Is amatuer boxing still good learning?

bridportboxer · Post by **bridportboxer** » 08 Jan 2008, 08:16

Amatuer boxing has changed a lot over the last few years, mainly with the computer points system. My question is really Is amatuer boxing still a good learning tool for a young boxer that has aspirations of going pro? Would it be just as useful to go pro with little or no am experience and except a couple of losses?
It seems to me that they are two completely separate sports now, and that a tall stand up boxer will have the advantage in any amatuer fight throwing long straight punches, over a smaller fighter who wants to work inside?
Would Joe Calzaghe be any good as a young amatuer now - would his punches actually score any points?

Poncey · Post by **Poncey** » 08 Jan 2008, 08:33

I think in a professional world where more and more emphasis seems to be placed on a boxer having a "perfect" record, there isn't much room for error.

The amatuers provide fighters with the ability to learn without the pressure of losing a fight or two.

STP · Post by **STP** » 08 Jan 2008, 08:37

Sparring 300 rounds with pro's or having 100 Amateur bouts? It's the former every time.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jan 2008, 08:50

It is notable that very successful amateurs still go on to to often make for successful professionals, but today, I believe that staying too long in the amateurs is not a good idea. It makes adapting to the professional code that much more difficult, as the two codes are so different.

You need amateur boxing to gain your fundamentals at an early age, and the benefit of learning whilst not being in punishing fights.

It's hard to make it with no amateur experience, but sticking around until your mid to late twenties for me is not neccessary any more. I think Audley Harrison suffered from sticking around way too long in the amateurs.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 08 Jan 2008, 08:52

Had Audley turned over before Sydney, he'd have achieved even less as a fighter.

As his gold medal is his only achievement.

bridportboxer · Post by **bridportboxer** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:00

[quote You need amateur boxing to gain your fundamentals at an early age, and the benefit of learning whilst not being in punishing fights.[/quote]

I agree to some extent though Matt Skelton probably wouldn't

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:03

Yes, but were it not for the dismal state of the heavyweight division in general, and in particular in this country, Skelton would have been exposed by now.

No offence to Matt, but his skills are limited at best.

Also, he does have a long history of experience of combat, albeit K-1 rather than boxing.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:08

DavidPayne wrote:Had Audley turned over before Sydney, he'd have achieved even less as a fighter.

As his gold medal is his only achievement.

or do you think he may have trained properly and been matched properly to achieve more? I honestly believe 50% of his downfall was down to having too much too soon.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:28

Mmmm good question, it depends on the individual I guess. It is still possible to be a damn good amateur (World class) and make the transition easily to the pro ranks.... it is also possible for a fighter without the most natural gifted skills in the world to adopt a style that strictly suits the amateur game... a few fighters I can think of in that mold is Jamie Arthur, Calvin Brock... There was another American Super Heavyweight who was I believe favourite to qualify for the US team in 2000 Olympics (but lost in the final seconds) - now there was no way he would make a pro.

However, you can still be a successful amateur fighting in a pro style and this is still the best preperation you can have... mainly because you will get signed up by a promoter for good money and in learning fights early. I'll be quite surprised if Matthew Maguire (I think thats his name) doesn't make at least some impact when he turns over. He fights like a pro.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:31

Wasnt lawrence Cley bay a top top amateur, but he didnt quite make it in the world ranks. Also, this gamboa has switched over seemlessly.

Podmore_Birmingham · Post by **Podmore_Birmingham** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:31

stujones wrote:I'll be quite surprised if Matthew Maguire (I think thats his name) doesn't make at least some impact when he turns over. He fights like a pro.

Michael Maguire.

I saw him batter Seamus Macklin (Matthew's younger brother) on a club show in 2005. Seamus is good but Michael absolutely cleaned his clock.

bridportboxer · Post by **bridportboxer** » 08 Jan 2008, 09:51

I think we are still in the very early stages of the computer scoring and look at it like this:
When the UFC first started it was about mixing martial arts to see which one wins - a sumo wrestler against a karate black belt for example. As time has gone by the mixing of martial arts has pretty much gone and we now have a UFC style of fighting used by 99% of the fighters. The style developed from what works and wins in the cage.
I think that over the next five to ten years amatuer boxing will go the same way, more stand up boxing and far less inside work. A trainer will spend much more time on straight lefts and rights than hooks, uppercuts, body shots, etc. Hence a style is created to work in amatuer boxing that will not help a fighter when he or (or she) goes pro.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jan 2008, 10:06

One major difference these days, is that you very rarely see fighters having a tear up in the amateurs, or people going for a knockout, because it's just not sensible. It's become about landing single shots without taking one in return more often than not, and that is never going to be the professional style, unless we bring in the same shitty scoring system that amateur boxing has.

I was watching tapes of Charlie Magri's ABA wins the other day, and eff me, they were proper fights back then, people got iced when they got in the ring with Charlie.

bridportboxer · Post by **bridportboxer** » 08 Jan 2008, 10:33

stujones wrote:Mmmm good question

Pleased you like the question / topic, I have more - next up....
can the Big Brother boxer put boxing back on the BBC and how quickly would allegedly sign up should he win? lol

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jan 2008, 10:46

Terry D wrote:Most pros talk about having to turn over and learning to forget the things they used in the amateur game and develop a whole new skills set. Plus they often say that amateur results, tournament choices, can be predicted along the lines of "if your face fits". When it comes to fighting amateur bouts Liverpool is seen as equivalent to Germany in terms of getting a decision.

Recently Jack Arnfield turned over to get away from the negative side of the amateur game.

