Lee purdy has no amateur experience?

Go and look at the number of fighters who were successful pros that had no amateur experience, they're are very few as most of them get there ass kicked or become journeymen.

This is a skill sport that takes years of honing your skills to be the best. D you think guys can just show up, turn pro and expect to beat guys that have been doing it since a young age? It happens with some rare talents but not often.

Don't disrespect the sport I love.

 

Lee's one of those naturally strong kids. Nothing spectacular skill or talent wise, but a solid guard and very strong/rugged physically. Probably walks people down all day in the gym.

 

don't be a dick:roll:the same can be said for olympic champs,world am boxing champs,you honestly think being a great am makes you a great pro:roll:

and what the **** is that supposed to mean,the bolded bit,i trained for years and had 20 odd fights,(could of had more but i like beer and women:smooch)sparred with some good pro's and ams from lancashire,i ****ing know how hard it is to train and box :nono
what i said is that you don't need much am experience to be a good pro,just becouse you aint a top am don't mean your not going to be a good or even top pro.
Me thinks if you love it,you need to learn a bit more about it sweetheart

ps oh and just because a lad has boxed since he bit his own umbilical cord off don't mean he is going to be better than the lad who has had his 1st blowjob at 14

pps oh and its like a apprenticeship is amateur boxing,once you have served your time then you start learning new and better skills

 

Watching most amateurs of the past decade, the one of the last words that spring to mind is 'skilled'.

A lot of them are bouncing around like string puppets, brutal stuff.

I'd say a thorough amateur career can be as much a hindrance as it could be a help, in terms of success in the pros.

People these days become obsessed with ''he was a top amateur, so he'll be awesome in the pros'' by default, and we should all wank over them as a result.

Audley Harrison and Frankie Gavin have been ****ing great haven't they?

Neither have defeated more than ONE English level operator each, in their pro careers.

 

What you said was "Amateur experience means Zilch" e.g having wealthy amateur experience won't help you as a pro what so ever. Which clearly isn't true.

I agree with you that just because you are a top amateur, doesn't necessarily mean you will be a top pro, but that's not what you originally said so was just clearing up that amateur experience does indeed help you you in the professional game.

 

I wouldn't wanna be in a bloody tear up with Ruslan Chagaev either tbf

 

widdy - I'll think you'll find the VAST majority of successful pro's have a good amateur pedergree. Out of our current boxers and off the top of my head I know for certain Hatton, Khan, Froch, DeGale, Groves, Harrison, Bellew, Mitchell, John Murray, David Price, Fury, Chisora, Haye, Danny Williams, Jon Lewis/Travis Dickinson all won the aba title (Khan only won it at junior level as he went pro young) and then you look at the world stage and Klitschko's, Solis, Pulev, Povetkin, Mayweather, Ward, Garcia, Bradley etc. All have great amateur pedergree. At least 90% of pro's who win anything will have done something as an amateur.

 

ok,zilch was the wrong word,i get pissed off with peoiple saying if you were a top am you must be a superb pro,its not true.
Now you have named of the top of you head 20 odd boxers from about 1 million around the world with a decent am pedigree. i will bet you your house that 90%of the worlds pro's who win anything aint got top am predigees :deal
i will also say again that to be a good pro you don't have to have great amateur experience .

C an't ****ing believe you put harrison in there,thats kinda proved my point :smooch

 

Don't talk **** about a sport you know **** all about historically you'll make an idiot of yourself.

 

:huh


Don't really know where this is coming from but elaborate or STFU. You have no idea how much I know about this sport. Just because I don't have 40,000 posts and am not addicted to a forum doesn't mean I lack historical knowledge. After all I have been reading biographies and works or non fiction about boxing since for 8 years (since I was 13) and have even written several articles myself.


Before the 70's they're were many guys that turned pro without amateur experience, but those were different days where they're were so many pro's in a similar position that you could be fighting week in week out and gain experience fast. Also in the likes of South America it still goes on, but they have kids turning pro at 14, so it's almost like an apprenticeship in the pro's. However we were referring to modern day pro's where if you turn professional you are likely to meet guys who are vastly more experienced even if you are both novice pro's.

Basically if you are boxing in an era/place where there are lots of pro's with no amateur experience, you will have a better chance of success. However, if you are fighting today in a place like the UK and you turn pro without any am experience, you are likely to come up short unless you have fantastic talent.

 

Harrison won a british and Euro title at the end of the day. He could have been a great pro but he made bad choices after turning over. The thing is with amateur is it's a great chance to learn your trade and get noticed by a promoter while being kept safe from money grabbing snakes. Pro game one loss can ruin your credibility and snakes try and take advantage. Bottom line is Amateur = sport, pro = sport/business controlled by crooks, unlicensed = sport/business full of crooks without ANY governing body or regulations to prevent them taking advantage of and endangering fighters (mostly naive kids). You can go pro with 50 amateurs and 5-10, 15 or even 20+ losses are wiped clean off the slate.

 

Nate Campbell.

And I was just judging off your posts that I have seen. I ain't addicted to forums, and my post count only indicates how many times I've had to put wrongs right.

 

:huh Nate Campbell had a 30-5 amateur record and narrowly lost out on making the sydney Olympic team. You need to get your facts right if you're going to call someone out for their own lack of knowledge.

Which of my other posts have you seen which indicate I know nothing about this sports history?

 

utter shite