Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Michael bennt
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Michael bennt »

A lot of boxing fans and pundits are brain washed that being a top class amateur means top class pro, I think it's a very overrated theory. You look at frankie gavin ranked number one in the world yet couldn't beat a 40 year old Bundu who keith Thurman then whitewashes , also thomas stalker was number 3 in the world and has been a flop, courtney fry was European silva and comenwealth gold medalist he done nothing as a pro, tony Thompson took boxing up at 27 had 12 amateurs fights he beat brilliant amateurs david price and solis, people are buying to much into this top class amateur boxer means brilliant pro. Don't be brainwashed it means nothing
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

Who is brainwashed with it?

Nobody - well all know... :wave:
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by crusader »

Obviously there are cases of people without remarkable amateur careers being successful pros and cases in which very successful amateurs accomplish far less professionally, but I think a sizable majority of top pros were good amateurs with substantial experience in that code, so I wouldn't be so quick to say a big amateur pedigree means nothing. It's also worth noting that Bundu was an Olympian and won several national titles over many years, while Thurman won several national titles and competed internationally.

Going by BoxRec's top 25 P4P and not putting fighters in more than one category:

Olympic gold x2 (Wlad/Povetkin)
Olympic silver x2 (GGG/Khan)
Olympic bronze x1 (Floyd)
World gold (Lara)
World bronze (Froch, who only assumed the top spot at 168 when Olympic gold medalist Ward was dropped due to inactivity)
Olympian (Cotto)
National titles and international experience (Porter, Maidana, Matthyse, Kovalev, D. Garcia, Thurman, Walters, and Crawford--to my knowledge most of these fighters had over 100 amateur bouts)

There are loads of other fighters with extensive amateur careers in virtually every division's top ten as well; for example, every major titlist at 160 was an Olympian and two of them have mandatory challengers that were Olympians. If you go through the bottom of each division I imagine that the fighters will tend to have significantly less extensive and successful amateur stints.
lillywhite14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by lillywhite14 »

You don't have to scratch too far beneath the surface to realise that not all amateur stars will make great pros.
A few top level amateurs benefit from accumulating a lot of experience in the unpaid ranks and don't really come to the boil until relatively late in age. These rarely make the big impact in the pro game when they turn over. Gavin and recently Campbell, are two examples over here ( obviously Luke is just starting out but I don't think he will reach elite level in the pro game )
The amateurs who are stars from the off, no matter what age, are a much safer bet.

Pricey benefitted from an extensive amateur career too.

Since the head guards went it's obvious the transition from amateur star to pro star will be easier though, which is a good thing.
Broomhall
Middleweight
Posts: 1552
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 14:47

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Broomhall »

Michael bennt wrote:A lot of boxing fans and pundits are brain washed that being a top class amateur means top class pro, I think it's a very overrated theory. You look at frankie gavin ranked number one in the world yet couldn't beat a 40 year old Bundu who keith Thurman then whitewashes , also thomas stalker was number 3 in the world and has been a flop, courtney fry was European silva and comenwealth gold medalist he done nothing as a pro, tony Thompson took boxing up at 27 had 12 amateurs fights he beat brilliant amateurs david price and solis, people are buying to much into this top class amateur boxer means brilliant pro. Don't be brainwashed it means nothing
I dont think you will find too many boxing pundits/fans who are brainwashed into this. I think most of us know this. The best pros are GENERALLY good or top class amateurs. There are lots of reasons for this, one of the main ones being they get matched carefully and usually have a manager/promotor looking out for them.

Not all good amateurs go onto become top pros, (obvious really and the same in many sports where youthful talent doesnt always translate to senior success) but the majority of good pro's have been top or at least very good amateurs.
stevieb_8006
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by stevieb_8006 »

Who are all these simpleton, easily brainwashed boxing fans? I don't know any.

It depends which era of amateur boxing you are talking about IMO. We are just coming out of a very safety conscious, 'fencing' type of era that focussed primarily on head shots and work rate, that didn't compliment the pro sport as much.

