Olympics Achievements: should we take it into account when ranking fighters?

That's true. But I don't think that anything a guy does has an amateur has any bearing on his ranking as a professional. That was my understanding of the original question.

 

Good points for sure and I do agree that high level amateur boxing and the pro game are completely different. I'm just saying that there are certainly high level amateur boxers that never went pro that were great fighters and in some cases, better than pro's. The Cubans and Ukranian boxing teams being great examples.

 

As amateurs. Though I am of the opinion that Lewis, with both at their best as pros, probably would have won.

 

It is amateur boxing. Winning a gold medal in amateur boxing should certainly influence your standing in amateur boxing. It has nothing to do with professional boxing.
Leo Randolph won a gold medal, Rafael Marquez did not, nor did Israel Vasquez. Should he be ranked above them as professionals? He most certainly should be...as amateurs but one has nothing to do with the other.

 

Yes, they're obviously important. Rigondeaux, for example, should be first ballot hof based on his career which includes am. World Am medals are also important and Pan Am counts too.

 

Fair enough. How do you rate Peter Rademacher as a pro, he won a gold medal. Does that make him better than Mike Tyson? Joe Louis? Gene Tunney? Jack Dempsey? Ron Lyle? None of those guys won gold medals.

 

Just recommending my thread here detailing how all the Heavyweight Olympic champions got on in the pro game: A History of Olympic Champions in Professional Boxing (Heavy+) | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com)

 

Way back when, amateur boxing was different too. Watch some old videos of Ray Robinson and it looks like a pro fight.
The changes in scoring were deleterious, in my opinion. A lot of the amateur rules about how they scored punches encouraged a lot of poor punching technique. The exaggerated way of turning over a left hook for example.
In pro boxing, the whole idea of counting punches and scoring that way has made it different. Pro boxing is about hurting- @Rockin1, am I lying?- and that has been diminished. You have time to work, you put in work and you build a fight. Amateur boxing is different.
I am not belittling guys that win medals and trophies- they work hard, get hit, all that. And, without a doubt, being successful as an amateur often leads to being a good pro. But that should not affect your standing.
Julio Cesar Chavez had 15 amateur fights.

 

You are not lying, pro boxing is about damage and how much you hurt your opponent.

In the pros, you visibly hurt a guy (or drop him) and you will pull out the round on the scorecards.

In the Ams if you drop a guy you are only rewarded with a landed punch.

Professional boxing isn't called the hurtin' business for nothin'.

Amateur boxing and professional boxing are like night and day to each other.

The 10-12oz gloves, in the ams are made and designed, to limit the damage with most of the padding covering the fist.

In the pros the gloves are designed for damage, with much more of the padding being on the lower part of the gloves rather than covering the fist.

For a perfect example compare a Reyes 10oz pro glove to any 10oz amateur glove.

Night and day.

 

Generally true though anomalies like George Foreman can happen in the ams.