Seeing Galal win convincingly the other night (however poor Sunny was), in only his 9th fight, made me think about how many pro-ready fighters there potentially are, ready and waiting (maybe too long) in the amateurs. Obviously not on the same level, but Lomachenko completed two Olympic cycles, before becoming pro, like Galal did too. And, Loma then won the WBO in his 3rd fight! Is it fair that some well-known Eastern Europeans competed for years in the amateurs, often with impeccable records, when clearly they should have been pro a lot earlier? Surely not a level amateur playing field, and some clear physical differences at times, I imagine. But then I guess your 'status' is your decision. I understand that different cultures have varying practices and politics as to why their boxers either take a while to turn pro, or sometimes not at all. I mean, how many potential ATG fighters has the pro game missed out on from Cuba alone, in the past 60 years! Some boxers, however, may linger too long in the amateurs, and are then probably not cut out for the top pro's (Frazier Clarke?). Maybe a conscience decision, regarding self-belief, along with many other factors. ...Which fighters from the past, that spring to mind, would have been champions or P4P greats.
countless from ex soviet union countries: Boris Lagutin, Valeri Popenchenko, Vyacheslav Lemeshev, Igor Vytotsky, Oleg Saitov, Aleksei Tischenko, Gaydarbek Gaydarbekov, Serik Sapiyev, Andrey Zamkovoy, Vassily Levit (and more) and countless cubans: Teofilo Stevenson, Felix Savon, Angel Espinosa, Ariel Hernandez, Angel Herrera, Mario Kindelan, Hector Vinent & Roberto Cammerelle, Jerzy Kulej, Zigzy Pietrzykowski, Dick Mctaggart, Arnold Vanderlyde There would have been a lot less American champions.
Not every top amateur can be a pro champion. Guys like Tyrell Biggs, Henry Tillman, Audley Harrison etc. are proof of this. I am sure some of the guys listed here would have been champs at the pro level but i doubt all of them would have been. The earlist Stevenson could have turned pro was 1974-75. He isn't beating Ali or Foreman that early in his career. He would be competing with Holmes in the late 70's/early 80's. Sure he could potentially win but there is no evidence that he could dominate Holmes in a 15 round fight. Savon would have been competing in the 90's in a loaded field. Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield, Tyson (early 90's) etc. Could he become champ? Sure. Could he potentially be the best of the era? Not likely IMO.
I have an issue with guys who have had pro fights (like Jalolov) going back to the amateurs to fight actual amateurs. I don't have a major issue with guys like Usyk and Lomachenko staying in the amateurs for a long time to build up their skills. Do i wish they turned pro earlier? Sure. But i don't have a major major issue with it. Just don't let actual pros compete with amateurs.
Amateur and pro boxing is almost two different sports. Being good at one doesn't necessarily mean being good at the other or both. Its a different ball game when it comes to cardio. Going from 3 rounds to 12 is a big difference obviously, and means different pacing, not all boxers are suitable for both. Smaller gloves means different consequences for mistakes and shots are much sharper on impact. Then there's the ticket selling side of professional boxing. There's good amateurs who don't sell enough tickets and don't get backed by a good promotion. Turning pro from being a good amateur comes with different pressures and it's understandable why some boxers don't. It's not just staying amateur for an easy ride.
Modern amateur boxing is a very different sport form pro boxing. Being a great amateur does not necessarily mean you will be a great pro. It's hard to say if there are some pro ready fighters hanging in the amateurs too long. As someone else said, I'm ok with amateurs staying amateur, but I'm opposed to pros going back to the amateurs in every sport. Hate when the Olympics comes around and the basketball team is full of pros. Give the amateurs their time!