That may well change over the next few years. If you look at the best ten boxers in the world today, I bet at least 7 have an extensive Am background.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32993
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Boxerbeetle »

Thanks for creating this thread - I've finally seen the light, my days of living under the delusion that amateur success guarantees pro success are over :lol:
stevieb_8006
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by stevieb_8006 »

Boxerbeetle wrote:Thanks for creating this thread - I've finally seen the light, my days of living under the delusion that amateur success guarantees pro success are over :lol:
:lol: :lol:
bigjack
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by bigjack »

No real boxing fan ever believed that anyway,when i say real i mean hardcore,fans who wouldn't be dragged into the hype that surrounds top amateurs.There is also a list as long as your arm of top amateurs who went on to be a top class pros,so saying what your saying on a serious boxing forum makes no sense.
Sklar
Middleweight
Posts: 5680
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 09:06

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Sklar »

Michael bennt wrote:A lot of boxing fans and pundits are brain washed that being a top class amateur means top class pro, I think it's a very overrated theory. You look at frankie gavin ranked number one in the world yet couldn't beat a 40 year old Bundu who keith Thurman then whitewashes...
Bundu was an Olympian and World Championship medalist, Thurman was a six time national champion who slated up 101 amateur wins i.e. big amateur pedigrees all round. I'm not saying you're wrong but your opening gambit is crap. Having a big amateur pedigree is better than not having one but it doesn't guarantee success beyond a certain level.
Lenny Cravats
Super Middleweight
Posts: 8100
Joined: 23 Feb 2013, 10:43

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Lenny Cravats »

Image
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45238
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Generally speaking top class amateurs become top class professionals, mainly because the best amateurs, are the guys who start boxing at 4-6 years old, and accumulate thousands of hours of practice.

HOWEVER.

There is a caveat, you can be a top class amateur, without being all that tough, Audley is our perfect example.

However, still, most top class amateurs, go on to at least national, if not world honours.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45238
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

stevieb_8006 wrote:Who are all these simpleton, easily brainwashed boxing fans? I don't know any.

It depends which era of amateur boxing you are talking about IMO. We are just coming out of a very safety conscious, 'fencing' type of era that focussed primarily on head shots and work rate, that didn't compliment the pro sport as much.

That may well change over the next few years. If you look at the best ten boxers in the world today, I bet at least 7 have an extensive Am background.
amateur boxing seems to be oscillating back the other way now, towards round scoring, and actual fighting.

The whole point scoring system, was horribly flawed, and discouraged combinations.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
There is a caveat, you can be a top class amateur, without being all that tough, Audley is our perfect example.
I would say Audley is pretty tough, his last round win over Sprott proving he is tougher than the average bear. :TU:
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45238
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

Fat Git wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
There is a caveat, you can be a top class amateur, without being all that tough, Audley is our perfect example.
I would say Audley is pretty tough, his last round win over Sprott proving he is tougher than the average bear. :TU:
generous.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Fat Git wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:
There is a caveat, you can be a top class amateur, without being all that tough, Audley is our perfect example.
I would say Audley is pretty tough, his last round win over Sprott proving he is tougher than the average bear. :TU:
generous.
Not really, fighting with a dislocated shoulder - especially knocking a capable fighter out with one. Danny Williams gets
his due regarding this - so should Auds.

Lack of true self belief and confidence in his abilities? Sure, I will go along with those accusations. But he is a tough bloke though
one does not become a professional boxing champion if one wasn't.
manno
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 459
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by manno »

Amateur boxing is now going through its most transitional period since 1984 LA. The reffing and judging have done a massive about turn, refs tappin fighters tellin them to " sort it out" when in fighting instead of breaking em, cuts as bad as anything I've seen in pros. To be fair though the good trainers will shine through whereas the chancers who have saturated our sport in the last twenty years will be exposed. Lads turning pro will be better equipped for the transition. Reguarding top ams making/not making good pros, the fact is you are taught to box by your amateur coach, it is he who helps you develop your own style. Of course there are cases of too much too young but generally if you have 100 bouts as a club lad or international the situations you are put in in those bouts will serve you well as a young pro. We can all point to Errol Christie, Collins brothers, Gilbody, Leo Randolph etc etc but they are the exception IMO.
Broomhall
Middleweight
Posts: 1552
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 14:47

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by Broomhall »

manno wrote:Amateur boxing is now going through its most transitional period since 1984 LA. The reffing and judging have done a massive about turn, refs tappin fighters tellin them to " sort it out" when in fighting instead of breaking em, cuts as bad as anything I've seen in pros. To be fair though the good trainers will shine through whereas the chancers who have saturated our sport in the last twenty years will be exposed. Lads turning pro will be better equipped for the transition. Reguarding top ams making/not making good pros, the fact is you are taught to box by your amateur coach, it is he who helps you develop your own style. Of course there are cases of too much too young but generally if you have 100 bouts as a club lad or international the situations you are put in in those bouts will serve you well as a young pro. We can all point to Errol Christie, Collins brothers, Gilbody, Leo Randolph etc etc but they are the exception IMO.
I wouldnt say the above are the exception. The vast majority, probably 99% of amateur "stars" that turn over will not win world or even national/regional titles. But the percentages get even smaller when you are talking about having no or little am experience.
scotboxfan
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 160
Joined: 03 Mar 2012, 06:03

