What do you guys think about fighters having none or very little amature experience?

No doubt you make an excellent point here that I CAN NOT dispute. However I think a lot of it still comes back to the individual and how they take what they've experienced and learned. I can think of a lot of professionals (Juan Diaz comes to mind) who have gone through horrid loses and seems like they didn't/don't improve on anything that caused their first loses (from Campbell to Marquez). My biggest concern for an amateur with a lot of fights is the wear and tear in the long term. It's true, there's a dude in my gym that is already very very punchy from a long brutal career in the Ams, and most of it is just from sparring. That however, is nobody's fault but his and his trainers. He gets into sparring wars, and brings in a moron trainer that implores dirty tactics and wild haymakers while sparring fellow boxers from the same gym preparing for an upcoming fight. Your amateur career is much like your pro one, you have to be developed and matched up appropriately. No, you can't do this by cherry picking your opponents, but you can do it by pacing yourself and not accepting certain fights/tournaments until you're ready. It also gets you the time to find your natural fighting weight and adjust to training camps. I bet right about now Ronald Hearns, as good as he is, wishes he developed the head movement, or well timed jab needed for his high-low style, but instead of pacing himself in the amateurs he was babied as a pro and therefor rushed into a fight he clearly wasn't ready for.

if you are tough and can fight it doesnt matter Amateur experience matters a great deal. It teaches you the ability to adapt to different styles. A lot of people in my gym use high guard, a lot of counter punches, a couple southpaws, 2 ppl there are ambidextrous. On the other hand, you go into a fight with no idea what kinda fighter you're going up against, and find out he bases his style on rolling your punches and waiting on your mistakes. Suddenly you're adapting to this fight plan trying to establish your range and solve this problem. This is just one example. It's not like with the big stars, where you have months to train and prepare for a style coming up with a gameplan, it's a valuable experience that you can only get before you sign pro. It also gets you used to seeing punches coming from all angles and speeds, which is very valuable as well. This isn't to say that some people are lucky enough to have the ability to deal with this without the great am experience ala Duran/Pacquiao, but it certainly helps and is absolutely 100% essential for MOST people. No doubt you make an excellent point here that I CAN NOT dispute. However I think a lot of it still comes back to the individual and how they take what they've experienced and learned. I can think of a lot of professionals (Juan Diaz comes to mind) who have gone through horrid loses and seems like they didn't/don't improve on anything that caused their first loses (from Campbell to Marquez). My biggest concern for an amateur with a lot of fights is the wear and tear in the long term.

These days it's probably an advantage NOT to have an amateur background. The overhype and collosally flawed scoring system puts top Amatuers at a distinct disadvantage.

omfg how many threads are you going to make about the same subject you ****in retard.... **** you am surprised you had time to post on this thread your usually to busy kissing the klitschko sisters ass's

Does it count for that much, Qwai, Mudine, Mcline, Jun-Suk Hwang, Dana Rosenblatt, Khaosai Galaxy, Ola Afolabi, Librado Andred all had none or very little amature experience some went on to be good fighters others great. What are your thoughts on this different strokes for different folks. but most times amatuer experience is a good thing

Respectfully I disagree. The "streets", "prisons" are filled with "tough guys" that couldn't do ANYTHING but absorb shots in the ring. I think being "tough" is an overrated attribute and I'd take a "smart" fighter ANYDAY over it. Frist off to step into the ring, you have to have have some sense of "toughness" there. That said, back to the original question I think it depends. I think fighters with an excessive number of amateur fights (300+) can be stifled in their pro development primarily due to the sheer number of fights they've had and habits(good and bad) that they've developed. "Experience" IMO is as good as how you use it. If you've been fighting a bunch of taxi drivers, set ups, etc (hi Julio Caesar Chavez Jr), regardless of how gaudy your professional record is or lack of an amateur pedigree you have, you won't develop when you step in with "REAL" competition. For you ol skoolers, Dwight Muhammad Qawi I believe had less than 10 amateur fights and this guys was 5'7 fighting at light heavyweight at a time where that division was loaded. However because he had a DAMN good competition in the pro ranks, I'm sure he could adapt more to the steep learning curve he had to overcome despite his lack of an amateur background. One thing I don't care for that the amateur system encourages is "shoe shine" style of punching. Body punching is rarely given it's due in the amateur system (here in the US atleast) but to me, outside of "movement" this is the one clear distinction between the very good/elite fighters and just the the good ones. I wouldn't RUSH someone to be pro but I also wouldn't have them fighting so many amateur fights if I had a young charge either. This may be outside of the scope of here but I know that in tennis Venus and Serena Williams didn't play a lot of junior tennis at all. Their dad felt that he saw plenty of girls (abroad not just the US) that had an excessive amount of junior matches, turned pro very early. Then they burned out by the time they were 23 and 24. With the Williams sisters whether you're fans or not, they've been pro's for nearly 15+ years still in the the top 10 which only a handfull of women can say. I personally attribute that to NOT having played all those "junior matches". Boxing takes much more of a toll on your body than tennis so I think the logic holds true. Just my opinion. Great post, you beat me to a point I meant to add to my earlier post. The new style, where they count punches (and not so much bodyshots) is seriously hurting the future of the sport. It is encouraging a style that is not pleasant to watch. I see people losing the semi finals in the gloves where they clearly win the fight iwth a pro boxing style, but lose because they were touched up while putting in hard body work and landing effective head snapping shots. I'm hoping for a change here in the near future.

