I get annoyed when people say a fighter will be good as a pro because he won an Olmpic medal, it`s only three rounds and the guy you beat for the medal isn`t always at the same level as the guy that you would have met at that stage in the previous Olympics etc. i.e. Loma was certainly on another level P4P when he won his gold at the Olympics compared to Audley Harrison when he was hiss gold in Sidney and people point to Joe Joyce winning a silver as something big but he was not at Floyd Mayweather`s level when he won a silver in the super-feather division, am I right or a little harsh?
I think you are both correct and harsh. Obviously some boxers are better tailored for the amateurs or the pro game. There is wide variation and the circumstances faced becoming an Olympic medalist, as well the environment one faces when they take that step up into the pros. I’m not going to take part in determining who was the worst making the transition though.
I will give you a historic example. Sam Berger. He was the first heavyweight Olympic gold medalist in 1904, and he never really did any good as a professional.
Makes you think if Joshua had lost to Savon which he should have and not medalled and Joyce won gold 4 years later wonder how different they would have been treated from a promotional point of view.
They would both still have been eagerly grabbed up! Britain has always had a deep desire for a heavyweight champion!
But it was clear to see from the off that AJ had what it toook in the pros, WArren said this just after he won gold, Joyce looks completely untrained, his punches are awkward and his head is straight up, he`s really stiff and clumsy. Khan didn`t win gold at the Olympics but was still far more marketable than Joyce, he had far more talent P4P.
Pete does have one claim to fame that'll probably never be matched- knocking down the heavyweight champ in his first fight
