I know UNited states had great amateurs in the 80's, but

[Taeth]

Do you think they won more medals then they should have because Cuba wasn't participating? Cuba IMO is the most dominant amateur boxing nation, and they would have had fighters to give even the americans strongest era a run for their money.

[Hulk]

Do you think they won more medals then they should have because Cuba wasn't participating? Cuba IMO is the most dominant amateur boxing nation, and they would have had fighters to give even the americans strongest era a run for their money.

Of course. The 84 team I believe it was, which consisted of Breland, Holyfield, Whitaker, and Meldrick Taylor did really well at the Olympics, but I don't think the Cubans or the Russians competed that year. That makes a HUGE differnce, the Cubans and Russians had the best fighters besides the USA.

[SweetPea]

Of course. The 84 team I believe it was, which consisted of Breland, Holyfield, Whitaker, and Meldrick Taylor did really well at the Olympics, but I don't think the Cubans or the Russians competed that year. That makes a HUGE differnce, the Cubans and Russians had the best fighters besides the USA.

While they'd didn't participate in the '84 Olympics, I'm sure the Cubans and Russians did participate in plenty of other competitions... like the World Championships for example.
I'm not sure where you'd find the info, but you could find out what happened when the US guys fought the top Cubans and Russians in these other competitions. If the US fighters had fared well, then it's safe to say that they would've stood a good chance of winning at the Olympics as well.
If the top US guys had lost to the top Cuban and Russian fighters at these other competitions, then maybe they benefitted from not having to face them at the Olympics.

Whitaker and Holyfield are both legendary fighters, I think it's safe to say they would've beaten whoever was in the ring with them. As for the others.... the research I mentioned above would give an answer.