Would USSR boxers have changed the HW golden age of the 70s?

Stevenson or Angel Milian from Cuba. I can imagine them dominating the period 1975-1980, between the Ali and Holmes eras. On the other hand, Stevenson was knocked out twice by the little-known Igor Vysotsky of the U.S.S.R. This shows he could have had his flaws. But among the communist nations, there certainly could have been someone with better predispositions for professional boxing. Young, Lyle, Norton, and Holmes were not outstanding amateurs.

 

funny how they couldn't actually beat Ali, Frazier or Foreman in the olympics but would be magically able to do it in the pros. Lol.

 

Imagine if Nikolai Volkov had sought his fortune in boxing rather than the more prestigious world of wrasslin'. Now imagine an army of Nikolai Volkovs.

 

Definitely the X-factor, but so many more unknowns than knowns, especially as it concerns the mental game.

Stevenson definitely had the power, the boxing skills and the physical tools to compete at a high level.

But, as I mentioned above … how does he handle freedom? How well does he make right choices when choices are his to make and the world is his oyster (he would have a certain degree of money and fame being a prized and high-profile defector given his Olympic pedigree)? How coachable is he? How does he adjust (and how quickly) from a lifetime of training for 3 rounds to 15 — most Americans with any promise even as amateurs are prepping for pro careers, going deeper rounds in the gym, working toward that 15-round goal (in the 1970s) and probably more mentally and physically prepared for it by the time they turn pro than a guy coming from the Cuban Olympic system.

While you would expect Teofilo to beat Ali by the mid-1970s, if he is what we expect him to be and he rises the ranks like that, I personally expect a motivated Ali more like Manilla Ali than the Ali of some other bouts. Muhammad rose to ocassions when challenged — how does Stevenson deal with Ali’s antics in the built-up (planting seeds of doubt or getting him off his game)? And how does he handle a man who, if we get a Manilla type version, is willing to go to hell and back to win … and take Teo with him?

I think he’d have a bit of a rockier road … some fights where the opponent doesn’t fall down and go boom when hit hard, some fights where a less skilled guy is outworking him and he’s coasting, that sort of thing. He might pass those tests, but he might not.

(And, as you point out, there’s the chin question when he’s getting hit by a pro headgear with professionally wrapped hands and no headgear. George Foreman fought George Chuvalo in 1970 and Don Dunphy on the call says they’re in 8-ounce gloves … if that’s correct, I’m not sure when exactly heavyweights began fighting in 10s exclusively but that would be a different kettle of fish — both ways with his power — for Teo).

 

They could have made it even more competitive sure. To what degree who knows.

As for a Kiltschko eqivalent idk too hard to say.

 

I think no.

 

What you are saying here is completely incorrect. the Soviets have always been a major force in Amateur Boxing. You should apologise for getting so many things wrong.

Olympics at Boxing
Olympics 1964, Soviet Union were 1st in the medal charts, ahead of USA who were 4th,
Olympics 1968, Soviet Union were 1st the medal charts, ahead of the USA who were 2nd.
Olympics 1972, Soviet Union were 2nd in the medal charts ahead of USA again who were 6th
Olympics 1976 Soviet Union were 6th in the medal charts having a rare bad year for their standards, USA were 1st.
Olympics 1980, Soviet Union were 2nd in the medal charts (Cuba were 1st, USA didn't compete in that one)
Olympics 1984, Soviet Union did not compete in the 1984 Olympics, so any comments on that year are void (and Cuba boycotted the Games too, hence why USA dominated that year)
Olympics 1988, Soviet Union were 4th, USA 1st.
Olympics 1992, Soviet Union did not compete as a nation, as it dissolved at the end of 1991

so between the 60's and 80's when Soviet Union and USA were both competing at the Games at Boxing, Soviet Union bettered USA at Boxing at the Olympics Games 3 times out of 5.

World Championships at Boxing(which started in 1974)
World Championships 1974 Soviet Union were 2nd, ahead of USA who were 3rd,
World Championships 1978 Soviet Union were 2nd, ahead of USA who were 10th
World Championships 1982, Soviet Union were 3rd, USA were 2nd (both were tied on 3 Golds)
World Championships 1986 Soviet Union were 3rd, USA were 2nd
World Championships 1989, Soviet Union were 1st, USA were 4th
World Championships 1991 Soviet Union were 4th, USA were 5th

so between 1974 and 1991, Soviet Union bettered USA at Boxing at the World Championships 4 times out of 6

So overall out of 11 Major Championships between the 60's to 1991 when they were both competing at the same championships, Soviet Union beat USA at Boxing 7-4

 

Lol, you are quoting medal counts in the Olympic games, not Boxing. Never once did I say they weren't a top country in amateur boxing, I'm saying those countries were better post Soviet Union.

