gp. wrote:imaioral wrote:Boxing Prospect wrote:Close fight that I felt Jack won (114-112), no problem with the draw. The fight, again, showed why Degale isn't elite despite his incredible skills. The guy can't fight for 12 rounds, takes too many naps and doesn't push his advantage. Jack was big, strong and powerful but Degale never pressed the issue early when he his legs.
I disagree about DeGale isn't being elite, his gold medal is a bit of a proof that he is very capable and very skillful.
If this were the case then all Olympic gold medalists would be elite pros. This is demonstrably untrue.
Buddy did you read part of the sentence "bit of a proof"? I didn't want to generalize, otherwise I would say "a proof" I wanted to mean that the most of gold medallists are indeed much better technical boxers than most boxers, cause of hard path, process and training to get there. Thus favoring a bit their path to achieve a belt. Not only them, I think Olympic boxers in general have much more polished techniques when starting in professional.
One other rich information. As far as I read, in general 30% or less of all Olympic medalists turn pro. In total were 947 x 30% = 284. The medallists world champions were 181 (source 1), so 63.73%. In resume, yes Olympic medalists are much more elite and pro (if we can call it) and have much more chance to become world champions... How can be untrue? It's not totally untrue it is more to true than untrue.
1 - Medallists champions -
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympic ... .cgi?id=17
(Website missing world champions: Anthony Joshua, Oleksandr Usyk, Oleksandr Gvozdyk, Vasyl Lomachenko).
Some gold medallists champions -
http://www.newsday.com/sports/olympics/ ... 1.12045924
Best regards'
... 
