Page 2 of 2

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 05:55
by Chambers2
Matt Skelton

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 06:02
by ppb
Cotto16 wrote:But went on to be Good pro fighters? the only one i can think of is johnny nelson, just started reading his book, so thought i would see if there was any other fighters who didnt do much as a amateur but were good pro's?


Gary Jacobs only had 14 or 15 Amateur contests

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 06:14
by Deserter
JamesH wrote:
Deserter wrote:
JamesH wrote:Ashley Theophane hasn't done badly considering he didn't win a fight for more than 2 years before turning pro.
:o Crikey, I didn't know that. Genuinely fascinating.
To be honest it actually goes a little further than that... at his original club he couldn't even get a fight! He used to say that the travellers at the club would be favoured and always get the nod ahead of him. He left and joined another club just so he could fight, and then returned a couple of years later at which point he was given the opportunity to fight at his original club. He always said he had too much of a pro style for the am game. Can't say I agree with him, but he's certainly doing much better as a pro. I'd probably put it down to the sparring he's since had in the States rather than being naturally better suited to the pro game.
Thanks for that fella :TU:

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 06:25
by oliverfennell
wadey wrote:Matt Skelton??
Quite right. Seem to remember he had NO amateur boxing matches, although he did of course have a lengthy K1 career.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 08:13
by ERIC GUY
Julius Francis,
Gary Mason
Derek Williams

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 08:58
by wrimc
I seem to remember Ricky mentioning that Matt Hatton only had 10 amateur fights so despite that he isnt doing too bad

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 09:04
by REEVE
paddy barnes lost his first 15 ama fights?

and im sure one of the walshes (liam maybe) lost there 1st 10 ama fights

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 09:21
by Kilsby
Tommy hearns was a good / decent amatuer but he was known as a powder-puff puncher of Paulie Malignaggi proportions!

He changed that in the pro's to having one of the most concussive right hands ever! :bow:

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 10:01
by Deserter
Kilsby wrote:Tommy hearns was a good / decent amatuer but he was known as a powder-puff puncher of Paulie Malignaggi proportions!

He changed that in the pro's to having one of the most concussive right hands ever! :bow:
And surely the ultimate rebuttal to those who claim that punchers are born, not made...

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 10:20
by Shirow
According to the latest Ring magazine Juan Manuel Marquez only had around 35 amateur fights and Katsidis had over twice as many.

That makes you think doesn't it...

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 11:33
by ApolloCreed
Tommy hearns was a good / decent amatuer but he was known as a powder-puff puncher of Paulie Malignaggi proportions!

He changed that in the pro's to having one of the most concussive right hands ever!
How did that turnaround come about?
I loved the part in Kimball's book Four Kings where he explains how Hearns changed his nom de guerre from Hitman to The Motor City Cobra after he hurt his right hand.
The whole man, wrote Kimball, was defined by his ability to punch hard.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 11:52
by Deserter
ApolloCreed wrote: how Hearns changed his nom de guerre from Hitman to The Motor City Cobra after he hurt his right hand.
The whole man, wrote Kimball, was defined by his ability to punch hard.
Which is a shame in some respects as he was an under-rated boxer - he was out-boxing Leonard in their classic Welterweight showdown until Ray turned puncher and wore him down.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 11:56
by banjo
How about Sergio Martinez, apparently he didn't take up boxing until he was 20 and turned pro just a couple of months before his 23rd birthday so I'm guessing he didn't have the hottest of amateur careers.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 13:40
by palooka
Junior Witter wasn't that hot as an amateur.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 13:48
by Scrap
Clinton Woods, Terry Dunstan

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 24 Nov 2010, 14:29
by J
hopkins .

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 07:47
by Old bones Ian
King Geedorah wrote:
ApolloCreed wrote:
Tommy hearns was a good / decent amatuer but he was known as a powder-puff puncher of Paulie Malignaggi proportions!

He changed that in the pro's to having one of the most concussive right hands ever!
How did that turnaround come about?
I loved the part in Kimball's book Four Kings where he explains how Hearns changed his nom de guerre from Hitman to The Motor City Cobra after he hurt his right hand.
The whole man, wrote Kimball, was defined by his ability to punch hard.
Strange, he was billed as 'The Motor City Cobra' early in his career and I was under the impression that he went to 'Hitman' as his career wore on.
Hearns had a 155-8 amateur record, but only 7 stoppages.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 09:42
by Kilsby
^^^
I heard Hearns wasn't technically throwing his punches correctly in the amateurs & Manny Steward got him to plant his feet correctly & 'sit down' on his punches more which ultilised his power that he had always had but never used due to feet not being set right.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 11:52
by dalcumly
Do you really need to have had any amateur career ? Generally I would say you do but if a trainer identifies someone perhaps in their late teens or early twenties who is naturally heavy handed or just a natural puncher , like Julian Jackson , then I think its possible.Get them fit first of all . Then a good bit of sparring in the gym and if they're picking up defensive skills and retaining their natural punch then I don't see why not . I don't know if Jackson had an amateur career , but my goodness could he punch !! If you watch his fights you just can't see where the power came from .
I believe punchers are born , not made , and I'm off to start a new topic !!

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 25 Nov 2010, 13:49
by palooka
There is no real substitute for boxing in front of an audience. The experience of boxing in front of a crowd can be stressful, draining and nerve racking. Being able to handle those feelings and the nerves of a bout is about as important as having boxing skills in having any sort of half way successful professional boxing career. The way to learn how to handle the emotions is through amateur bouts.

Re: Have there been many Fighters who were not great amateurs

Posted: 26 Nov 2010, 12:09
by ApolloCreed
Strange, he was billed as 'The Motor City Cobra' early in his career and I was under the impression that he went to 'Hitman' as his career wore on.
Maybe it was that when he hurt his hand, he grew depressed because he couldn't bang the lights out anymore, and stopped calling himself Hitman, going back to the original one.
Something along those lines anyway.