paul williams is another good example and chris eubank

Only the supreme natural talents tend to be able to transcend the limitations imposed by having no amateur experience. Incidentally I believe Galaxy was a Muay Thai fighter (like many Thai boxers) before boxing, which should count for something.

Amateur experience matters a great deal. It teaches you the ability to adapt to different styles. A lot of people in my gym use high guard, a lot of counter punches, a couple southpaws, 2 ppl there are ambidextrous. On the other hand, you go into a fight with no idea what kinda fighter you're going up against, and find out he bases his style on rolling your punches and waiting on your mistakes. Suddenly you're adapting to this fight plan trying to establish your range and solve this problem. This is just one example. It's not like with the big stars, where you have months to train and prepare for a style coming up with a gameplan, it's a valuable experience that you can only get before you sign pro. It also gets you used to seeing punches coming from all angles and speeds, which is very valuable as well. This isn't to say that some people are lucky enough to have the ability to deal with this without the great am experience ala Duran/Pacquiao, but it certainly helps and is absolutely 100% essential for MOST people.

if you are tough and can fight it doesnt matter Respectfully I disagree. The "streets", "prisons" are filled with "tough guys" that couldn't do ANYTHING but absorb shots in the ring. I think being "tough" is an overrated attribute and I'd take a "smart" fighter ANYDAY over it. Frist off to step into the ring, you have to have have some sense of "toughness" there. That said, back to the original question I think it depends. I think fighters with an excessive number of amateur fights (300+) can be stifled in their pro development primarily due to the sheer number of fights they've had and habits(good and bad) that they've developed. "Experience" IMO is as good as how you use it. If you've been fighting a bunch of taxi drivers, set ups, etc (hi Julio Caesar Chavez Jr), regardless of how gaudy your professional record is or lack of an amateur pedigree you have, you won't develop when you step in with "REAL" competition. For you ol skoolers, Dwight Muhammad Qawi I believe had less than 10 amateur fights and this guys was 5'7 fighting at light heavyweight at a time where that division was loaded. However because he had a DAMN good competition in the pro ranks, I'm sure he could adapt more to the steep learning curve he had to overcome despite his lack of an amateur background. One thing I don't care for that the amateur system encourages is "shoe shine" style of punching. Body punching is rarely given it's due in the amateur system (here in the US atleast) but to me, outside of "movement" this is the one clear distinction between the very good/elite fighters and just the the good ones. I wouldn't RUSH someone to be pro but I also wouldn't have them fighting so many amateur fights if I had a young charge either. This may be outside of the scope of here but I know that in tennis Venus and Serena Williams didn't play a lot of junior tennis at all. Their dad felt that he saw plenty of girls (abroad not just the US) that had an excessive amount of junior matches, turned pro very early. Then they burned out by the time they were 23 and 24. With the Williams sisters whether you're fans or not, they've been pro's for nearly 15+ years still in the the top 10 which only a handfull of women can say. I personally attribute that to NOT having played all those "junior matches". Boxing takes much more of a toll on your body than tennis so I think the logic holds true. Just my opinion.

You missed of the greatest fighter to have barely any amateur experience?! Roberto Duran. My fealing about boxing in general is you are born a fighter if its in your destiny as such then you will succeed in boxing, however you have to obviously want it and have that dedication but intangibles such as, Speed,a boxing mid etc cant be tought so therefore in my eyes it doesn't really matter whether you have amateur experience or not. Yeah think duran had 14 bouts and won half

the amateurs are so far removed from the pros now, that imo its better to have little amateur experience and go to straight to pros. look at the top fighters today, and tell me how many of them have a lot of amateur experience. totally agree dude, u only have to look at james degale for proof

the amateurs are so far removed from the pros now, that imo its better to have little amateur experience and go to straight to pros. look at the top fighters today, and tell me how many of them have a lot of amateur experience.

You missed of the greatest fighter to have barely any amateur experience?! Roberto Duran. My fealing about boxing in general is you are born a fighter if its in your destiny as such then you will succeed in boxing, however you have to obviously want it and have that dedication but intangibles such as, Speed,a boxing mid etc cant be tought so therefore in my eyes it doesn't really matter whether you have amateur experience or not.

Depends on what they bring to the table naturally. Some guys need to be groomed before the pros cuz they ain't blessed wit any natural athletic gifts that would aid them in boxing. Obviously, every big guy wit a 6 pk can't box.