Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
Quote Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui View Post
There has been, in the last 15 years, a tremendous decline in the skill and craft levels displayed at the pro level in my view. The top of the sport has also never, ever been older. Now either the raw material stinks or the teaching has fallen apart or WHAT is being taught has changed (or some combo). I find the timing of the early 1990's amateur rule changes very interesting in this regard.

You are assuming amateur fights equal pro fights. I dispute that. More amateur fights will make a better amateur fighter. More pro fights will make a better pro fighter. Given the evidence of the last decade and a half? It isn't clear to me at all that more amateur fights make a better pro fighter. Look at the recent Cubans, specifically Gamboa. Look at how completely he had to remake himself at the pro level. Now let's do a thought experiment. Gamboa turns pro at 21 instead of 26. Today he'd have 40+ fights instead of twenty and he would have remade himself five years ago instead of 18 months ago. Who in your view would be the superior fighter?

If amateur fights, even in the old days with regular judging and no headgear, were the same as pro fights? Top amateurs would all have started in the pro's the way Kostya Tszyu did instead of him being a huge exception to how fighters have always been brought along.

You wrote this and I don't really understand the point (sorry)

I am also raising the idea that fighters with next to no amateur experience will be matched more frequently as pros, because they have a lot of catching up to do. I don't have any real evidence of this, just a guess.

But as to how many former amateur champions have been matched so carefully? Up until about 1995 the answer would have been not that many. Laszlo Papp, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Howard Davis, Michael Spinks, Roy Jones etc. sure weren't. But again, all those guys pre-date the 1990-ish rule changes.

In this era of "gotta be unbeaten" instead of "gotta be developed?"

Deontay Wilder still hasn't fought anyone, and I see propsects fighting every week against palookas just to pad records rather than test and develop them. It baffles me. But I think there is a point I am missing here somehow (help?)

Yes I know you believe the standard of boxing is rubbish compared to the good old days. That is irrelevant to my point. Which is amateur experience is clearly NOT detrimental during the transition to paid fighting. In fact it is a huge positive. And I am fully aware of the difference between amateur and professional fights.

Your judgment is based on what your eye sees. What you believe to be true. But the results indicate amateur experience is just as important now as it was before the rule changes.

Gamboa is a great example. The question is - not a fantasy "what if" scenario about what Gamboa could have been, but WHY is he a SUCCESS so fast? In 20 professional bouts he has a "world" title and is ranked no.1 in his divison. This is clearly linked to him being an outstanding amateur. Great things were expected of him. He was moved along faster. He quicky delivered.

Lets take a look at the current P4P top 10 (The RIng).

Andre Ward - Olympic Gold Medalist.
Klitschko - Olympic Gold Medalist.
Martinez - Arg champion, fought at 97 world championship.
Bradley - Multi USA title winner.
Donaire - Multi USA title winner.
Hopkins - Multi junior titles.

SIX of the current P4P top 10 were successful amateurs. Only Hopkins would have fought under the old rules. Pac had 64 amateur contests before turning pro as a teenager. Marquez had 36, turned pro as a teenager. Segura had 42, turned pro at 20. I can find nothing for Pongsaklek Wonjongkam.

You can argue that the "craft" and "skill" and "toughness" is lacking with all these modern fighters. But the fact is, amateur boxing has played a MAJOR part in their careers. And there are plenty of other successful amateurs currently top 10 rated as pros - Khan, Haye, Rigondeaux, Alexander, Golovkin, Dirrell, Povetkin, Kotelnik, Solis, Ortiz, etc. I'd be amazed if this list didn't far outweigh top rated fighters with no am experience, or little success there.

Padded records? It seems to me the less amateur experience the more padded a fighters record is (if they are being groomed for the top). This is exactly what I was getting at. Is Chavez record not padded through the early part of his career? Duran and Moore were both fighting top competition from the off? Were there no "palookas" in the old days? No-one ever had a "gimme?"
Good Post.

I think you are missing the point on Gamboa. He got knocked down by nobodies what? Four times in his first ten fights? He had to UNLEARN what he did in the ams and recreate himself to become a pro contender.

The fact that 40% of the p4p top ten is without significant amateur experience and BHOP's pre-dates the rule changes means it is 50-50, right? Hardly conclusive evidence is it? Let's go back to 1989's p4p list (earliest available). Tyson, Pernell, Nunn, Meldrick, Azumah, Starling, Hill, Esperragoza and Raul Perez all had extensive amateur careers. Only Chavez didn't. So the better question is why have ams at the top of the pro game fallen so dramatically in 20 years? Again, I think you are mixing up the importance of starting young and the importance of amateur fights (under the new rules). They really are two different things.

I'm still suspect I am missing a point in the last paragraph that somehow is intended to pull your thoughts together. Of course there were palookas in the old days, but so what?

Roberto Dran fought the great Enesto Marcel in his 17th pro fight after onl two years as a pro.

Archie Moore (I think that was the Moore we were talking) was fighting HOFers at four years as a pro in his 40th or so fight.

Is Canelo's record "padded?" I dunno. It seems to me he's being brought along about right. The Rhodes fight and the Baldomir fights were hardly blowouts. He's a prospect who is clearly facing challenges. Padding a record is a guy like Wonjonkam fighting less than journeymen while an accomplished pro or a guy like Omar Narvaez going almost a whole career and fighting only a couple of ranked guys.

What kills me are fighters who come in and register KO1's fight after fight. WHAT IS THE FREAKING POINT OF THAT! What can the guy be learning!

But again. I have this nagging feeling I am somehow being really dense with what you are trying to point out. It isn't intentional, merely stupidity