigondeaux. "Amateur" and "Pro" has nothing to do with skill level.
Comment
Comment