Is amatuer pedigree overrated?

Not in my opinion. Amatuer fights are crucial to developing seasoning and temperment in fighters, and exposing them to a myriad of different styles.

 

Yes and no. Sometimes fighters fight too many amateur fights and have a shorter shelf life as a pro, but in general, fighters with extensive amateur pedigrees have a higher "floor" than those who go into the pros without it. All that means is that even the ones who turn out to be disappointing are still, on average, going to be more successful than the average fighter who goes pro with no amateur experience.

 

no it isn't

 

No its not overrated

 

definitely not

 

No, not remotely.

 

Gamboa has had over 400 amateur fights, and is looking like the next big thing at lightweight... I would say it's definitely not overrated.

 

how many fighters come into boxing with zero amateur experience and become champs?

to think its over rated is stupid

i know a lot of good amateurs dont become good fighters but by saying its over rated youre saying anyone can come into boxing and be a success

 

Nope.

 

Yes and no. The best amateurs are not always the best Pros. Likewise poorer amateurs can be the best Pros in the game. However, a lot of olympic medal winners have been the very best P4P fighters. Take Whitaker, Jones, Mayweather, DLH, Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield. The list is endless.

You could also take Audley Harrison, Jeff Lacy....

 

Well you don't have to be a great amateur to be a great pro.
And some fighters were amazing amateurs but in the pro's they came up short.

In general I say amateur experience is definately important. But it is not a garantee for succes at the pro's. That lies in the boxer himself, as pro boxing is a litte bit of a different ballgame.

 

Exactly

 

Its almost a different sport! Completely different scoring sytem and little chance of KOs at amatuer. However, it is a useful indicator of a fundamentally good boxer. Most of the greats have a good amateur experience with most of the ATG having fought at Olympic standard (where possible). I would like to see some statistics on this to back up my point but cant really be bothered trawling through amateur records so I'll presume my general knowledge backs up my point :S

But dont think a good amateur is necessarily a good pro (Fraudley has already been mentioned).

In general though, I think amateur records can be indicative of a good fighter, but certainly not definitive!