Tweet
They can & do count, but there is the trouble of having too good of a amateur career that doesn't match up with your pro career that can actually downplay your greatness. Guys who had success at the highest levels in the amateurs can have successful pro careers if measured by itself but in combo with their amateur accomplishments make them seem like a pro underachiever.
-
-
Thomas Hauser, thanks for pointing out the mostly obvious.
A great amateur record does 2 things.
1/ when that fighter turns pro it's a pointer to a potentially great pro fighter - so keep an eye on this guy.
2/ at the end of a great pro career the great amateur record is like a cherry on top of that boxer's resume.
Cuba has arguably the best system for developing amateurs. The former Soviet countries do well as well.
But imo the USA has the best system for developing pro fighters especially if a prospect hooks up early with a top promoter. TR, GB and the rest have brilliant matchmakers and they know how to develop fighters careers - it's a luxury to be developed in that way.
If you come in from Cuba or Kazakhstan and you are matched tough in your 1st dozen fights then it can mess you up. Same goes for American fighters with small promoters.Comment
-
Some real good kick back on the article posted this morning. I must have missed what the question was in T.H.s article. Should amature records count? Count for what? Or was that just a lead into some facts and figures?
I always looked at the amature fights as being introduced to boxing. To go to the Olympics was a matter of pride for your country. That may be unpopular now. The question of how much that motivates a fighter has to be asked to each individual Boxer. "That" being how much of your Country and Pride pushes you to represent in the Trials and so forth.
Amature or Pro the comparison ? > Flip it.
Got some good info on boxing from the kick back on this article. So does that mean it was a great article? Or does that mean you just wrote an article that posted on an informed Forum. See its easy to flip things around if you want.Comment
-
its boxing so I take it all in. I would say a GREAT amateur career should count for like maybe 10-20%.
Depends who they fought? Also if their being looked at as great that means they had one heck of a pro career as well.
Look at the best amatuers and you'll see most made Boxing HOFame...Comment
-
Exactly! Thats why I look at both. Pro 80% say amatuer 20%.Originally posted by Eff Pandas View PostComment
-
Yes, absolutely; the amateur record should be included. Many boxers have even credited their Olympic medal as being the greatest achievement in their careers.Comment
-
The top 10 in every division say yes, it counts; I can't argue that.Comment
-
Amateur boxing is not the same sport, ffs. You win by out pitty-patting your opponent, and that in itself requires ability, but it often means very little in the pro ranks, so the answer is NO
Comment
-
Of course it should be taken into account. Fighters like Floyd, Holyfield, Leonard etc. excelled in both the amatures and pros. It's part of their background it should be mentioned and it is.Comment
-
im sure there are lots of pro boxers who have won world titles who would struggle bigtime in the ams and vice versa, two different styles and its not easy to keep winning over time in either of them so top guys are impressive, different countries attribute different focus on the ams too, winning a gold medal at the olympics is the top for some nations and sets u up as a fighterComment
Comment