USSR pro boxing

[tonyjones]

Can someone tell me what the details of when Eastern European fighters weren't allowed fight (dates),also what difference do ye think the differences in boxing history would they be if some of these fighters were around?

[The Old LefHook]

Can someone tell me what the details of when Eastern European fighters weren't allowed fight (dates),also what difference do ye think the differences in boxing history would they be if some of these fighters were around?

If Stalin had recruited pro fighters out of his gulags, I can easily see them dominating the world professional classes at that time, because few peoples have known as severe and extended a hardship as Stalin imposed on his own subjects, and I believe there is a mathematical relationship between hardship and toughness.

[billeau2]

I was thinking about answering the OP but didn't have a real sense of what the question was....IF I understand the Op and he is subsequently asking about the Eastern Euro fighters then one would probably go back to a certain trioka of fight/athletic programs. There was a time when the amateur system was quite impressive and was every bit as competative as the professional ranks, to a degree. That degree is a matter of opinion... How would Felix Savon have done against a professional American Heavy weight?

What we do know is that many of the best professionals fought in the Olmpics and faced some fabulous competition. With that in mind:

The three programs were the United States, with the many professionals involved, the style was more open and fluid, an emphasis on creativity and technique....then there was the Cuban program. The Cubans were very technically oriented, very well trained in all aspects and did not emphasise innovations so much as really well developed fundamentals....

Then we had the Soviet Bloc....Eastern Communist level athletic enhancing strategies. This system relied on psychological and physical training to win...what these guys had was training in the fundamentals, and very strong psychological and physical training. The Eastern bloc fighters were a success, many of them often beat the Cuban and American fighters. I know that Telepayo Stevenson lost to a few Soviets and in my estimation there was none better than TS!

So the fighters that we see today are the generation after those guys. I would say the eastern guys tend to be well conditioned, lack power and precise cutting edge technique, but are always well trained to a point and will often win fights against more inconsistant fighters...think Brewster losing to Liakovitch (spelling?).

[tonyjones]

I was thinking about answering the OP but didn't have a real sense of what the question was....IF I understand the Op and he is subsequently asking about the Eastern Euro fighters then one would probably go back to a certain trioka of fight/athletic programs. There was a time when the amateur system was quite impressive and was every bit as competative as the professional ranks, to a degree. That degree is a matter of opinion... How would Felix Savon have done against a professional American Heavy weight?

What we do know is that many of the best professionals fought in the Olmpics and faced some fabulous competition. With that in mind:

The three programs were the United States, with the many professionals involved, the style was more open and fluid, an emphasis on creativity and technique....then there was the Cuban program. The Cubans were very technically oriented, very well trained in all aspects and did not emphasise innovations so much as really well developed fundamentals....

Then we had the Soviet Bloc....Eastern Communist level athletic enhancing strategies. This system relied on psychological and physical training to win...what these guys had was training in the fundamentals, and very strong psychological and physical training. The Eastern bloc fighters were a success, many of them often beat the Cuban and American fighters. I know that Telepayo Stevenson lost to a few Soviets and in my estimation there was none better than TS!

So the fighters that we see today are the generation after those guys. I would say the eastern guys tend to be well conditioned, lack power and precise cutting edge technique, but are always well trained to a point and will often win fights against more inconsistant fighters...think Brewster losing to Liakovitch (spelling?).

Yeah sorry my question was a bit confusing but you raised a lot of good points.i think it would of been very interesting to see if there had not been a ban how the heavyweights of the 70s or the four kings of the 80s would have been affected

[Humean]

Can someone tell me what the details of when Eastern European fighters weren't allowed fight (dates),also what difference do ye think the differences in boxing history would they be if some of these fighters were around?

The Soviet Union lasted from 1922-1991 and professional sports was not considered in keeping with the communist ethos. If the best Soviet fighters from the 1950s to the 1980s had been in the pro ranks then certainly there would have been an increase in talent in the various weight classes and the history would certainly have been different. However in a sense it makes little sense to speculate about that because the reason that the Soviet's were producing so many talented (amateur) boxers was because they were a totalitarian communist regime heavily funding and organizing sporting talent.

[billeau2]

Yeah sorry my question was a bit confusing but you raised a lot of good points.i think it would of been very interesting to see if there had not been a ban how the heavyweights of the 70s or the four kings of the 80s would have been affected

No problem just wanted to make sure I was on the right trak! Yes It would have been.

[billeau2]

The Soviet Union lasted from 1922-1991 and professional sports was not considered in keeping with the communist ethos. If the best Soviet fighters from the 1950s to the 1980s had been in the pro ranks then certainly there would have been an increase in talent in the various weight classes and the history would certainly have been different. However in a sense it makes little sense to speculate about that because the reason that the Soviet's were producing so many talented (amateur) boxers was because they were a totalitarian communist regime heavily funding and organizing sporting talent.

And today if we look at Russian and Cuban programs, there are more professional athletes and the amateur programs are imo not as strong. We also see that atletes from these countries do well as professional fighters. So that seems to be an interesting correlation.

[Humean]

And today if we look at Russian and Cuban programs, there are more professional athletes and the amateur programs are imo not as strong. We also see that atletes from these countries do well as professional fighters. So that seems to be an interesting correlation.

The Cubans are still strong though, perhaps they won't be so much in the years to come. The Russians are still doing well too as are a number of countries from the former Soviet Union, the two that most spring to mind are Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

[Ben Bolt]

If the best Soviet fighters from the 1950s to the 1980s had been in the pro ranks then certainly there would have been an increase in talent in the various weight classes and the history would certainly have been different.

If the Soviet Union had set its mind on being #1 in pro boxing, their fighters had probably dominated most weight classes.

Like the Soviet hockey players, all (skilled) boxers would have had high military ranks, and been in military (i.e. training) camps for at least 11 months a year. And they had been surrounded by top trainers, scientists and specialist doctors who had stuffed 'em with performance-enhancing drugs.

Luckily, Soviet fought its cold sports war against US in other areas (boxing was never its priority), so today we escape what would have been a heated discussion about which Soviet "ATGs" of the past were doped or not ... (Really, they all had been.)

[Humean]

If the Soviet Union had set its mind on being #1 in pro boxing, their fighters had probably dominated most weight classes.

Like the Soviet hockey players, all (skilled) boxers would have had high military ranks, and been in military (i.e. training) camps for at least 11 months a year. And they had been surrounded by top trainers, scientists and specialist doctors who had stuffed 'em with performance-enhancing drugs.

Luckily, Soviet fought its cold sports war against US in other areas (boxing was never its priority), so today we escape what would have been a heated discussion about which Soviet "ATGs" of the past were doped or not ... (Really, they all had been.)

Well doping from the other sides would also likely have increased. Unfortunately precious few boxers, and indeed athletes in general, ever come forward to admit that they were doping even though it is likely that the majority of athletes were doping throughout history. I'd be interested in hearing about all the various doping practices of the various ATG boxers.

That possibility of Soviet pro-boxers could never have happened though, to them pro-boxing was simply a capitalist aberration. Amateur boxing was the 'real' sport of boxing.