Audie Murphy quote that I think applies to classic boxing

Why? You just named four future hall of famers, all exceptional boxers. GGG had a history of street fighting before he boxed too.

 

Interesting take.

 

Well I'm not really sure what point you're making then. A skirmish is a small-scale battle. What are you saying it means in a boxing context?

 

Dimitry Bivol had 283 amateur fights, winning 268 of them.

Oleksandr Usyk had 350 amateur fights, winning 335 of them.

Gennady Golovkin had 353 amateur fights, winning 345 of them.

Canelo Alvarez turned pro at 16 and has had 62 pro fights and has been the World Middleweight and World Super Middleweight Champion in addition to beating Kovalev for his light heavyweight strap.

I can't think of a worse group of boxers to claim they haven't "had enough" skirmishes.

Word of advice. Fight one amateur fight yourself. ACTUAL combat.
Then fight 100. Actual combat.
Then fight 200. Actual combat.
Then fight 300. Actual combat.
Then turn pro. And win multiple world titles yourself. Actual combat.

Then go on a message board and listen to guys say you haven't fought enough.

It's ridiculous.

Golovkin is closing in on 400 actual fights (amateur and pro).

 

GGG and Canelo represent my nutsack

You didn't include Fury yet he will blow away Usyk - because he's a midget but people will only accept that once Fury eats him alive and use it as an excuse.

 

Each one of them had plenty of amateur pedigree—that's certain. A point could be made that old timers had more professional fights, which were rough and unforgiving even for current pro standard (different refs, actual infighting being alive) on top of often unofficial semi-amateur off the record bouts fought for scraps (some like Walcott fought as kids, for treats and pat on the shoulder.)

Amateur experience is great, but it has three rounds on top of having much more careful and restrictive referees.

Not necessarily agreeing with the OP. Just adding a few cents.

 

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this or any other forum. In fact one of the most stupid things I've heard said about the sport in a very long time.

 

Why is it more valueable than lots of sparring though?

 

Actual PRO experience is the best teacher. Amateur experience is good, but there's no comparison.

Battle experience is why so many of the old greats were able to adapt in the ring effortlessly, because they were so used to actually fighting. It's a large part of the reason why we have so many 'you hit me then I hit you' fights now. The real deep, cunning skills are almost gone.

BTW I think the fighters mentioned are very good (with exception of Canelo, who is just good).

 

I see the comparison; these guys do not fight enough, they fight once a year, maybe twice...

Ask most fighters and they'll tell you fighting is what keeps then sharp.

There are greats from the past that fought many many times in a year. They kept sharp.

They didn't duck each other and squabble over petty details, eliminating the negotiation. They are completely ruled by greedy weasels.
The top fighters are terrified of losing or not getting the A-side in the negotiations.

It's becoming a joke.

 

I agree , you're 100% correct

 

Having 300 three-round or four-round fights is real competition and you pick up a ton of skills that way.

These guys aren't turning pro looking like novices.

You could definitely tell who had nearly 300 amateur fights and who didn't when Bivol and
Canelo fought.

Canelo having three-times as many pro fights didn't compensate for the amount of time both had actually been in the ring competing with live competition (Bivol having had far more experience in actual fights). And Canelo has more pro experience than most.

People dismissive of amateur boxing are people who never boxed as amateurs. They are real fights.

In fact, many boxers who have 300 or 400 amateur fights often end up being damaged goods by the time they turn pro. Because those are real fights they were competing in.