The United States leads all nations in Olympic boxing history, leading with 50 gold medals and 117 total medals (as of the 2024 Games). Cuba ranks second with over 40 gold medals, demonstrating immense dominance since the 1960s.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

Are you counting medals during this time? When the USSR entered international competition, the USA already had a huge number of medals, also because it didn't face much competition at first.

 

I understand that the Soviet Union was a post WWII boxing program and that they were well behind the US in overall medal count when they started competing. I stand by what I said about USA boxing being far superior up until the 2000's when former Soviet countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan became major players on the international circuit. The US program is practically in shambles now compared to where it once was while those former Soviet countries have flourished since gaining independence.

Yes, the Soviets had great boxing teams in 60's 70's and 80's but the US's best fighters went pro and had legendary careers while the Soviets would keep the same guys ever four years training to beat teenagers in three round fights.

The topic of this thread was would these Soviet amateurs make a difference in the pro game against the top Americans like Ali, Frazier and Foreman. My answer is no.

 

lol NO!!!!!

I am quoting the medal tables from JUST BOXING!

i.e ... You go to the wikipedia page of for example 'Boxing at the 1984 Summer Olympics' and it shows you the medal table for Boxing at those games!.

They've always been a top for amateur boxing. Late 90's wasn't something new lol. Nor was there was an improvement. They've just consistently always been good. At least half of their greatest ever amateurs came from before the 90's.. Lagutin, Popenchenko, Lemeshev, Grigoryev, Yengibaryan and so on..

You should either just admit you got it wrong, or stop trolling about it.

If you counted who did better at boxing when both were at the Olympic Games and World Championships together at the same time (Soviet Union missed many years and USA missed some). Then definitely Soviet Union is ahead of the USA. It's just facts.

 

From LegendsBoxing website

Why didn't Soviet Union Boxers Turn Professional Before 1991?
The story of why Soviet Union boxers remained amateurs throughout their careers touches on politics, ideology, and a fundamentally different approach to sports. Simply put, professional boxing was forbidden under Soviet law, as the communist system viewed professional sports as capitalist exploitation.

"In the Soviet mind, athletes were standard-bearers for the socialist system, not individual profit-seekers," explains boxing historian Sergei Kotov. "Their achievements belonged to the state and the people, not to themselves."

This policy created some heartbreaking missed opportunities. Alexander Yagubkin, the brilliant heavyweight who won the 1982 World Championship, could have earned millions as a professional. Bob Arum, the legendary American promoter, once lamented: "Yagubkin could have been a heavyweight champion and made millions, but the system wouldn't allow it. It was boxing's loss."

The trade-off for Soviet athletes was comprehensive state support. While they couldn't earn prize money, they received housing, education, monthly stipends, and often held prestigious positions in the military or police that required little actual work while they trained full-time.

Boris Lagutin, the two-time Olympic gold medalist, once reflected: "We didn't think much about professional opportunities. Our lives were secure, we were national heroes, and the amateur competitions provided all the challenge we needed."

This restriction ultimately created generations of extraordinarily skilled boxers who accumulated 200+ amateur bouts while developing technical mastery that would only be fully appreciated after the Soviet collapse allowed their successors to turn professional.

 

Judging from afar, obviously.

 

I'm not the one trolling. You clearly just created a new profile to do just that. You are current poster that created a new profile just to troll. I'll say it again, USA boxing always trumped the Soviets as a Boxing organization. The thread is about whether the Soviets could have competed against the US heavyweights of the 70's and I say absolutely not. The US always produced far greater fighters and that's not debatable.

Why don't you post under your normal profile you ****ing *****.

 

@AwardedSteak863

Calm down. The truth is not trolling. I was just clearly showing you were wrong.

I clearly posted FACTS and medal counts in Boxing for the major tournaments at the time period you claimed USA were superior to the Soviets, where it clearly shows when they were both in the major tournaments at the same time.. the Soviet Union were more often than not ahead of the USA in the Boxing medal table. I'm sorry this hurts you so much, but it's factual. The Soviets were better.