What is the relevance of Amateur Boxing?

Pisco Sour · 06-09-2010 02:15PM #1

First let me start by saying this is not a wind up. I absolutely love amateur boxing and much prefer it to the professional game with so many belts at stake that there is never a true champion. I love the Olympic boxing and seeing Ireland win medals.

But I was just wondering today, what is the significance of winning a medal in Olympic Boxing? In Athletics, the likes of Derval O'Rourke and David Gillick are competing against the very best in the world and an Olympic medal would represent the pinnacle of their careers. But in Olympic Boxing, more often than not an Olympic medal is seen as a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

Is winning an Olympic medal as important to a boxer as it is to an athlete or a swimmer?

cowzerp · 06-09-2010 02:32PM

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

Pisco Sour · 06-09-2010 02:33PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

If that was the case then why did Amir Khan go pro after winning silver at 17. Surely he was young enough to have another 2 attempts at Olympic Gold and still go pro at 25 ( a young age for a pro). Why did Darren Sutherland go pro if winning gold in the Olympics is the most important?

cowzerp · 06-09-2010 02:37PM

Money, 4 years is a long time to wait for the next 1 when you could be becoming a millionaire, plus there was no guarantee that he'd win gold next time out, his silver was probably a dream reached anyway.

mathepac · 06-09-2010 03:25PM

An Olympic medal of any colour is an incredible achievement for an athlete in any discipline, but (IMHO) particularly for boxers. By and large in disciplines other than boxing, a measuring tape, clock, score-board or weighing scales defines the winner in a competition; outside of a knock-out or disqualification, rarities in senior amateur boxing, the opinions of the judges are all that matters. Convincing a majority of the judges in real time (no action replays, no technical match officials here) that the right part of your glove connected with the target area of your opponent is a rare skill; doing that while avoiding taking a scoring shot yourself is an absolute science.

walshb · 06-09-2010 05:38PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Money, 4 years is a long time to wait for the next 1 when you could be becoming a millionaire, plus there was no guarantee that he'd win gold next time out, his silver was probably a dream reached anyway.

Spot on, although in Amir's case, if ever there was a gold waiting for him it was Beijing, in either the LW or LWW division. The talent was very good at both weights, but Khan would have had far too much I think.

Anyway, to the post. I guess the fact that AM boxing and Pro have always been so separate and distinct, that it does differ from many other "amateur" sports, such as swimming, diving, track and field etc. Right now, and for quite a few years, swimmers and track and filed athletes have always been ONE, pro that is. There is no distinction between the amateur track star and the pro star. They are the same.

walshb · 06-09-2010 05:43PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Olympic Gold is the ultimate achievement in Boxing, seriously

as a kid i dreamed of that ahead of a Pro title..

So true, it is indeed the ultimate goal. The GOLD being the summit, and competing at the games being second. That is why I found it very odd for Bernard Dunne, when on the Late Late Show, he said quite positively that he had achieved everything he wanted to in the sport. Now, that cannot be true, as every boxers dream as an amateur is to represent their country at the Games. I know from my recollection that Dunne was very disappointed not to make the games in Sydney.

Benny Lava · 06-09-2010 08:54PM

All the money is in the professional game and an Olympic Gold significantly increases the figure in the contract.

joepenguin · 07-09-2010 12:31AM

The significance is that its the pinnacle of sport and among athletes its the highest accolade. Should you wish to cross over to the pros youd start off with a superstar deal as you already have a name and a major selling point, people will throw every oppurtunity at you... Audley!
Winning a pro world title gives you more celeb status as its hyped up by the promoters, sponsors, tv etc etc. so it can often seem more important, especially with the misleading title amateur boxing has.

Its a weird set up alright, its not like football where pro > amateur in most cases. With boxing an olympian can be way better than 99% of pros but yet be referred to as an amateur.

gene_tunney · 07-09-2010 02:42AM

walshb wrote: »

So true, it is indeed the ultimate goal. The GOLD being the summit, and competing at the games being second. That is why I found it very odd for Bernard Dunne, when on the Late Late Show, he said quite positively that he had achieved everything he wanted to in the sport. Now, that cannot be true, as every boxers dream as an amateur is to represent their country at the Games. I know from my recollection that Dunne was very disappointed not to make the games in Sydney.

World title > Olympic Gold

mrgardener · 07-09-2010 10:53AM

gene_tunney wrote: »

World title > Olympic Gold

I would have thought that winning an Olympic medal would make the transition to professional boxing easier ie. proper management, endorsements etc.
Surely the ultimate goal is as mr tunney says, a world title (and loads of money)
I'm not knocking the Olympic boxing - i love it, but i imagine that for a lot of boxers, its the best thing that can happen to them UNTIL they turn pro.

Pisco Sour · 07-09-2010 12:43PM

mrgardener wrote: »

I would have thought that winning an Olympic medal would make the transition to professional boxing easier ie. proper management, endorsements etc.
Surely the ultimate goal is as mr tunney says, a world title (and loads of money)
I'm not knocking the Olympic boxing - i love it, but i imagine that for a lot of boxers, its the best thing that can happen to them UNTIL they turn pro.

Thats what I was thinking. Compare Sonia O'Sullivan to Kenny Egan for example. Both won Olympic silver. For Sonia O'Sullivan she had to beat the very best in the world to get that medal. Kenny Egan on the otherhand didnt. Were all the best Light Heavyweight boxers in Beijing? I wouldnt imagine so, as many of them are professionals. For an athlete an Olympic Gold is the pinnacle. For a boxer it doesnt seem to be. If it was the pinnacle then you wouldnt see them all turning pro so quickly, until they had achieved the Gold (Amir Khan being a prime example of this).

walshb · 07-09-2010 12:43PM

gene_tunney wrote: »

World title > Olympic Gold

But if you read my first post I did make the distinction between the two
sports. AM boxing and Pro are separate, not like track and field. So, the ULTIMATE goal of the track star is to win Olympic gold. The ultimate goal of the AM boxer is to win gold. Then, the world of pro boxing is the dream, the goal.

