BoxRec

Sort of linked to a thread in the current scene about amateur star Lomachenko and his title shot in his 2nd fight, got me thinking. How important do you think it is to have lots of warm up fights as a pro? Wilder is currently on 30-0 but as all are early KO wins is he actually learning anything?

Does a good amateur background mean anything and does knocking over a load of stiffs actually teach a fighter anything?

I think with the amount of fights it is very dependant on the individual boxer. Some learn at a slower pace and essentially, they need their confidence boosting. Boxing is about confidence after all.
Look at Foreman - he had 37 fights before fighting for the title where Ali had about 19...
Age is another factor. If a guy is in his late teens he has more time to develop so having a lot of fights can be very beneficial.
Even a guy like Spinks who had so few fights before he won the title. Somewhat flattering to deceive in that after he lost the title he was never really top echelon again. He was fighting amongst the best of the era but wasn't ready for them. . he hadn't developed the necessary skills to deal with them.

Old time fighters had many more fights as the competition was stronger and it was a lot harder to get title shots (one champion). That is why a lot of old time fighters had more losses also...so much regular fighting...sometimes when not fully prepared. But it helped them learns the finer nuances of the game.
Evrenb

Very early in a fighter's pro career, ( like the 4 round and 6 round stage) the main thing you want for the fighter is to gain confidence and get used to fighting in different places.

As the fighter improves, so should the level of competition. In the long run, it's good to take on competition that is challenging; it will make the fighter mentally tougher later on when he is better but so are the opponents. However, you want an opponent that you think you will beat as well.
It's important to have fights against a variety of styles of opponents well.
It is true that you have to be more careful with matchmaking for younger fighters because a loss hurts his prospects much more than it's used to be. The all important "undefeated" tag is used to promote fights.
The problem is that management teams get too careful and their fighters improvement is stunted because their competition is so weak. With 4 titles, they know that if they bide their time, their undefeated fighter will probably get a title shot. In the long run they often don't have the career they could have.

A longer amateur career usually means a fighter won't need as long to be ready for the big time as someone who didn't have a long amateur career; but there are certainly exceptions.

I tend to give a fighter points for activity, even if the opposition isn't always the greatest. fighting somebody is better than going long periods without fighting anybody. But quality over quantity is a big thing too.

Controversial wrote:Sort of linked to a thread in the current scene about amateur star Lomachenko and his title shot in his 2nd fight, got me thinking. How important do you think it is to have lots of warm up fights as a pro? Wilder is currently on 30-0 but as all are early KO wins is he actually learning anything?

Does a good amateur background mean anything and does knocking over a load of stiffs actually teach a fighter anything?

I think it's not so much the amount of wins, but quality that counts.

Think Jack Dempsey, and how he had over 100 fights as 'Kid Blackie' before turning professional. Then he had well over 40 pro contests before winning the title from Jess Willard--- yet it was the previous 20 or so before that, that truly mattered in the big picture.

Think John L. Sullivan, in less than eight fights he was already being considered the best heavyweight in the world, and all he had done was beat up a few veterans in exhibition bouts. 30-40 so pro contests over 12 years, a handful more bare knuckle contests, and hundreds of exhibitions later he is considered a legend and an icon, in the same breadth as George Washington.

As for the real question of does a good amateur background mean anything--- for me, I think it's a double edged sword. Some of the greatest fighters in history (Ali, Frazier, Foreman) were all gold medal winners. Some of the lesser greats (Patterson, Bowe, Johansson, Holyfield) were also medalists. However--- the amateur program as it stands today and for the passed decade or so has been so horrible, that (IMHO) someone would have to be in the hundreds of bouts in order to really point out to the world and say "I am truly worth something", because the quality of matches and opposition and rules/system are so poor--- it doesnt mean much in terms of social significance, or really in development. If I was a coach, I'd actually be concerned if I had a kid who wanted to box more than 40-50 amateur contests--- because I would think as a coach this person mentally/emotionally was too set in ways to branch out and improve--- that they want the feel and security of headgear, bigger gloves, and want to stick to the 'head punches are worth points' mentality, and never become an all around competitor honing the art of defense and body punching, etc.

I know they are doing the 'World Series of Boxing', but to me I think it's just another system set into place to generate more money into the amateur boxing racket, which already ruined a generation of fighters. It will not--- in my mind--- help amateurs make the transition into the pros one iota. Because the difference between and amateur, and a pro, at the end of the day isn't whether someone is making money or winning fights--- but it is a mindset, it is an instinct. Alot of these guys are programmed to be one thing, and are just fighting other amateurs who are also programmed to be one thing--- and pretending to be pros. At the end of the day--- they ought to just stick to amateur boxing, and not compete in these 'semi-pro' bouts; or if they are going to turn pro, then just turn pro--- don't stick around wasting more time doing novelty bouts, because you will not grow as a fighter that way.

And... no facing a series of bums won't teach you anything... getting hit back, and often, will teach you more than thirty bums ever will.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:I tend to give a fighter points for activity, even if the opposition isn't always the greatest. fighting somebody is better than going long periods without fighting anybody. But quality over quantity is a big thing too.

As far rating someone's career, yes I totally agree that quality is much more important than quantity. It's is much harder and more impressive to beat a Wilfred Benitez for example, than win 50 fights in a row against journeymen.

We should not hold it against a great fighter when he beats a mediocre one (sometimes you just need to stay busy), he just should not get much credit for it.