Biggest difference you noticed when sparring pros?

not true amature boxing nowdays is so far apart from pro boxing, amature boxing is like fencing nowdays, thats why 70% of top amature boxers are failing to reach the top the pros. in fact technic is one of my biggest criticism's of amature boxing, because its not effective in professional boxing.

in amature boxing you only have 3 - 4 rounds, its very easy to win a fight with them pity pat punches on the move, but in professional boxing that will only work for a few rounds at best, within 2 - 4 you need to be hitting them with solid punches to get their respect or else they will have cut the ring of will walk right through you.

seriously top class amature boxing and top class professional boxing, are worlds apart its like man against boy.

 

Yup. Real pitty pat punching here. This looks just like fencing. Bear in mind that the boy in Red here is the US National Champion.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMdb6XedXag[/ame]

 

Yeah yeah that's the generalisation but it's really not true. Have you seen Vasyl Lomachenko, the best amateur in the world? He fights on the inside alot and I truly believe he could win a world title in his first pro fight. Have you seen the russian light heavy, Berterbiev? Most of his fights end in stoppages. You could go on and on, a top amateur is a world class fighter, including all the pros.

On the flipside how many average so called 'champs' do you see in the pro game? There are so many belts these days. You don't have multiple fighters winning a gold medal or a world championship in the amateurs, you have to fight the best to be the best. There are plenty of featherfisted fighters who have won world titles as pros so your point there isn't really valid either. Pernell Whitaker didn't have much punching power, why didn't guys just walk through him?

A good fighter is a good fighter, a pro by definition is someone who gets paid to fight, anyone can become a punching bag and earn some dollars. Guys like Zelenoff, yes they are pro fighters. The worst fighters I've ever seen have been pro fighters. Also note that most of the top pros had a successful amateur career beforehand.

 

i find its everything tbh

 

You have no understanding of the difference between the Pro and Amatuer game, your showing complete naivety with that first stament

Pernell Whitaker fights nothing like an amature. I'm talking about guys with amature styles.

I used the word top class pro, not journeymen pros, if you think that all pros are the same level of talent just because their called a pro then your being stupid, top class Amatures would beat journey easy, but look at the percentage of top class amatures that have been exposed when they stepped up in class in the pros.

So Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Ezzard Charles, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Joe Louis and all the greats are some of the worst fighters ever :nut

Your starting to sound like someone that is very insecure to me, your obviously imtimidated by the pro game, so you then try to make it look like anyone can do it, well get back to me when you win your first pro title :hi:

 

And look at the percentage of pros who were top class amateurs. Ali-Gold Medal. Frazier-Gold Medal. Foreman-Gold Medal. Leonard, the Spinks Brothers, Meldrick Taylor, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe-all Olympians. Danny Jacobs-US National Champion and Golden Gloves champion. Floyd Mayweather-Bronze Medal at the 96 Games. Jermain Taylor-Bronze in 2000. Andre Ward-Gold in 2004; Andre Dirrell with a Bronze in the same games.

 

Reminds me of a coach at the place im at now. Ive been taught at my usual gym that an uppercut is all legs and hips, barely any arm movement.
A coach at the new place I was at was dissecting my technique and my apprent lack of shoulder movement. He demonstarted how to uppercut and didnt move his legs one bit, all arm. I questioneed this and he just said something about you being able to throw 200 punches and your opponent 100.

 

Those fighters you mention were top amateurs so I don't really understand your point. Of course there are differences with the pro game and amateurs, my point is a good fighter is a good fighter. What's an amateur style? There are many different styles in the amateurs, a greater proportion of amateurs would fight on the outside compared to pros if that's what you mean? Youtube Vasyl Lomachenko and you'll see a fighter who I believe is already better than any pro fighter today maybe with the exception of Mayweather. I'm not insecure about anything, I just think that you don't know what you are talking about. Alot of americans seem to have an issue with amateur boxing these days due to their lack of success. Let me guess, you're American?

 

The amature game now is completely different from when them guys were amatures if you don't relise this then your blind, and they also needed 4 years pro fights, sparring and hours training to adjust before they won a title, not one fight like you think they would need.

An amature's style nowdays involves, a lot of bouncing, this is a terrible habit amatures have and is one of the frist things that pro trainers first try to correct because for one, it waste's energy and more importantly you won't produce any power because this bouncing movement stops you from planting your feet, pro's don't bounce they use's steps or shuffle. Also most amatures punches are arm punches no hip movement,

The part about Lomachenko is ridiculous, so he's better then Pacquiao, Marquez, Martinez, Cotto, Alexander, Bradley, Lopez :verysad

Well you don't know what your talking about when it comes to Professional boxing, and I'm not American I'm from England,

 

Yes Lomachenko is more skilled, technically correct and athletic than any of those guys. Watch his fights then get back to me. You're generalising amateurs, there are many different styles just like the pro game.

 

This conversation reminds me of the hype around Amir Khan when he first went pro.

 

You spelled amateur wrong. Now I do it all the time myself, so I am not getting on you about grammar nazi bull****.... but you arent following it as much as you claim if youre consistently spell it wrong.

 

I didn't take much notice of that so I don't remember, I thought that hype was because he was so young and British and he managed to win a silver medal? Khan is a good fighter but Lomachenko is the best I've ever seen, I don't get caught up in hype. I tell it how I see it, I see weaknesses in every fighter but I can't see a weakness in Lomachenko. When he turns pro you'll see.

 

You clearly have no idea how to argue a point, or even grasp on any level what is being discussed. The question was concerned with what are the big differences you noticed when sparring pros as opposed to amateurs. Then you start comparing your garden variety amateur to 'top world class pros'. This is a completely different comparison. I think we have all seen some pretty bad pros in our time, yet you claim that to make this assertion is the same as saying the ATGs can't box. The two claims are completely unrelated.

Yes, the amateurs and the pros are different. They have different rules for starters, not to mention different durations. You would have to be a ****ing clown not to adapt your style to the different rules and number of rounds. This is one of the central reasons why amateurs fight differenty to pros. Most top level amateurs adapt their style for the professional version of the sport fairly proficiently, yet some are suited more than others. For several reasons pros are more concerned with power than amateurs (not least of all is the fact that the public like the spectacle of KOs, thus KOs improve your earning capacity, even though this might not be the best way to win a fight), but I wouldn't say amateurs is like fencing or that they throw pitter patter punches. Have you watched amateur boxing lately? Judges are instructed to not score pitter patter punches. The punches must have the full weight of the body behind them.

Lomachenko is an extremely dominant amateur, there have been few of his calibre ever, and I believe he would win a title in his first pro fight. If you think this is an outrageous statement then consider that Roach, the most heralded trainer of our time, said much the same thing about Rigondeaux. When Roach was triaining him in about his third pro fight from memory he said that Rigondeaux would beat the **** outta (Roach's friend and his own fighter) Israel Vasquez if they fought. Rigondeaux won his intial fights in the first few rounds without even breaking a sweat so he had hardly learnt anything from the experience that had suddenly turned him from a pitter patter fencing bouncing around no-hoper amatuer into some kind of beast of a professional.

No one suggested Whitaker fights like an amateur, you missed the point again.

 

Well said :good