The Hype with Saul Alverez (apologies if spelt incorrectly!)

[Violent Demise]

Typical overhyped Mexifraud. Fact.

Guy has everything in his favour - home advantage, ref, judges, crowd, promotion and still can't easily dispatch two mediocre British, in fact less than mediocre, fighters.

24 rounds with two toilet Brits that ain't even the best in their own country. Pathetic.

Mexifraud will be destroyed the minute he meets a decent fighter. Fact.

Wonder what fool claimed Rhodes would give him problems? Sucking his dick and spitting such nonsense like "Alvarez is made for Rhodes" "Rhodes is a great counter puncher". "Rhodes has power in both hands". "Rhodes has never lost at 154" "Rhodes will be his hardest opponent" Blah, blah, blah. Rhodes chump ass couldn't even do as good as Lanardo Tyner. Fool didn't even try. Fucking disgrace he was. If the UK had any sense of pride they will murder Rhodes as soon as he steps off the plane.

I don't know who stated all of that.

Whoever said - "Rhodes has never lost at 154" - was telling an unequivocal fact. So that guy is clearly clued up. Fact.

Whoever said - "Alvarez is made for Rhodes" - was proven unequivocally correct. Fact. A prime Rhodes, which makes him faster, probably twice as fast, more hungry and fighting at home without the bias crowd jeering his every move forward, and cheering every punch that misses him, schools the Mexifraud. Fact.

Only a fucking idiot can't see that. Fact.

The man is a pro fighter (and I use the term fighter losely). Yet he's affected by crowd noise? Now that right there is what you call nut hugging 101

And I got a secret for you. Wouldn't matter if Rhodes was prime or not. Cuz even in his prime he couldn't win a big fight if his life depended on it

[marbleheadmaui]

I am THRILLED the scoring has been changed! Looking forward to see the impact!

The toughness necessary in the pros is fundamentally different, in my view, than that needed in the amateurs for two reasons. First is having to perform while exhausted and depleted. Ten and 12 rounds of concentration, accepting blows etc isn't a little different from four two minute rounds, it is galactically different. The second reason is the inherent safety built into the ams with the headgear and how the referees act. In the pros it is clear it is bloodsport and there has to be additional anxiety due to the lack of those protections.

Completely agree on the bold.

They fight 3x3's now. When those fights are really good you are getting Hagler/Hearns levels of battle. This kid who won boxer of the tournament had 3 such fights in the space of 4 days. I don't care how you spin it, that takes real toughness & determination

In regard to your second point, I completely agree regarding how the referees act, they don't offer guys a chance to prove their toughness enough and come back from adversity. Where I disagree is the headguards. They are there to avoid cuts from headclashes. I've sparred with and without headguards & they make no difference if someone lands a big shot. They also inhibit head movement. It's a game of inches & they add on at least an extra one either side.

I get the feeling you think I am denigrating the toughness of ams. I'm not. I am saying it is very, very, very different from the toughness needed for 10-12 round fights. I've been hit with shots with and without headgear as well. I'll take the headgear every time. And the inch doesn't matter in my view. It isn't the scraping shots that hurt, it is the shots flush on the chin, temple or ear that always made me wince.

[marbleheadmaui]

Even if the current amateur system is flawed it surely can't be detrimental to pro fighters?

How many "great" pros had no amateur success? I am not sure about this, but would be shocked if there were many great fighters with limited amateur experience. I Know about guys like Moore and Chavez with next to nothing amateur careers. But they ended up with a million pro fights.

Having a quick look at todays P4P top ten, only Pongsaklek Wonjongkam has no amateur record (i can find), but has reached 82 pro bouts. Everyone else was a successful amateur. Even guys like Pac and Marquez that turned pro as teenagers.

So.. amateur experience surely plays a major role in the progress of pro fighters? Still even today...

For starters every great fighter pre say 1920 had no real amateur background. But we may be mixing two different concepts up. If you're saying almost all great fighters started young in the gym? I completely agree. If you are saying amateur success or vast amateur experience is critical? I can cite lots of examples where it wasn't. JCC, Dick Tiger, Archie Moore, Roberto Duran had I think 15 amateur fights, Jimmy McClarnin was a pro at 15 how much could he have done in the ams? Want crazy though? How about Jimmy Wilde being entirely self taught?

I also think it is fair to say that the ams over since 1988 have been as problematic as they have been helpful.

[Nameless]

It's quite difficult to know how far and where will El Canelo reach his "peak", there is often lots of hope built around young fighters, sometimes real, sometimes for the sake of promotion. We don't know yet how strong mentally he is but for the moment being, I think that it would be unfair to downgrade what he did, especially as he is only 20 years old and a long of maturity to buckle under his belt before we see the full potential (disappointing or not) that he has to offer.
I think that what he did so far is great, now let's see the man grow up and show what he has for what's coming next.

