Is an Olympic Gold worth more post-Soviet bloc?

Chopping Right · Post by **Chopping Right** » 02 Jun 2005, 17:09

I'm wondering if an Olympic Gold medal won in a recent games should possibly be considered even more of an achievement than it was before the old Soviet bloc splintered in the early 1990's. I say that because prior to this the USSR would send one outstanding boxer in each weight class representing all of the member states, whereas these days those states are now independent and free to send their own entrants. To prove the point in order to win Britain's last Gold at Sydney 2000 Audley Harrison had to get past first Aleksei Lezin (Russia), then Aleksey Mazikin (Ukraine) and in the final Mukhtarkhan Dildabekov (Kazakhstan). Considering there was also a Cuban he could have run into as well that's a pretty tough field these days.

walshb · Post by **walshb** » 03 Jun 2005, 03:06

Chopping, without a doubt I'd say. Yo could now be fighting 2-3 'Russians' as opposed to 1 when it was the USSR. Each one of them being very good, nothing between them really. Then you include the Cubans and that says it all. Even to qualify wthin Europe now is extremely difficult, as you would have to face boxers from all over the former Soviet Union along wit the rest of Europe

locoxelbox · Post by **locoxelbox** » 11 Jun 2005, 15:15

You're right - it's much harder to win an olympic gold these days. International amateur boxing has improved a lot. Many countries have full time national teams competing all over the world during years.
Some years ago some talented 17 or 18 year old american kid could go all the way to gold, that's almost impossible today.

boxmel · Post by **boxmel** » 14 Jun 2005, 23:33

ANY gold medal won in the Olympics can be considered an achievement. However, as has been stated already, it's much harder to win in boxing since the break up of the USSR. The European competition is ten times harder than it used to be.