Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[ShoulderRoll]

You don't agree, that long-time top amateurs like Loma, Usyk, Rigondeaux, Beterbiev, benefitted so much from their extensive amateur experience - that they were ready to more or less immediately (within a dozen of so fights) go for a world title, once they turned pro?

What I agree with is that today's boxers would be better (and so would the trainers) if they had the experience of 200+ pro fights.

In your praise for long amateur careers you seemed to give less value to professional experience, when pro experience would in fact be superior for turning out professionals. In my opinion.

[Bundana]

What I agree with is that today's boxers would be better (and so would the trainers) if they had the experience of 200+ pro fights.

In your praise for long amateur careers you seemed to give less value to professional experience, when pro experience would in fact be superior for turning out professionals. In my opinion.

Why is it so hard for you to say that... yes, in some recent cases, with a backgroung in a long, distinguished amateur career, we have seen some boxers shoot to the top of the pro game in record time. Something that would surely not have happened with Loma, Rigondeax, Usyk, etc., if they had turned pro at an early age, with no spectacular amateur career behind them. How can anyone disagree with that?

What historical evidence makes you think, that today's boxers would be better with the experience of 200+ pro fights?

[billeau2]

One way to look at this is "differences" between the two systems without qualifying either as "better" or "worse." With that said, the idea that a professional is the top of the skills department makes sense... It is logical. So there are two sets of qualifications to look upon:

1. The distinct skill sets required to "game" each approach.
2. The notion that professional prize fighting is the top of the food chain.

The problem as I see it, is how these two approaches are bleeding into each other. Professional prize fighting is looking more and more like Amateur fighting. And... this has been a complaint made by many trainers in the past.

[ShoulderRoll]

What historical evidence makes you think, that today's boxers would be better with the experience of 200+ pro fights?

Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore...all had over 200 fights.

All are generally regarded as masters of the craft of boxing.

You get better at stuff the more you do it. 200+ fights is excessive, frankly. But I would love to see boxers today getting into the 100's of pro bouts at least.

[QueensburyRules]

Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore...all had over 200 fights.

All are generally regarded as masters of the craft of boxing.

You get better at stuff the more you do it. 200+ fights is excessive, frankly. But I would love to see boxers today getting into the 100's of pro bouts at least.

- - Robby near 100 AMa unbeaten fights with maybe one loss, possibly to Willie Pep.

Let's not kid ourselves that he and Joe Louis turned pro as Ama stars with gates already guaranteed like Loma, Ali, Frazier, and Foreman.

[Bundana]

Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Archie Moore...all had over 200 fights.

All are generally regarded as masters of the craft of boxing.

You get better at stuff the more you do it. 200+ fights is excessive, frankly. But I would love to see boxers today getting into the 100's of pro bouts at least.

Sure they had... and that's your proof, that having a 200+ pro career is good for you?

I think, it may be a common belief that, back during the depression years (1920s and 30s), lots and lots of busy fighters had this amount of fights, in order to put food on the table. But this is simply not true!

In fact, very few boxers, ever reached this number. 123 can be found in the BoxRec database - for all of boxing's gloved history! Many of these were low-level journeymen, who made a career of losing fights against opponents, seeking to pad their record with easy wins against no-hopers. Quite a few had in excess of 100 losses on their records - some even more than 200! So just because you had 200 career fights as a pro, doesn't mean you were a top boxer - or even reasonably good.

Of course there are indeed some very good boxers among the 123. Some of the best ever, in fact. Like the 3 you mention... but hardly something to suggest that, generally speaking, this amount of pro fights is likely to produce great fighters.

Also, why is it impossible for you to answer this simple question: Do you, or don't you, think it's likely, that guys like Loma, Usyk, Rigondeaux, etc. reached the top of the pro game so quickly, thanks in no small part to their amateur accomplishments?

[Willie Pep 229]

Sure they had... and that's your proof, that having a 200+ pro career is good for you?

I think, it may be a common belief that, back during the depression years (1920s and 30s), lots and lots of busy fighters had this amount of fights, in order to put food on the table. But this is simply not true!

In fact, very few boxers, ever reached this number. 123 can be found in the BoxRec database - for all of boxing's gloved history! Many of these were low-level journeymen, who made a career of losing fights against opponents, seeking to pad their record with easy wins against no-hopers. Quite a few had in excess of 100 losses on their records - some even more than 200! So just because you had 200 career fights as a pro, doesn't mean you were a top boxer - or even reasonably good.

Of course there are indeed some very good boxers among the 123. Some of the best ever, in fact. Like the 3 you mention... but hardly something to suggest that, generally speaking, this amount of pro fights is likely to produce great fighters.

Also, why is it impossible for you to answer this simple question: Do you, or don't you, think it's likely, that guys like Loma, Usyk, Rigondeaux, etc. reached the top of the pro game so quickly, thanks in no small part to their amateur accomplishments?

Skill wise I have no opinion worth discussion at your level.

Politically speaking (in the fight game) they would not have reached the those levels without the supposed pedigree the amateur medals afforded them.

