Am vs. Pro Success: Looking at U.S. Medalists

There wouldn't be many cuts if olympic boxers fought without headgear because most of them are outside fighters to begin with.

If you take away head gear in the amateurs guys would likely learn to be much more careful with their heads which would stop with the sloppy rushing in head first you see constantly from guys in the pros currently. The majority of cuts come from clashes of heads, they can be avoided however most of the time.

No headgear? So if the Cuban favourite was winning his first bout by 10 points, but then gets a cut forcing him out of the competition, would you be happy. Head gear is necessary. It doesn't stop fighters from getting hurt, it stops them from cuts and bruises. Headgear was introduced to Olympic boxing in 1984. For decades before then, Olympians wore no head protection. As has been pointed out, the gear was originally intended to protect against brain injuries. However, the equipment really only protects against cuts. What really brings about brain damage is the organ bouncing around inside the skull, which is caused by blows to the head. If a Cuban, or anyone else for that matter, is stopped by a cut...oh, well. That's boxing. But, as has also been pointed out, cuts in Olympic boxing was never a big issue to begin with. I think it was Teddy Atlas that recently said Olympic boxing has become "fencing with gloves." I have to agree. The sport is becoming unrecognizable. At this rate, they'll have to rename it. Olympic boxing needs to be saved before it regresses even further.

This. People calling for no head gear really have not thought it through there will be people winning medals because there opponent was not in a fit state to fight because of the cut he got in the previous round. The Ams are set up this way for a reason no headgear is a bad idea imo And how often did that happen in the past when there was no head gear?

This. People calling for no head gear really have not thought it through there will be people winning medals because there opponent was not in a fit state to fight because of the cut he got in the previous round. The Ams are set up this way for a reason no headgear is a bad idea imo That didn't happen that often in the old days and cuts and bruises are part of boxing. Plus, the fights were better then. I love no headgear. Headgear came about because they believed it could aid against head injury (i.e brain). Cuts are a smaller part of that.

No headgear? So if the Cuban favourite was winning his first bout by 10 points, but then gets a cut forcing him out of the competition, would you be happy. Head gear is necessary. It doesn't stop fighters from getting hurt, it stops them from cuts and bruises. This. People calling for no head gear really have not thought it through there will be people winning medals because there opponent was not in a fit state to fight because of the cut he got in the previous round. The Ams are set up this way for a reason no headgear is a bad idea imo

The rule changes have watered down Olympic boxing. I don't think there's much question to that. I'd like to see a return to something more closely resembling the pro game (no headgear, real judging of rounds, etc.). Adjustments will always be necessary when transitioning from amateur to pro. With the old system there was less adjustment necessary, therefore greater chance of success. Nonetheless, I do believe that the cream always rises to the top. This isn't to say, as you point out, that others can't have success. It just increases the odds, in my opinion, if a fighter is a decorated Olympian. No headgear? So if the Cuban favourite was winning his first bout by 10 points, but then gets a cut forcing him out of the competition, would you be happy. Head gear is necessary. It doesn't stop fighters from getting hurt, it stops them from cuts and bruises.

This excludes 80, which would have had Sandoval and Curry included, because they didn't compete. What I find interesting is that more guys without medals began finding success after the rules change. It somewhat substantiates the whole style question though only at a quick glance. Guys like Morel, Vargas, and Viloria succeeded despite Olympic issues. The rule changes have watered down Olympic boxing. I don't think there's much question to that. I'd like to see a return to something more closely resembling the pro game (no headgear, real judging of rounds, etc.). Adjustments will always be necessary when transitioning from amateur to pro. With the old system there was less adjustment necessary, therefore greater chance of success. Nonetheless, I do believe that the cream always rises to the top. This isn't to say, as you point out, that others can't have success. It just increases the odds, in my opinion, if a fighter is a decorated Olympian.

So, from 76-04, more than fifty percent of U.S. Olympic medalists won professional titles. I think that's pretty good, considering that many didn't win gold. I've always said that the best Olympians have a significantly better chance at success in the pros than the average pro rookie. This excludes 80, which would have had Sandoval and Curry included, because they didn't compete. What I find interesting is that more guys without medals began finding success after the rules change. It somewhat substantiates the whole style question though only at a quick glance. Guys like Morel, Vargas, and Viloria succeeded despite Olympic issues.

Just goofing around this morning and came up with this (forgive if I missed one here or there...just playing with a pend and pad): Of 26 U.S. medalists 76-88, 16 pros won major titles. No non-medalists appear to have won titles. Of the 15 to medal 92-04, 8 have won pro titles with 9 non-medalists also winning pro belts. So, from 76-04, more than fifty percent of U.S. Olympic medalists won professional titles. I think that's pretty good, considering that many didn't win gold. I've always said that the best Olympians have a significantly better chance at success in the pros than the average pro rookie.

this post confuses me.. Sorry mate