Not having bundles of amateur fights might actually be good for a young pro. That way, there's no shockingly bad habits to iron out and overhauling a lad's style. To be honest if I was a boxing coach I'd rather have a kid in his mid teens come and train in a pro gym and just spar, rather than a touted amateur. He'd probably be ahead in his development, despite looking like a novice on paper. Quigg is a classic case in point. Amateur boxing isn't really boxing anymore, with the headguards and ridiculously big gloves.... don't get me started on scoring.
It's a joke IMO. It doesn't really reward good boxing, all it rewards is throwing plenty of leather and relying on the judges having fast fingers and being able to push the right button. It's not really fair on anybody, the judges can't concentrate on the action, and the fighters can't box in their usual style. Most amateur fights are boring as hell, whoever is in the lead after the first round spends most of the time holding or running to their hearts content until the referee threatens to deduct points. I was bored the other night so was watching a bit of Aaron Pryor, and stumbled across his fight with Tommy Hearns in the amateurs. Even though they were both novices (Hearns was 17, Pryor about 19) it was easily better quality and entertainment than any amateur bout I've seen since the 2004 games, and probably better than anything since the scoring system was changed. Both of those two there and then would whip any current British fighter from 135-147, they were already that far on in their development. Granted, they were both special fighters, but still...... amateur boxing simply isn't producing good boxers anymore. The ones that make it these days almost do it by accident. It's no co-incidence that most of the best fighters are in their late 30's, before this tap and run style became more prevalent. You'd expect older guys to be able to compete with young pups in sports like darts and snooker, but boxing..... that right there shows the whole system up.