Did Lomencheko set a new standard for Olympic Gold Medalist?

[NEETzsche]

I hope that experienced amateurs who turn pro a little later than usual will be moved quicker from now on, especially those who are already accustomed to five rounders from the WSB

[LoadedWraps]

depends how experienced they are. Lomachenko is an extreme case though in terms of how quickly hes been moved. i do think the fighters with hundreds of amateur wins and gold medals should be moved on quickly. They should be good enough to bypass the domestic scenes pretty quick and get to fringe world level after 10 or so fights. No need for them to fight bums at start of career and blow them out within a round or 2.

I agree with most of this but the last part.

Yes, the better / more experienced amateurs should move more quickly as a pro, but at the same time, even the most experienced amateurs will face a learning curve in the pros, and fighters are built they way they are built matchmaking wise because it makes sense to do so for all parties involved.

How you perform in those first 5 or so fights, coming into the pro game as an elite amateur should determine where you go from there in the short term.

[TheCell8]

Lomachenko turned pro at 25 with almost 400 amateur fights under his belt, 2 gold medals and several world championships under his belt fight top level amateurs throughout that time. So if there was ever a fighter that was ready to jump in the deep end, it was him.

You can't expect younger fighters who win gold medals to do the same thing. James DeGale for example, won his gold medal but only had like less than 100 amateur fights. There was no way he would have been able to survive if he got matched up with Joe Calzaghe, Lucian Bute or Mikkel Kessler, who were the champions in 2008. He still needed more experience.

[Boxfan83]

Regarding the OP.

Lomachenko is kinda in a class of his own. I hope he motivates boxers to speed up the rate of their career and take more risks in general.

I agree. 1 of the big issues i read on NSB is fans complaining about people having fought a bunch of cans. Y not start off strong?

[Boxfan83]

I agree with most of this but the last part.

Yes, the better / more experienced amateurs should move more quickly as a pro, but at the same time, even the most experienced amateurs will face a learning curve in the pros, and fighters are built they way they are built matchmaking wise because it makes sense to do so for all parties involved.

How you perform in those first 5 or so fights, coming into the pro game as an elite amateur should determine where you go from there in the short term.

So r u saying an elite pro should have at least 5 fights b4 a title shot?

[Boxfan83]

Lomachenko turned pro at 25 with almost 400 amateur fights under his belt, 2 gold medals and several world championships under his belt fight top level amateurs throughout that time. So if there was ever a fighter that was ready to jump in the deep end, it was him.

You can't expect younger fighters who win gold medals to do the same thing. James DeGale for example, won his gold medal but only had like less than 100 amateur fights. There was no way he would have been able to survive if he got matched up with Joe Calzaghe, Lucian Bute or Mikkel Kessler, who were the champions in 2008. He still needed more experience.

But at the same time there have been younger champs in boxing with lil to no amateur experience. Winning a gold medal and then spending years fighting 4-8rd fights is a waste of time.

[j0zef]

Depends on experience and age. Someone liked Rigo, Luis Ortiz or Katie Taylor who turned pro very late need to be matched tough early on, say after 2 fights.

A good amateur who turns pro in mid 20s, like Loma or Michael Conlan should take ~a year and 5-10 acclimation fights to be ready for big time. I do like what Loma is doing. He's said he doesn't want to waste any time and wants to fight the best off the bat. Even the loss to Salido doesn't seem to bother him. He's on a path of achieving boxing perfection rather than anything else (fame, money, etc).

[Eff Pandas]

I feel like the answer is no, but I'm hoping its yes. For other examples I do feel like Usyk was moved up quick to where he is now which is #1 at CW in my eyes. Beterbiev is still a relative noob to pro boxing yet is probably within 2 fights of a title shot. Even Shiming had a title fight in his 6th or 7th fight iirc. So it feels like its happening more with top amateurs being thrown into deeper world class water sooner, but these guys could just be some well established amateurs who transitioned quicker than normal & are more an anomaly than a trend.

[yngwie]

Loma biggest advantage was that he had the WSB experience, something that none olympian ever had before 2012 and what he did was never seen before, Rademacher lost against Paterson in his first fight and then fought Zora Folley, but he lost against him too, Lomachenko beat Gary Russell in his next fight.
I don't think an olympian should take more than 4 years to fight for a title, but no one should be rushed like Lomachenko unless that fighter is special.

[yngwie]

Loma biggest advantage was that he had the WSB experience, something that none olympian ever had before 2012 and what he did was never seen before, Rademacher lost against Paterson in his first fight and then fought Zora Folley, but he lost against him too, Lomachenko beat Gary Russell in his next fight.
I don't think an olympian should take more than 4 years to fight for a title, but no one should be rushed like Lomachenko unless that fighter is special.