In other words, promoters, managers, and broadcasters would have moved more slowly towards investment and they would likely have had to prove themseleves with considerably more low levels fights to gain attention.

But I suspose that's not the point your making.

I agree with the other guy's post, in that more professional experience has to make these guys better.

Just to play what if: (With some contradiction to what I just said,) let's take Teofimo Lopez.

Despite not having the medals, his amateur career was extensive and he ended up a bridesmaid to several medal winners, so when he entered the pros there was money, a manager, and the WBC waiting, ready to make a quick buy-in. So he got the Loma like deal. (He's done OK with it, but so far only OK.)

Where would Lopez be today if he had been brought up the "old way"? What if he had fought every few months from late 2016 to today? He would have maybe 35 + fights.

Would you be more likely, or less likely, to bet on him come his next outing?

[ShoulderRoll]

Sure they had... and that's your proof, that having a 200+ pro career is good for you?

I think, it may be a common belief that, back during the depression years (1920s and 30s), lots and lots of busy fighters had this amount of fights, in order to put food on the table. But this is simply not true!

In fact, very few boxers, ever reached this number. 123 can be found in the BoxRec database - for all of boxing's gloved history! Many of these were low-level journeymen, who made a career of losing fights against opponents, seeking to pad their record with easy wins against no-hopers. Quite a few had in excess of 100 losses on their records - some even more than 200! So just because you had 200 career fights as a pro, doesn't mean you were a top boxer - or even reasonably good.

Of course there are indeed some very good boxers among the 123. Some of the best ever, in fact. Like the 3 you mention... but hardly something to suggest that, generally speaking, this amount of pro fights is likely to produce great fighters.

Also, why is it impossible for you to answer this simple question: Do you, or don't you, think it's likely, that guys like Loma, Usyk, Rigondeaux, etc. reached the top of the pro game so quickly, thanks in no small part to their amateur accomplishments?

Like I said, 200+ is a little excessive. What does the BoxRec database say about the number of fighters with 100+ professional fights?

As to your question...I believe those guys reached the top of the MODERN pro game because their amateur careers exposed them to more boxing than many of their MODERN peers. Of course when Lomachenko ran into an experienced vet in Salido (with 56 pro bouts but minimal if any amateur bouts) suddenly it wasn't so easy.

Would the names you mentioned have been able to rise in the pro ranks just as quickly back in the 1920's-1940's? When the scene was full of experienced fighters? I suspect not.

But again, that's just my opinion.

[Bundana]

Skill wise I have no opinion worth discussion at your level.

Politically speaking (in the fight game) they would not have reached the those levels without the supposed pedigree the amateur medals afforded them.

In other words, promoters, managers, and broadcasters would have moved more slowly towards investment and they would likely have had to prove themseleves with considerably more low levels fights to gain attention.

But I suspose that's not the point your making.

I agree with the other guy's post, in that more professional experience has to make these guys better.

Just to play what if: (With some contradiction to what I just said,) let's take Teofimo Lopez.

Despite not having the medals, his amateur career was extensive and he ended up a bridesmaid to several medal winners, so when he entered the pros there was money, a manager, and the WBC waiting, ready to make a quick buy-in. So he got the Loma like deal. (He's done OK with it, but so far only OK.)

Where would Lopez be today if he had been brought up the "old way"? What if he had fought every few months from late 2016 to today? He would have maybe 35 + fights.

Would you be more likely, or less likely, to bet on him cone his next outing?

No, the point I'm making, is that someone like Loma (for example), with amateur accomplishments as incredible as his, was already so good when he turned pro, that he was able to go after the top of his division almost right away - without having to first go through dozens of pro "learning fights" against inferior opposition. I don't know, how anyone can disagree with that!

This doesn't mean, that I believe amateur fights are more important than pro fights - when it comes to developing ATG talent. Not at all... In fact, I believe Loma waited far to long before making the jump to the pro ranks. He should have gone over right after the first Olympic gold, imo... instead of waiting a whole year after winning his second Gold! This would have given him an additional 5 years to (possibly) develop into a truly great boxer... an opportunity which he sadly missed!

[Bundana]

Like I said, 200+ is a little excessive. What does the BoxRec database say about the number of fighters with 100+ professional fights?

As to your question...I believe those guys reached the top of the MODERN pro game because their amateur careers exposed them to more boxing than many of their MODERN peers. Of course when Lomachenko ran into an experienced vet in Salido (with 56 pro bouts but minimal if any amateur bouts) suddenly it wasn't so easy.

Would the names you mentioned have been able to rise in the pro ranks just as quickly back in the 1920's-1940's? When the scene was full of experienced fighters? I suspect not.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong... but I don't believe BoxRec has a specific section for boxers with at least 100 pro fights! I would guess, that over the years there must have been several thousand such fighters.

No, I don't think Loma, and fighters like him, would have been able to rise to the top as quickly 80-100 years ago. The opportunities (exposure, backing by TV) weren't there for a new pro - no matter how good!