Some say amateur boxing success does not translate well into the pros some say only great amateur boxing success translate into the pros I want to how much does amateur boxing really matters
In terms of gaining valuable experience in the ring without it affecting your pocket it's worth it. You don't learn to outbox guys to break them down as much in the amateurs as in the pros, there's not such a huge difference in how they're boxed nowadays with the dropping of headguard use in most international amateur competitions. It's good to gain plenty of amateur experience before turning pro, top level or not, you need to convince promoters to put you on their shows with your amateur background. A few national championships in the amateurs is enough to make it so that you get a decent payday entering the pros.
it is deceptive. Look at guys like Hearns and Leonard. Hearns had 163 amateur fights so he was more experience in that than people would think, although he didn't have the rounds experience. Or Leonard. Or Curry and McCallum who had a ridiculous amount. They are just starting and they are way ahead in the game.
To me its a no brainer. The idea that amature experience brings zero value into a pro boxing debute seems a bit ridiculous. The amount of learning that can take place within even 50 amature fights gives huge advantages over someone who is competing for the first time. Seems pretty self evident.
Maybe I'm confused but I don't understand how the concept of amateur experience being valuable could even be in question
It where you learn tactics, fundamentals, technique against live opposition, gain experience against certain styles and attributes, learn how to adjust to certain tactics....... And on and on and on. Its huge.
I think it translates well into the pros. Teaches you the fundamentals, and is more key on accurate hitting, movement, angles, and gameplan.
Its a great learning experience, as, in the amateurs, you can't pick and choose. If you want to win, you have to beat the best guys in your competition, and then go up the ranks, always having to fight the best.
It doesn't guarantee success, but a guy with a substantial amateur background has less to learn (or a learning headstart) when embarking upon a pro career compared to a guy with minimal/negligible amateur experience. And the guys with big sponsorship have the benefit of training like professionals long before they enter the pro ranks. Having said that, the decorated amateur may also need to unlearn some habits.
Obviously ans sort of experience, is building muscle memory, and stylistic/tactical knowledge. From 1900 onward, there have been Audley Harrison figures! You only have to compare the records of fighters who went straight into the professional ranks, to those who were eased in via an amateur background!
If I have an issue, it's not so much with the idea that amateur experience is valuable (of course it is), it's the misapprehension that amateur accomplishments should in some way factor into estimations of a fighter's greatness. The amateur game is the breeding ground. The pro ranks are the true litmus test of a fighter. Medals from amateur days are a nice garnish, they're not the meal. When I think of a great fighter who happens to have a gold medal, the image of him waving and smiling on the central podium at the Olympics is far from foremost in my mind. If a guy wins Olympic gold and flops as a professional a la Audley, nobody much cares about the medal, least of all Canastota (granted, the IBHOF is something of a farce these days, but I'm just illustrating a point).
Amateur boxing is more pure than pro boxing. So it helps by teaching the basics/fundamentals really well. Good amateurs always have really solid fundamentals.
