I may even take the PAL out because of the numerous other tournaments a lot of top boxers have to hedge their bets on what tourneys will be the most well attended. It's hard for coaches, boxers and families to travel so they (We) have to select the ones that have the most value. Value to me means that it will be well attended and the boxers that I'm bringing will be able to box against the highest number AND most talented pool of boxers. Between the Jr. GG, Ringside, Title, Comcast and others--the PAL I think may not be as well attended as it was traditionally. IF it were up to the boxers, they would just to to the tourneys that give away belts I would only add National Golden Gloves to that list and put an asterisk by the PAL.ramosboxingDOTcom wrote:......remember the good ol'e days when being called a National Champion meant something? There's so many "national" tournaments now it's become a joke.......simliar to the pros, ABC's world titles.
These, to ME are actual NATIONAL TITLES that mean something.....
did I miss any?
I think that you would agree that you have to provide criteria for a "national title". Taking it literally it would be any tournament that includes boxers from all over the country which is pretty much any invitational. If you add the criteria that it must be attended by top boxers, you open up a whole can of worms about defining the top boxers. I don't know who wouldn't consider the NGG a national tournament. It definitely is because of the sheer volume/level of boxers and the fact that it's advancing.Dennis wrote:How can some people not consider the National Golden Gloves a national title. It is very difficult to win. Heck some great boxers don't even make it to the National GG because they lose at their local/state/regional level. Adam Lopez, National PAL champ, lost in the Texas GG finals. National GG champ Tyrone Harris didn't get a chance to defend his title as he lost in the Michigan GG tourney.
Many other great amateurs never won NGG titles. Some won National PAL, U-19 and USA Nat'l Championships, but never the NGG.
The U-19 tourney isn't that well attended. I think it should be considered a National title, but it is like the National PAL in that it isn't always that well attended.
I just don't agree about the National PAL. It's an invitational, albeit one that is often competitive & that involves boxers from all over the country. If you consider the PAL (which is an invitational) a national tournament, why not the Ringside? Ringside had more boxers and more US Natl., Silver Gloves and JO champions (all advancing tourneys) attended Ringside than the PALs if you look at the entries totals.T Duquette wrote:I think its pretty obvious that the most important and prestigious national tournaments are The US Championships, The National GGs and the National PAL's in that order. I myself won the ringsides and i will be the first to tell u that while it was a good experience, when it comes down to it its really pretty meaningless... Eastern, Western trails ect, are also very important in an olympic year, though not more so than the previously mentioned big 3. A case can also be made for the u-19's and armed forces, though they are not accessible to everyone.
Why do you say that? I'm assuming that it's because it can give you pts for USA rankings. But doesn't the Under-19 do that too? If the Ringside decides to stop allowing foreign-born boxers it could also be a ranking tournament as well. They are all still invitationals though. You pay, you box.ramosboxingDOTcom wrote:I guess if you win the National PALs during the Olympic qualifer it would be considered a NATIONAL TITLE. The Under-19 has always had a poor turnout.
Ok. But something just doesn't sit right with me that you get almost as many pts for losing to the 1st place finisher as you do for actually winning a bout. I guess it's all relative anyhow -- so it's fair. However, total # of boxers that participate in a tournament does affect the pts you get because winning 1st place at a tournament that has more than 16 boxers in a bracket is worth as many pts as a 1st AND a 2nd place finish at a tournament w/ less than 16 boxers in a bracket.ramosboxingDOTcom wrote:The top boxers usually attend the first qualifer.
DCAmateurBoxing wrote:I may even take the PAL out because of the numerous other tournaments a lot of top boxers have to hedge their bets on what tourneys will be the most well attended. It's hard for coaches, boxers and families to travel so they (We) have to select the ones that have the most value. Value to me means that it will be well attended and the boxers that I'm bringing will be able to box against the highest number AND most talented pool of boxers. Between the Jr. GG, Ringside, Title, comcast and others--the PAL I think may not be as well attended as it was traditionally. IF it were up to the boxers, they would just to to the tourneys that give away belts I would only add National Golden Gloves to that list and put an asterisk by the PAL.ramosboxingDOTcom wrote:......remember the good ol'e days when being called a National Champion meant something? There's so many "national" tournaments now it's become a joke.......simliar to the pros, ABC's world titles.
These, to ME are actual NATIONAL TITLES that mean something.....
did I miss any?
If there was a new tournament that was well attended by top boxers and had a good turn-out, I would say that tournament had value. Whether you want to call it a "national title" or not can be debated, but in my opinion a national title can only come from an advancing tournament where boxers at the local level can compete without a long distance travel. I know that invitationals pull from all over the country, but everyone isn't able to participate in those. I think because advancing tournaments start at the local level, you can say that the champions actually represent a national pool of boxers because it was easy for all eligible boxers to participate.
If I had Ringside's participants list, I would add it here but I don't but. . .Jma05 wrote:2008 National Pal Finalist
fabian cervantes- nat. jo champ, usa finalist
bruno escalante- top rated amatuer
gabino saenz- top rated amatuer
roman morales- top rated amatuer
jamal james- top rated amatuer
errol spence- triple crown champ, u-19 champ, youth world quarterfinalist
javonte starks- usa champion
dennis douglin- national golden gloves champion
marcus brown- u-19 finalist
siju shabbazz- usa champion, national golden gloves champion
nicholas kisner- nat. jo champion, u-19 champion, usa finalist, youth world quarterfinalist
lenroy thompson- triple crown champion, eastern trials finalist, olympic trials participant
What do you mean "what the tournament is made for?" History doesn't cut it in my book. The Ohio State Fair (sorry Iceman) has a lot of history too, but it's not a top tourney anymore. The DC Mayor's Cup has history, but it doesn't mean anything now. The PAL is an invitational too and the only reason the Ringside isn't a ranking tournament is that they wouldn't be able to have foreign-born boxers and would have to remove the word "World" which is how they get so many people to come in the first place. The Golden Gloves has been around forever too, but let's be real here a lot of the entries in the Golden Gloves at the local level are not the nations top boxers. there are a lot of club fighters who are 30 years old who train only for the gloves. At the nationals, different story--you see some of our best. The PAL is a great organization and that's not my debate. the topic of this post is "National Champion" who are the winners of "National Tournamnets" and I'm just throwing my two cents in as to what that means IMO. As far as the competition, I listed the list of participants just off the top of my head. Doesn't seem to shabby to me.Jma05 wrote:i think the pal is more of a national then the ringside. again it aint about where more of the competition is. its what the tournament is made for. the pal has been around more then 20 years as 1 of our 3 biggest nationals. thats the pals meaning. the ringside worlds is strictly a invitational. it was made for fun. so yes there is more competition at ringside but still its just an invitational. the pal even though isnt well atteneded as it use to be the purpose for the last 20 years is that it is a national since for the last 20 years it has been 1 of our 3 huge national tournaments and is still looked to tht today as the same....and yes not as well attended as it use to be but look look at the champions from every year and look at the fighters who do attempt it. the national pal doesnt have more competiton then the pal but open division wise it has harder competiton then the ringside does. all the top guys in the nation usually go to the pal. so its not like its dead. more better fighters go to the pal then the ringside in the open division
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests