Why does Floyd's style not work in the amateurs?

Someone who holds onto one belt, (the WBC) and moves up the divisions cherry picking what WBC champ he faces next and at what weight and what time. Is not someone who "dominates". Floyd only ever had one belt until the end of his career. He never once decided to become undisputed champion at one particular weightclass. He had his opportunity when Ricky Hatton was number 1 at welterweight, but decided to move up to get another WBC belt and fight easier opponents at the time.

In the amateurs you have to be a little more aggressive to win points. Floyd is too defensive when it comes to this IMO-

 

He can't pick and duck in the ams.........

 

ehhhh, the guy medalled in the Olympics when he was 19.
And his loss in the semis was controversial.

I wouldn't consider that "struggling"

What had Lomachenko won by the time he was 19?

 

Who cares it's not like PBF couldn't have beaten everyone in the division he was in. Who beats him at 130 when he was there? Who beats him at 135 when he was there? Who beats him at 140 when he was there? Who beats him at 147 when he was there? Who beats him at 154 when he was there? You can't even answer this question because you already know no one beats him in any of those divisions while he was in them. He was also lineal in 4 divisions and was seen as the man that's more than good enough.:deal

 

Lomachenko has won like five gold medals (maybe more, can't remember exactly) and has only lost once in almost 400 fights. He may be the greatest amateur boxing ever.

 

His amateur record is POOR?

84-6 and was a robbery away from competing in the gold match at the Olympics.

Yes, quite poor. :blood

 

You are right, Lomachenko won the Olympics when he was 20, not when he was 19. That makes a huuuge difference... :bart

 

You know who else sucked in the amateurs, in the same manner as Mayweather did? ROY JONES!

Weird, huh?

 

Anyway the part of the OP that is a fair question is about his style, that does have some legs to it.

Too high an emphasis on "...and don't get hit" reduces point-scoring opportunities.

 

Utkirbek Haydarov

 

Floyd, though, rumbled and flurried back then when he needed to.

 

He has a near perfect amateur record. I guess people are more impressed when you spend many of your prime years in the ams. Yes, remaining undefeated over 100+ fights is impressive. But, remaining undefeated as a PRO, is a lot more significant and financially rewarding.

 

He has 20 years of pro seasoning since he was robbed of an opportunity to compete for the gold. This isn't even a valid question as his fighting style early in his career was completely different from what it is now

 

3 National Golden Gloves titles and a Bronze medal is still a terrific amateur career. Not everyone can be Mark Breland.

A style that doesn't equate that well in the amateurs is the stereotypical Mexican style. Sometimes it takes awhile for those body shots to really break you down.