The first 50 amateur fights = 1 pro fight and then every 10...

...You've had another pro fight."

I don't remember who said this, but it seems about right.

For example (and before all you Lomasexuals get on my case, I am not picking on him I have a lot of respect for Lomachenko and what he has accomplished, I think he's #1 P4P, I'm just making an example) Lomachenko was 396-1 as an amateur; that equates to a pro record of 35-0. Let's say for example that three WSB fights equals one pro fight (no headgear, 5 rounds, I'd say it's about right. He had 7 which means two more; 37-0. Add in one pro fight before Salido, and he entered the fight with a real record of 38-0. There is no record of Salido's amateur carer, but as he turned pro at 16, he probably never had one. That would mean that in their first fight, the records were as follows:

Lomachenko 38-0
Salido 42-12.

Another example, Mayweather was 84-8 as an amateur. That equates to a pro record of 4-0. He was 17-0 when he fought Genaro Hernandez for the Super fewtherweight title in '98, so their "true" records were as follows:

Mayweather 21-0
Hernandez (no amateur record) 38-2-1

Here are some other amateur records so you can play along at home. Remember, first 50 = one fight, every other 10 = one fight, 3 WSB = one fight, 10 losses = one loss.

For instance; Sven Ottke 256-47-5 = true record of 21-4 entering the pros.

[url]http://a.espncdn.com/boxing/a/2002/0425/1373674.html[/url]

 

I just don't see how they're comparable as pro fights go as far as 12 rounds. Especially title fights. Fighting too long as an amateur might actually make it harder to do the transition. Then again I have fought 0 amateur fights and 0 pro fights so the heck do I know?

 

That's some creative stupidity, I'm impressed and shaking my head at the same time.

 

Creative, but obviously too simplistic. For example, knowing nothing else, who would you pick between someone who was 50-0 in the amateurs and debuting as a pro, vs someone who is 1-0 as a pro with no amateur experience? 9 times out of ten the amateur guy wins.

 

Added to that, I reckon the learning curve is the other way around. You learn more in your first ten amateur fights than in your 201-210th amateur fights.

 

Zou Shiming is a perfect example, he's had a hell of a time trying to adjust, dude's so used to throw scoring light punches he's been having a hard time finding the balance that you need in the pro game.

 

No, i dont get that.

 

I forgot about that Chinese dude for a second. Bob Arum tried desperately to jam that dude down our throat.

 

No... that's not how it works.

 

This content is protected

 

Strange thread but kinda interesting.

 

I think 50 amateur fights would count for a lot more than just 1 pro fight.

 

I mean 50 amateur fights would mean you've been boxing for at least 2-3 years? 1 pro fight you can just go and have one.

 

This content is protected

 

Shiming was never that good to start, he just abused the computerized system, he would slap you and then run for his life with the lead, right now the current Olympic champion, Dusmatov, would whoop Zou really bad.
In the 2004 olympics he lost to Yan Barthelemy, in the 2008 olympics he won because his final opponent was injured and in the 2012 olympics he arguably lost ALL his freaking fights.