[Fenster]

Even if the current amateur system is flawed it surely can't be detrimental to pro fighters?

How many "great" pros had no amateur success? I am not sure about this, but would be shocked if there were many great fighters with limited amateur experience. I Know about guys like Moore and Chavez with next to nothing amateur careers. But they ended up with a million pro fights.

Having a quick look at todays P4P top ten, only Pongsaklek Wonjongkam has no amateur record (i can find), but has reached 82 pro bouts. Everyone else was a successful amateur. Even guys like Pac and Marquez that turned pro as teenagers.

So.. amateur experience surely plays a major role in the progress of pro fighters? Still even today...

For starters every great fighter pre say 1920 had no real amateur background. But we may be mixing two different concepts up. If you're saying almost all great fighters started young in the gym? I completely agree. If you are saying amateur success or vast amateur experience is critical? I can cite lots of examples where it wasn't. JCC, Dick Tiger, Archie Moore, Roberto Duran had I think 15 amateur fights, Jimmy McClarnin was a pro at 15 how much could he have done in the ams? Want crazy though? How about Jimmy Wilde being entirely self taught?

I also think it is fair to say that the ams over since 1988 have been as problematic as they have been helpful.

You said that amateur boxing is currently detrimental to pros (arguably). I am saying there is no real evidence of this (from admittedly a brief look). You may believe fighters are technically getting worse, but the actual results/records indicate that the best amateurs will be expected to make the best pros. The training, ring experience and fight environment alone must be considered a huge advantage, no? You strongly argue that more fights means better fighter, right?

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.

For instance - In Chavez's first 18 months as a pro he fought 18 times before being matched with a fighter that had more than 10 wins on his record. And he was a journeyman coming off a string of losses. He needed to learn against a load of "gimmes."

How many former amatuer champions have been matched so carefully? (i'm sure you'll give me a massive list )

[marbleheadmaui]

Even if the current amateur system is flawed it surely can't be detrimental to pro fighters?

How many "great" pros had no amateur success? I am not sure about this, but would be shocked if there were many great fighters with limited amateur experience. I Know about guys like Moore and Chavez with next to nothing amateur careers. But they ended up with a million pro fights.

Having a quick look at todays P4P top ten, only Pongsaklek Wonjongkam has no amateur record (i can find), but has reached 82 pro bouts. Everyone else was a successful amateur. Even guys like Pac and Marquez that turned pro as teenagers.

So.. amateur experience surely plays a major role in the progress of pro fighters? Still even today...

For starters every great fighter pre say 1920 had no real amateur background. But we may be mixing two different concepts up. If you're saying almost all great fighters started young in the gym? I completely agree. If you are saying amateur success or vast amateur experience is critical? I can cite lots of examples where it wasn't. JCC, Dick Tiger, Archie Moore, Roberto Duran had I think 15 amateur fights, Jimmy McClarnin was a pro at 15 how much could he have done in the ams? Want crazy though? How about Jimmy Wilde being entirely self taught?

I also think it is fair to say that the ams over since 1988 have been as problematic as they have been helpful.

You said that amateur boxing is currently detrimental to pros (arguably). I am saying there is no real evidence of this (from admittedly a brief look). You may believe fighters are technically getting worse, but the actual results/records indicate that the best amateurs will be expected to make the best pros. The training, ring experience and fight environment alone must be considered a huge advantage, no? You strongly argue that more fights means better fighter, right?

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.

For instance - In Chavez's first 18 months as a pro he fought 18 times before being matched with a fighter that had more than 10 wins on his record. And he was a journeyman coming off a string of losses. He needed to learn against a load of "gimmes."

How many former amatuer champions have been matched so carefully? (i'm sure you'll give me a massive list )

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?)

[Pavlik]

looks, youth, talent, physicality, marketable, power. flawed but yet again still young. i'm sold, he is indeed the future of boxing

[Fenster]

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?"

[marbleheadmaui]

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

[Fenster]

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

No you're not being stupid, you are clearly far from that, although maybe a little stubborn (to put it nicely ).

Can you PROVE that Gamboa would have been a more accomplished/successful pro without his amateur expirience? NO. You are dealing in fantasy. I am dealing with reality.

Was Enesto Marcel considered a great fighter when he faced Duran? Ricky Hatton faced Kostya Tszyu (you do consider him a decent fighter, right?) in his 40th fight. Seems like "padded" records have been pretty common in boxing?

