A Good Amatuer Boxer Doesn't Always Make a Good Pro Boxer

[Poet682006]

It's a totally different sport. Those who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Firstly, the scoring system in amateur is utter crap. Mere touches with the white part of the glove score just as much as a knockdown.

Secondly, the gloves (Green Hill) stops 80% of the punch impact, according to tests.

Thirdly, to succeed in the amateurs, you need to rely entirely on a high punch output, as judges will score even when punches get blocked.

Have you ever tried being hit with a pro glove? Feels like being hit in the head with a brick. You can push your finger right through the glove and feel the knuckles.
In the pro's, you need to have some kind of strategy, because the other guy can and will knock you out if you don't. They know how you fight, your weaknesses, all that ****.

You can't compare the two sports, it's totally different.
The reason good amateurs become good professionals is technique and level of opposition. They constantly fight and train with the best, so they are among the best...

Absolutely right! It ISN'T the same sport. Do you know why gloves were introduced to the pros? It wasn't to protect the fighter getting punched, it was to protect the knuckles of the fighter doing the punching.

Poet

[eazy_mas]

But amatuer boxing have couple of idea and headstart in his career. yes it does not mean that he is going to be good pro because some people burn out when from boxing when they reach to the pro stage.

Imagine amatuer boxing as highschool and pro as college. If you do good at highschool then probably that you will do good at college that does not mean that you wont it a 100% to successed.

Some peopel in this posting saying that amatuer boxing does not help pro, yes it does but if you look closely some people have different trainers, chrisma and goals when they where in amateur then they are in pro

[Poet682006]

I think the amatuers are a great place for a young fighter to learn the basics and get in-ring experience. I just don't think success there is a bench mark for how well a fighter will do in the pros: The sports are just too different for that. Tyson was a crappy amatuer but a very good pro, but I think he was better for the experience of having spent some time in the amatuers learning.

Poet

[Technical_Skill]

I think the amatuers are a great place for a young fighter to learn the basics and get in-ring experience. I just don't think success there is a bench mark for how well a fighter will do in the pros: The sports are just too different for that. Tyson was a crappy amatuer but a very good pro, but I think he was better for the experience of having spent some time in the amatuers learning.

Poet

Was tyson crap? i had a mate who used to say he won olympic gold in seoul lol, i dont think thats true, lol, but i seen some footage of him in the am's knocking people out stone cold.

What was his record?

[Poet682006]

Was tyson crap? i had a mate who used to say he won olympic gold in seoul lol, i dont think thats true, lol, but i seen some footage of him in the am's knocking people out stone cold.

What was his record?

Tyson didn't even make the Olympic team. His two losses to Henry Tillman eliminated him.

Poet

[Feint]

This is correct, a good amateur will not always make a good pro. But I would also say it is true that a poor amateur is almost assured to never be a good pro fighter either.

I would put my money on a good amateur to have a good pro career rather than someone who wasn’t. So while it's not an automatic indication of possible success, I still think it is a good one.

[Technical_Skill]

Tyson didn't even make the Olympic team. His two losses to Henry Tillman eliminated him.

Poet

Terrible, and he became the most dangerous fighter ever imo, i cant understand how anyone could beat tyson in the am's he just hits so hard and there is such an emphasis on head shots in the am's.

[Poet682006]

Was tyson crap? i had a mate who used to say he won olympic gold in seoul lol, i dont think thats true, lol, but i seen some footage of him in the am's knocking people out stone cold.

What was his record?

Terrible, and he became the most dangerous fighter ever imo, i cant understand how anyone could beat tyson in the am's he just hits so hard and there is such an emphasis on head shots in the am's.

Because lots of pitty-pat punches are worth a LOT more than a few hard shots. A light jag counts the same as a knockdown. Also it's not easy at all to get a KO in the amatuers with the over-sized gloves and the huge padded headgear.

Poet

[tyson]

Terrible, and he became the most dangerous fighter ever imo, i cant understand how anyone could beat tyson in the am's he just hits so hard and there is such an emphasis on head shots in the am's.

Tyson had a record of 24-3 in the amateurs, me think.
As I stated earlier, the gloves in amateur protect alot more than in the pro's, so it's impossible to KO all opponents in the non-paid ranks...

[Technical_Skill]

Because lots of pitty-pat punches are worth a LOT more than a few hard shots. A light jag counts the same as a knockdown. Also it's not easy at all to get a KO in the amatuers with the over-sized gloves and the huge padded headgear.

Poet

Guess so, i have seen him knock people out in the am's but i get what u mean,

Another example of amatuer style boxing being changed to fit the pro game is lennox lewis, people seem to forget that he was more of a brawler type fighter in the beggining of his pro career, then he re-invented himself to use his height better and hide behind a jab.