Does Olympic success/ participation have any bearing on success as a pro?

To try and stimulate some sort of debate i was wondering if gold medalists go on to always be the best fighters, or have bronze and silver medalists been more successful in making the transition as a pro? I mean Ali and Tyson have gold medals, but then again so does Audley Harrison. Floyd only got bronze I believe, Froch didnt get through the trials but won a medal at the world championships. Is it a good foundation to become a pro? Or does that only apply to certain fighters? Tyson didn't make the olympic team. But having a gold medal means you fight stiffs, than you fight the weakest Champ of the 4 to win a Alphabet soup title. Than you fight a bunch of has been name fighters to make it look like you beat a great champion so it does help to an extent. Tyson knock out Hemry Tillman the Gold medalist as a pro for your information

The only thing IMO the olympics will do is turn you into a big earner much quicker ala ODLH, Leonard etc. Even though you still need to prove your worth after a few fights.

Im a fan of the amateur game but it more or less takes the gritty tough guy part of boxing out,it suits a certain style also an interesting fact is 85% of bouts where whoever is leading the first round wins the fight

Not really, audley Harrison is 1 that comes to mind. What it does do tho is help making u crazy money early on in ur career. Harrison was given a deal with BBC worth more than a £1,000,000 when he turned pro, same with khan (with ITV I believe). Also James degale made £300,000 (470,000 dollars) 4 a British title fight when some world title fighters don't make that much. Also u can get sponsors.

Tyson had gold at the junior Olympics

I don't think it means that much it's down to whether you have the style for the pros or not and how well they adapt there style once they turn over . Out of all the gold winners this year I bet only a few will do reach world level as a pro

I mean Ali and Tyson have gold medals, but then again so does Audley Harrison. Tyson doesn't have a gold medal. He never even made it to the Olympics.

Tyson won gold? Guess you learn something made up I mean new every day.

Olympic success isn't necessarily needed to have great success as a Pro, but it most certainly helps.

To try and stimulate some sort of debate i was wondering if gold medalists go on to always be the best fighters, or have bronze and silver medalists been more successful in making the transition as a pro? I mean Ali and Tyson have gold medals, but then again so does Audley Harrison. Floyd only got bronze I believe, Froch didnt get through the trials but won a medal at the world championships. Is it a good foundation to become a pro? Or does that only apply to certain fighters? It only applies to certain fighters, some are never able to make a full, successful transition to the pro ranks. Two examples stand out...Mark Breland, who was one of the greatest amateur fighters ever had success as a pro, but not near what was predicted for him. The other is Howard Davis who not only won gold at the 1976 Olympics but was named the most outstanding boxer over future ATG's Micheal Spinks and Sugar Ray Leonard. For any fighter though its a good foundation to becoming a pro. You simply can't find any stiffer competition in the amateur ranks.

Only a minority of olympic medalists end up becoming worldclass boxers. Look at Ring Magazine's top 10 P4P, only 3 of them won an olympic medal.

Yes because it opens doors , its an insight into your pro potential in both ability and marketability , it really is a GOLD medal .