1 out of 10 does not equal 40%.

Now a more interesting question is - in the past 20 years name me all the P4P fighters that have ZERO amateur experience?

[marbleheadmaui]

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

No you're not being stupid, you are clearly far from that, although maybe a little stubborn (to put it nicely ).

Can you PROVE that Gamboa would have been a more accomplished/successful pro without his amateur expirience? NO. You are dealing in fantasy. I am dealing with reality.

Was Enesto Marcel considered a great fighter when he faced Duran? Ricky Hatton faced Kostya Tszyu (you do consider him a decent fighter, right?) in his 40th fight. Seems like "padded" records have been pretty common in boxing?

1 out of 10 does not equal 40%.

Now a more interesting question is - in the past 20 years name me all the P4P fighters that have ZERO amateur experience?

As regards Gamboa I can prove two things. Fighting as he did as an amateur led to him getting dropped by four different nobodies (IIRC). Second, he has thoroughly remade his style, UNLEARNING amateur habits and replacing them with pro ones. THAT is reality (stubborn? who me?)

You are really going to have to explain what you think a "padded" record is. Bringing a prospect along at whatever pace he can handle is NOT padding a record in any useful sense. People mature differently. Neither is padding taking tune-up fights in between big ones (think Arreola recently). That is better understood as staying sharp. What is padding? Setting up near certain blowouts for a young fighter who should now be facing a higher level of comp or a long established guy like Narvaez who has never systematically faced top guys. Let's look at two recent guys. Chavez Jr's last 7-8 fights. He is unbeaten but he only has a a single quick KO and his other KO was of a 24-0-1 fighter (who I know nothing else about). Three of those decisions were reasonably close. That sounds like bringing the guy along about right. I just don't think he's got very much top end potential. Alvarez in his last 7-8 fights has five KO's but only a single early one. He's fought a couple of older names (always a common technique for bringing a guy along) and he is clearly improving.

Again there seems to be some point you want to make regarding "padded records" that you're just not making clear.

Marcel was a ranked feather when Duran beat him. They were both, at the time, viewed as gifted younguns. A comparable recent fight would have been say Bradley and Alexander or back in the day the Little Red Lopez and Schoolboy CVhacon fight before either became a champion.

Let's do the math on the ams at the top again. You have 50% of todays p4p top ten with extensive post 1990 am experience right? Yet in 1989? The percentage of the top ten who had extensive am expereince was 90%. So why the huge dropoff?

Your last question means nothing. Why? Because ALMOST ALL the ams were fighting under the new rules so it is not a distinguishing feature is it? The right measure is men fighting under old rules (90% in 1989) and today (50% according to you) right? (stubborn? Me?)

One final thought. If you are arguing (and I'm not saying you are) that unexamined records don't tell you much? I have been trying to make that point since I arrived here.

[Fenster]

As regards Gamboa I can prove two things. Fighting as he did as an amateur led to him getting dropped by four different nobodies (IIRC). Second, he has thoroughly remade his style, UNLEARNING amateur habits and replacing them with pro ones. THAT is reality (stubborn? who me?)

He's had to refine his style not make a complete overhaul. He got dropped by Salido (19th fight). I guess he will always get caught the way he fights.

To suggest that Gamboa's 250 amateur bouts were a waste of time, in fact harmful to him, is ridiculous. The positives far outweigh the negatives.

Let's do the math on the ams at the top again. You have 50% of todays p4p top ten with extensive post 1990 am experience right? Yet in 1989? The percentage of the top ten who had extensive am expereince was 90%. So why the huge dropoff? Your last question means nothing. Why? Because ALMOST ALL the ams were fighting under the new rules so it is not a distinguishing feature is it? The right measure is men fighting under old rules (90% in 1989) and today (50% according to you) right? (stubborn? Me?)

Hold up a minute.

9 out of the 10 (90%) current P4P top ten have had an amateur career. 6 won notable titles. A 50-year-old P4P fighter is obviously an exception - so Hopkins is distorting this. Even so, that leaves 8 out of 10 fighters competing under the "modern" amateur rules.

HOWEVER

This doesn't come close to proving a "drop off" in amateur to pro talent. P4P lists are CONSTANTLY changing. Lets replace Pongsaklek with Mayweather? How about within the next year Gamboa or Khan or Broner replace the old boys Hopkins/Marquez? The P4P list will be ENTIRELY filled with "modern" amateur stars.

Far from there being a decline in amateur talent succeeding as pros, it shows that top amateurs are still making top pros, just as they did 20 years ago

[boxingbantz]

36m watched him last weekend.

The boy sure is big.