Better fighter by next year: Usyk or Lomachenko?

have they took away headgear yet

 

Yes no headgear, ten point must system and America are doing worse

 

But if they still produce top pros, does it even matter if they dont produce amateurs?

I mean amateurs, outside of a couple of countries, is simply a feeding ground for the professional ranks

 

Well there producing less top pros than before so yes

 

Debataeble, I simply think you're seeing more people go pro from Cuba and what was the Soviet Union.

 

True but USA has no one at heavyweight a division they used to dominant, they don't have any cruiserweights , no top light heavyweights , 1 really good super middleweight, only quillen at middleweight who's barely top five



If you take out 154 to 140 America have very little

 

Usyk, he has far more raw talent than Loma imo.

 

Well Wilder could well turn out to be legitimate...Jennings is a solid fighter too.

Cruiser they dont really have anyone, I dont think Shimmell will amount to too much.

Thomas Williams Jnr is probably the most exciting up and coming fighter in the division....Who knows how long Hopkins has left.

 

Wilder is garbage and hasn't faught anyone, Jennings has yet to doth anyone either

Williams probebly isn't even a top five prospect, beterbeiv, gvodsyk , mekhontsev are all better

And you basically proved my point there before America always had someone at or near the top of the division, now they don't and are relying on hype jobs and speculative prospects

 

UK took some of the hype regarding Audley (I know) and Khan being the only reps of the UK winning medals in the lates 90's/early 00's and invested a fair bit of money in boxing.

Team UK (both elite and second) now all train in the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield. The elite team get full time funding so they can soley concentrate on boxing and they are trained by Rob McCracken (Frochs trainer).

http://www.gbboxing.org.uk/

 

They still have more than double the number of champions of any other country...

 

Still doing worse in the pros than they use to do and a lot worse in the amateurs which was my point in the first place but you keep going off track

 

No..they just couldn't make the Olympics.

 

Lots of great pros werent good amateurs boxing or otherwise.

Who cares?

Do I have to go through the great soccer/basketball/American football etc players that werent feted as kids?

 

Your constantly changing your argument, first you said that America were doing bad in the amateurs because they all turned young early which has always been the case but the us has only started doing bad over the last ten years.

Then you say the amateurs don't matter as USA are doing well in the pros, well there not doing as well in the pros as when they were doing well in the amateurs

Then you named off a lot of guys from America that went pro young as evidence that they would have done better if they stayed amatuer when in reality most of the guys you named failed to even make an Olympic team that did terribly.


Your probebly going to go off on a tangent now and start talking about something barely relevant but you've been trolling for a whole so I don't expect anything else