It does seem a completely different game. I remember watching Adam Knight-Eddie Nevins as an amateur bout and they did actually use pro fighting techniques in a good bout. Modern amateur bouts you see jabs and body shots not being scored and wonder if all you are watching is a stylised version of fencing.

That's exactly how I described amateur boxing to someone a while back, 'fencing with gloves on.'

Fighters are so preoccupied with ensuring shots are scored, that combination punching and body punching are now almost things of the past in important competitions.

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 08 Jan 2008, 12:25

I would ask whether this question applies more in this country than others. The reason I say this is that the way we coach many sports in this country is to get people to play / fight (depending on the sport) in a certain way, i.e. the athletes are encouraged to basically do as they're told.

Other countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand, coach sport in such a way as to encourage decision-making based on a solid understanding of the sport. Athletes are put into training situations that involve problem solving for example, rather than being told that 'if this happens you do this'. The result is you get athletes that can adapt to different conditions and circumstances. In this country unless the coach is shouting and telling them what to do they are considered a weak coach. In fact, many successful coaches feel that they have failed if they have to give lots of instruction during a competition as it means the athlete is too reliant on them and at that point the coach's influence is relatively small.

The dutch footballers are another example - here you ask someone what they do and they'll say 'I defend' or 'I'm a striker'. Over there, they'll say 'I play football'. Basically, they can adapt.

By being coached in this way IMO I would suggest that a boxer would be more adaptable.

SIMPLEY BEST · Post by **SIMPLEY BEST** » 08 Jan 2008, 13:11

TERRY D YOUR RIGHT AMATEUR IS SHIT IN THE UK I HAVE SEEN TO MANY FIGHTERS GIVE THE SPORT UP TO BAD REFS & OLD FARTS SCOREING ITS A JOKE.TO ME ITS KNOT BOXING IVE ALSO SEEN WHEN THEY WHERE THE WHITE VEST THEY HAVE WON BEFORE THEY HAVE GOT IN THE RING.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Jan 2008, 08:22

Terry D wrote:
SIMPLEY BEST wrote:TERRY D YOUR RIGHT AMATEUR IS SHIT IN THE UK I HAVE SEEN TO MANY FIGHTERS GIVE THE SPORT UP TO BAD REFS & OLD FARTS SCOREING ITS A JOKE.TO ME ITS KNOT BOXING IVE ALSO SEEN WHEN THEY WHERE THE WHITE VEST THEY HAVE WON BEFORE THEY HAVE GOT IN THE RING.
It is a nightmare from the outside looking in and Bobby Rimmer spoke to BBN about his experiences with fighters coming from the amateur code.

As an aside I spoke to a person involved with amateur boxing who basically outlined how difficult it is to be a judge, referee or even MC in the amateur game. One local guy with the ability to do any of the above, who is also eager and keen, was basically told he'd have to jump through hoops just to get the sniff of a chance and that process would take a long time.

He f*cked it off, as you would.

Becoming a judge or referee in either code in this country is nigh on impossible.

Mario · Post by **Mario** » 09 Jan 2008, 08:48

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terry D wrote:
SIMPLEY BEST wrote:TERRY D YOUR RIGHT AMATEUR IS SHIT IN THE UK I HAVE SEEN TO MANY FIGHTERS GIVE THE SPORT UP TO BAD REFS & OLD FARTS SCOREING ITS A JOKE.TO ME ITS KNOT BOXING IVE ALSO SEEN WHEN THEY WHERE THE WHITE VEST THEY HAVE WON BEFORE THEY HAVE GOT IN THE RING.
It is a nightmare from the outside looking in and Bobby Rimmer spoke to BBN about his experiences with fighters coming from the amateur code.

As an aside I spoke to a person involved with amateur boxing who basically outlined how difficult it is to be a judge, referee or even MC in the amateur game. One local guy with the ability to do any of the above, who is also eager and keen, was basically told he'd have to jump through hoops just to get the sniff of a chance and that process would take a long time.

He f*cked it off, as you would.
Becoming a judge or referee in either code in this country is nigh on impossible.

I dont know how true that is in the country as a whole but one of the lads at my gym finished boxing as he'd reached the upper age limit and decided he'd fancy having a go judging. As far as i know he went on a course, attended a few shows to get a bit practice/training in and now he's doing it every couple of weeks. It all happened in a pretty short space of time too.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Jan 2008, 08:52

well cannot have been in the professional code, as you have to be a referee first before you can become a judge.

Mario · Post by **Mario** » 09 Jan 2008, 09:05

No it was in the amateurs, sorry should have made that clear.

He was saying though how theres a lot of people who, lets just say arent particularly knowledgeable but know the right people.

And a lot of old blokes who give them a stern telling off if they refer to 'fights' instead of 'bouts'!

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 09 Jan 2008, 13:19

Why would you have to be a referee before you can be a judge? Straight away you are limiting your potential base of new blood. And why? They are different roles. You don't have to be a caretaker before you become a teacher.

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 09 Jan 2008, 13:21

Back to the original question - is another issue that good amateurs aren't given adequate time to adapt to the pro game nowadays due to the additonal hype that tends to exist?

TJAY · Post by **TJAY** » 09 Jan 2008, 13:46

A world class amateur would beat a good pro over first 4 rds.
Amir said he could of beaten Floyd over 4 when he first turned over and most great fighters were great Amateurs themselves.

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 09 Jan 2008, 13:49

TJAY wrote:Amir said he could of beaten Floyd over 4 when he first turned over.

And Audley said he could win the British title within 5 fights. Saying and doing are very different things...