History of professional boxing if Soviet countries could fight pro?

well you didn't really make any points you went off on a tangent about airplanes and dragons and ****

the thread is about if soviet countries were aloud compete in the pro but yet when you were doing the medal numbers you left out all the medal winners from communist eastern european countries behind the iron curtain like poland,romania, hungary, czezhsolvakie yugoslavia etc

 

What you need to understand is that boxing in the USSR was basically a fringe activity compared to what it was in the US. Do you think that the top Soviet boxers like Korolev, Ageev, Lemeshev, Vysotsky, etc. were anywhere near as big in the USSR as, say, Joe Louis, Marciano, Ali, SRL, etc. were in the US? It's not even close. Most people in Russia right now don't even know who these people were.

So get the heck outta here with that "they sent the best fighters in their country against our third-tier high school kids" crap. When one boxing "pool" has 10 million participants and another has 10 thousand participants, don't be surprised if the one with 10 million produces the better boxers.

 

he also only counts soviet medals won even though they have half the population of usa, while the entire communist eastern europe had near enough the same population as usa, he excludes medals won by hungary,poland etc

and the argument was how would professional boxing have changed, well all these countires would have gone pro

i see american still trying to use that boys against men argement today even though the cuban team was on average 2 and a half years younger than their american counter parts at the last olympics

 

Yeah, they're trying to prop up American fighters, put them on a pedestal. US Olympic teams have included people like Ali, Frazier, Foreman, SRL, Roy Jones, etc. Oh, but "we only sent our third-tier high school kids against their best grown men!!!" Of course, not everyone is going to be an Ali or SRL, you're going to have some duds in there as well. But the key thing is that boxing was just so much bigger in the US because of the existence of the pro game. The talent pool to select from was much bigger because more people went into boxing. As of now, that disparity has leveled off somewhat, which is why the US is not dominating the pro ranks as it did before.

 

Really?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the U.S. isn't winning now like they were then because:

1. The fighters the U.S. is sending now are worse than the ones they were sending back then. The pool is smaller. Kids aren't involved in amateur boxing in the U.S. like they were from the 1920s to the 1970s - when the NY Golden Gloves could sell out the big arena at Madison Square Garden.

Why? Do you think the fighters the U.S. is sending to the Olympics now are better than they've ever been?

2. I'm also going to say the rules have kind of changed since the U.S. ruled, so much so that it's not even the same sport anymore.

How many Gold medals in Boxing did Russia have in 2012? 10 or 11? No wait, I just checked, they had ONE.

Why is that?

They'd probably give the same reasons as the U.S. does - because they don't have as many fighters to choose from, their fighters aren't sticking fighting amateur their whole careers anymore like they used to, and because of the rule changes, too.

Whatever. I don't care about amateur boxing now. If you can land 15 jabs, and the fight is stopped on a TKO because you have a 15-0 lead, that ain't boxing.

I have no interest whatsoever in the current Olympic-style boxing.

 

You're out of date, they just did away with the point-scoring and the headgear this year. The scoring is now on a 10-point system.

 

Actually, the opposite is true.

Earnie Shavers won the national AAU championship in 1969, and turned pro. Why? Because making money was more important than fighting as an amateur and waiting for the 1972 Olympics. Ron Lyle won the national AAU championship in 1970, and turned pro. Why? Because making money was more important than fighting as an amateur and waiting for the 1972 Olympics.

If "pro boxing" makes the amateur program better, Russia should be exploding in the amateur ranks. Because they were excellent before they could turn pro, and now they can turn pro after the amateurs and make a fortune.

But Russia won ONE gold medal in the last Olympics. Why? Because their top amateurs from one Olympics to another aren't sticking around. They're turning pro, instead.

How many Olympic Gold medals would Alexander Povetkin have if he never turned pro after winning in 2004? How many Gold medals did that cost Russia in the super heavyweight division? Think Anthony Joshua would've beaten Povetkin?

Who keeps popping up in the Olympic Finals since Povetkin turned pro? The guy he beat in 2004 - Roberto Cammarelle. Why? Because, for whatever reason, Cammarrelle made it his career to fight as an amateur.

If the best Cuban fighters don't have to defect and can just turn pro whenever they like it, Cuba will go back to winning absolutely nothing in the Olympics. Because all those dirt poor boxers aren't going to let the gym door hit them in the ass as they're running for the money.

 

as iv already stated before the scoring and style of amateur boxing has reverted back to how it used to be and usa had there worst world championships ever, a fact which you continue to ignore as it doesnt suit your argument

and Russia won 1 gold 1 silver and 2 bronze, but i taught we were talking about the sovier union?

the 'soviet union' won 4 gold, 2 silver, 10 bronze to americas 0 medals

so can you start keeping your argument logical, so you dont care about amateur boxing even though its gone back to the way you used to like it? are you high?