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by scotboxfan »

Bernard Hopkins & Julio Cesar Chavez Jr had no amateue experience at all look at what they have achieved in the sport
manno
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 459
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by manno »

Broomhall wrote:
manno wrote:Amateur boxing is now going through its most transitional period since 1984 LA. The reffing and judging have done a massive about turn, refs tappin fighters tellin them to " sort it out" when in fighting instead of breaking em, cuts as bad as anything I've seen in pros. To be fair though the good trainers will shine through whereas the chancers who have saturated our sport in the last twenty years will be exposed. Lads turning pro will be better equipped for the transition. Reguarding top ams making/not making good pros, the fact is you are taught to box by your amateur coach, it is he who helps you develop your own style. Of course there are cases of too much too young but generally if you have 100 bouts as a club lad or international the situations you are put in in those bouts will serve you well as a young pro. We can all point to Errol Christie, Collins brothers, Gilbody, Leo Randolph etc etc but they are the exception IMO.
I wouldnt say the above are the exception. The vast majority, probably 99% of amateur "stars" that turn over will not win world or even national/regional titles. But the percentages get even smaller when you are talking about having no or little am experience.
yeh , I suppose if you are talking about world titles as potential full filled I probably worded it wrong but the point I was trying to make is you would more often than not be a more rounded and better schooled fighter with the extensive amateur career.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27516
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by stujones »

Fat Git wrote: Not really, fighting with a dislocated shoulder - especially knocking a capable fighter out with one. Danny Williams gets
his due regarding this - so should Auds.

Lack of true self belief and confidence in his abilities? Sure, I will go along with those accusations. But he is a tough bloke though
one does not become a professional boxing champion if one wasn't.
Audley never had a dislocated shoulder.
el_grande_mauro_mina
Lightweight
Posts: 11215
Joined: 24 Dec 2017, 11:54

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by el_grande_mauro_mina »

stujones wrote:
Fat Git wrote: Not really, fighting with a dislocated shoulder - especially knocking a capable fighter out with one. Danny Williams gets
his due regarding this - so should Auds.

Lack of true self belief and confidence in his abilities? Sure, I will go along with those accusations. But he is a tough bloke though
one does not become a professional boxing champion if one wasn't.
Audley never had a dislocated shoulder.
Against Sprotty? Was it not? There was something up with him that required 'testicular fortitude' to get him through the fight and the win. :TU:
jameswilson
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13497
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by jameswilson »

Fat Git wrote:
stujones wrote:
Fat Git wrote: Not really, fighting with a dislocated shoulder - especially knocking a capable fighter out with one. Danny Williams gets
his due regarding this - so should Auds.

Lack of true self belief and confidence in his abilities? Sure, I will go along with those accusations. But he is a tough bloke though
one does not become a professional boxing champion if one wasn't.
Audley never had a dislocated shoulder.
Against Sprotty? Was it not? There was something up with him that required 'testicular fortitude' to get him through the fight and the win. :TU:
It was injured but not sure it popped out. Think it was ligament damage.
stujones
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 27516
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 15:08

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by stujones »

He apparently (sorry to sound a little sceptical about it, not the first boxers visit to the hospital in which some doubt about it's validity has been made**) had surgery for a torn pec (how badly torn was never disclosed) 2 weeks after the Sprott fight.

** Mike Tyson's surgery for his knee post Danny Williams, David Haye's surgery recently, Andre Dirrell's neurological issues during the super 6's.
JMac
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2314
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 14:41

Re: Having the big amateur pedigree is overrated

Post by JMac »

leonsdaddy1 wrote:Bernard Hopkins & Julio Cesar Chavez Jr had no amateue experience at all look at what they have achieved in the sport
BHop boxed as an amateur in prison in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania prison system had a very good boxing program where prisons fought other prisons and they had a state prison championship which Bhop was one. I used to ref in the PA prisons and they had some great fights and there were guys who had life sentences that were every bit as good as Bhop but life means life in Pennsylvania and they ain't never getting out. Sad thing is that the boxing program was stopped in the PA prison system.
Post Reply