Comments Thread For: Should Amateur Records Count in Evaluating Greatness?

[ShoulderRoll]

No.

Being a great amateur doesn't make you a great pro.

[ShoulderRoll]

Three men at the pinnacle... doesn't include Loma... author is a clown.

He gave his reasoning for that. The three men at the pinnacle all won 3 gold medals.

Lomachenko only won 2.

[Ł-4-Ł]

Laszlo Papp is the one that stands out as having benefitted from his amateur career.

I think amateur accomplishments embellish one's pro career, like icing on the cake - doesn't really do much but looks nice.

What I will say is that Khan's silver medal at 17 has aged well.

[Citizen Koba]

Why on earth not? I think it's clear the question is being posed from the perspective of someone from a culture where the amateur sport is seen as largely a sideshow, a curiosity or a inferior version of the same sport, rather than as it is seen by it's participants as a sport in it's own right with it's own set of goals and accomplishments and it's own standards of what constitutes greatness.

What Hauser is actually kinda meaning here implicitly - whether deliberately or not (and having broken down some of Hausers slipperiness before I suspect that it is deliberate, he rarely writes anything without some agenda or other) - is 'should amateur records count towards professional boxing greatness'. What he's doing is framing the debate in such a way that it leads to the outcome he desires.

I think the question itself, and it's phrasing, does amateur boxing a huge disservice with the underlying assumption of it's secondary staus, which does not in any way reflect the views of most of it's participants who hold their accomplishments in the Olympics or World championships in every bit the esteem that World titles are held in the pro ranks and most likely more - and strive with no less dedication to achieve their goals.


I consider 'em like two seperate sports.... you can be a great amateur and a great professional but one doesn't necessarily require or imply the other. The elite in either sport are great boxers far as I'm concerned. If I'm going to evaluate a fighters greatness (whatever such a nebulous term means) as a boxer then of course I'm looking at their accomplishments in either or both sports, though likely I'd be careful to make a distinction about what I'm giving credit for.


I'm trying to think of a good parallel... IDK... motorsports? I don't know enough about it, but say an elite NASCAR driver crossed into formula 1 and did well but not exceptionally... would that mean he wasn't a 'great' racing driver? Or say Karelin had switched from Greco-Roman to Freestyle and lost to John Smith, would he no longer be a 'great' wrestler?

[Larry the boss]

no....................

[LoadedWraps]

By Thomas Hauser - I received an email recently from a reader who asked whether a fighter's amateur record should be considered in evaluating whether the fighter was great. It's a good question. Three fighters stand at the pinnacle of amateur boxing. Hungarian middleweight Lazlo Papp (1948, 1952, and 1956) and Cuban heavyweights Teofilo...
[Click Here To Read More]

I rate amateur experience.

Largely because I'm an amateur myself. I've been boxing for 13 years, you'll never convince me everything I know goes out the window if I "step up" in competition. I've sparred pros and amateurs both and while there are stark differences in both, fighting is fighting and boxing is boxing, the only thing that stands between an amateur like me and a professional fighter is the decision to get licensed.

I'd put money on guys with extensive and elite amateur careers like Rigo and Lomachenko over guys with less than 20 amateur fights who turn pro and don't have many pro fights. There are always exceptions, but amateur boxing is like the G league for the NBA or the minors for MLB. You can skip that step, but it won't do you any favors.

Now, when talking about a large professional body of work, amateur experience shouldn't be relevant anymore, but it isn't meaningless either.

[ShoulderRoll]

How many great amateurs has Mexico produced? Very few.

And yet how many great Mexican fighters have there been?

[Smash]

How many great amateurs has Mexico produced? Very few.

And yet how many great Mexican fighters have there been?

"Boxer Misael Rodríguez became a national hero in Mexico after securing his country’s first—and so far only—Olympic medal during the Rio 2016 games.

Less than a year ago, he was hitting bus riders for spare change to gather funds to qualify for the Olympics. He got the money—and on Monday he made it (link in Spanish) to the semi-finals"

might explain why

[DeeMoney]

The author brought up whether minor league stats for baseball players, or high school stats for basketball players should be accounted for, in evaluating for their respective hall of fames.

To be fair, amateur stats do play a part for the basketball hall of fame. They consider college, olympic, international stuff, etc. But then again that HOF has become a mess as such; good (not great) nba players have made the hof due to their work outside of the nba

[_Rexy_]

It matters as much as it does matter. They're separated, They're different sports but amateur boxing will prepare someone for the pro ranks. It's why so many guys with extensive amateur careers typically "cut in line" and don't need to face 20 club fighters before trying to sniff for a title.