 

What? You want to know why the U.S. didn't dominate this year because they changed the rules?

How the F*ck should I know? I don't know who was on the team? Where they fought. When it was?

I'm talking about the Soviet era that ended 23 years ago and stretched back 70 years before, and you want to know why the U.S. team didn't win something a couple months ago.

Who cares? It's 2014. If they sucked that bad, I'll bet you $50 right now whoever fought on the World Championship team for the U.S. won't be on the U.S. Olympic boxing team in 2016. Because even when they did well in the World Championships decades ago, a lot of those guys didn't make it on the Olympic team.

The U.S. has never given a rat's ass about the World Championships. They've always taken place during the rebuilding of the team. You might care. They never have. I live in the U.S. Trust me. The Rod Salka fight last week got more press the freaking World Championships.

 

dominate? hold on there buddy they have to at least be cometitive before they can dominate, winning 3 fights from a squad of 10 boxers is disgracful, Costa Rica had 1 boxer who won more fights than the 10 american boxers combined

yes were talking about the soviet union but when mentioning the medal count at the last olympics only included russia:rofl your just trying to satisfy your agenda

yes and a lot of other national teams will have differant guys by the time the olympics comes around as well

its also easier for americans to qualify for the olympics in boxing which gives them another advatage but they still cant win a medal

world championship medals are harder to win, you can live in your dreamworld but thats what guys in the amateurs will tell you

 

It doesn't matter that Loma had 1 pro fight cuz according to you Stevenson and Loma were so great in the ams they don't need pro fights. They're so great in the ams Stevenson beats Ali and Loma beats Sanchez in a pro fight. atsch The ams is a springing board for the pros, nationalistic pride aside. Salido already squashed your east euro superiority wet dream.
Give it a rest already.

 

First, how can the world championships be "harder to win" when the U.S. has NEVER sent its best team to the World Championships - since the inception of the tournament?

That's like saying the Olympics are harder to win when the Cubans don't show up. It's nonsense.

You can claim it's true, but by definition, if the best competitors aren't there, it isn't tougher.

 

Going back to the topic of the thread ...

One poster (STB) in this thread said the eastern bloc countries didn't excel until after the Soviet Union collapsed. He also said U.S. was dominant at the Olympics prior to the Soviet Union collapsing.

People disagreed with him. I didn't.

He was right. Go back and check. The U.S. was dominant in the Olympics during the 70 years of the Soviet era, and the eastern bloc countries did excel after that.

The U.S. won alot more Gold medals at the Olympics during the 70-year Soviet era than the Soviets (and Cuba did).

When that became obvious, people with "an agenda" brought up the World Championships ... which had nothing to do with the conversation. It was about the Olympics.

I explained truthfully why the U.S. has never done well in the World Championships from the start in 1974, (their teams essentially disband every four years), because they focus on the Olympics and they aren't near ready by the World Championships.

Now I'm being berated because the U.S. didn't do well at this year's World Championships.

This thread is about the Olympics in the Soviet era. Not why the U.S. sucked in the 2014 World Championships. (They always suck in the World Championships - before the rule changes and after - and apparently back again).

I made my original point. I agreed with STB, because he was right.

The people with the "agendas" are the ones who want to shift the focus to anything but the original topic.

If you want to talk about the topic, I will when I come back. If you just want to talk about the 2014 World Championships, I won't. I don't know anything about them and couldn't care less.

 

ok il expalin this to you, their is quotas for olympic places which are evenly distributed between the continents.Dispite Europe being by fair the strongest boxing continent we recieve the same number of places at the olympics as africa do. Its also the reason Austrailia almost always are able to have have a full squad at the olympics while Russia doesnt.

This means that quality boxers in europe can miss out on the games while terrible african,latin american ,asian and oceanic boxers make it to the games. This weakens the field and makes the olympics a lot easier to win and medal in.

As in the world championship every country gets to enter a boxer in each weight more quality is at these tournament and you also have to win usually around two more fights to win them

and can you stop this nonsense with america doesn't care about the world championship it really makes you look dumb, you do know that world championships usually act as Olympic qualifying events right? they send there best team in the hope of qualifying mate. So when you say america never send their best team to it your either lieing or making yourself look very stupid

 

Lying?

Well, this is easy to prove.

What was the best U.S. team that ever competed in the World Championships? Name the fighters who were on it?

Now name the fighters who were on the U.S. Olympic team two years later?

If you find one U.S. team that competed in the World Championships that had BETTER fighters on it than the U.S. team that competed in the Olympics two years later ...

I'll admit I was wrong.

If you can't, enough already with the condescending comments.

I just posted in this thread to defend a guy who the FACTS proved was right.

I like to talk boxing. I don't need to lie about anything.