Also, what is a world champion these days in pro boxing? It's become quite farcical, where 4 and 5 are calling themselves world champions. Ridiculous.
Verisons of versions as well.

Rob113 · 07-09-2010 02:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Also, what is a world champion these days in pro boxing? It's become quite farcical, where 4 and 5 are calling themselves world champions. Ridiculous.
Verisons of versions as well.

There is no such thing as a World Title anymore. As you said versions of versions, interim champions etc etc. Its become a farce. I reckon an Olympic Gold definitely holds more weight at the moment. In saying that if it was me id hav one shot at it a la Khan then head straight for the pro game as unfortuntely money makes the world go round. How much money did Khan make in the first 4yrs of his pro career?

cowzerp · 07-09-2010 05:09PM

From day 1 there was never just 1 World champ, there was always a few, even back in the day there was world titles and American title which many felt was the world title etc... It's just more blatant now than it was then and the best met each other more than they do now, The 1 real world champ is known to the fans regardless of belts anyway, if there not then there not really the true best anyway.

waterfordkick · 07-09-2010 05:55PM

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

walshb · 07-09-2010 06:25PM

waterfordkick wrote: »

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

Well, I think it's too difficult to really compare. The Olympics for amateurs is where the cream all come together and vie for the Gold, and that man is at that time, the best on the planet.

Like has been said, what is a world title in Pro boxing? There is no actual champ. It all depends on the organisation. The AM game is so clearly
defined, just like swimming and other Olympic sports. They are all alligned to one body. In Pro boxing there are several world bodies.

The game of pro boxing is tougher and a hell of a lot more dangerous and physical, so in a sense, to win a world title as a pro, a legitimate one, would be a tougher ask, in the physical and mental sense.

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 06:30PM

waterfordkick wrote: »

what about boxing world championship gold to an Olympic gold ?
I think a world championship would be more difficult to win

Considering the World's are held twice as frequently I would say they're easier to win.

The thing with the Olympics though is once you qualify a good % of the work towards winning a medal is already done. At the World's you have to get through everyone from the very start(bar other fighters at your weight from your country), there is no previous work done.

So once you've qualified for the Olympics already, then yes it becomes easier than the World's, but if you include Olympic qualifying and the event itself then they're equally as tough and when you consider the Olympics is only every 4 years then you have to say it's tougher to medal at the Olympics.

walshb · 07-09-2010 06:55PM

Sorry guys, I misread waterfords post.

He/she was talking about world gold ams and Olympic gold ams.

Now, both are amazing, but the Olympics is just that bit more special, plus, as Big has said, you need to qualify too. It is a more difficult journey.
And, I reckon the games brings out that slight bit extra in each boxer.

Everyone wants the Olympics, more than a world gold.

Also, the games will usually see a minimum 5 fights to earn gold, unless a bye.
And, it is in the games that the best of the best compete. No "duds."

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 07:22PM

walshb wrote: »

Sorry guys, I misread waterfords post.Also, the games will usually see a minimum 5 fights to earn gold, unless a bye.
And, it is in the games that the best of the best compete. No "duds."

While there are no terrible fighters at the Olympics, as everyone who qualifies is at least one of the top fighters from their continent, the Olympics(similar to the football World Cup) isn't necessarily the best of the best as it restricts the amount of entrants from each continent as some continents are much stronger that others(sometimes this differs between the weight-classes).

Some of the fighters that get through from Africa, The Americas and Oceania can be quite weak in comparison to European fighters who didn't qualify. The Americas normally have some of the strongest fighters at the weight(with the USA and Cuba) but they often also bring some of the weakest and as for the other two continents fighters from there are normally average at best(although there are exceptions).

Oceania hasn't had a medallist since 1992(David Tua won Bronze at Heavyweight) and Africa didn't pick up one medal at the last Olympics at all despite having as many participants as the Americas and 7 more participants than Asia did.

In the World Championships not only due you have these weaker fighters but also European/Asian fighters superior to those who didn't manage to qualify for the Olympics. So I don't think you can really argue that the competitive field is any tougher at the Olympics.

walshb · 07-09-2010 07:48PM

Yes, Big, but as you said, it's the qualifying too that must be considered.

Remember, the worlds sees 4-5 fights for the gold, the Olympics 4-5 for the gold, but the other tournaments to get selection are all part of it. As great as the world gold is, and as difficult as it is to win, the Olympic gold is a notch above.

Big Ears · 07-09-2010 10:57PM

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Big, but as you said, it's the qualifying too that must be considered.

Remember, the worlds sees 4-5 fights for the gold, the Olympics 4-5 for the gold, but the other tournaments to get selection are all part of it. As great as the world gold is, and as difficult as it is to win, the Olympic gold is a notch above.

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

Pisco Sour · 08-09-2010 01:51AM

Big Ears wrote: »

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

But is it not harder to qualify for the Olympics than it is for the Worlds? Surely that has to be considered aswell?

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 02:59AM

04072511 wrote: »

But is it not harder to qualify for the Olympics than it is for the Worlds? Surely that has to be considered aswell?

Of course it is, which if you've read my posts above you'd have realised I've acknowledged this. The only qualification criteria for the World's is to be the nominated fighter from your country(which normally requires you to be the best in your country and also be worth the expense of sending to the Championships).

walshb · 08-09-2010 11:07AM

Big Ears wrote: »

The World Championship's normally requires 6 fights to be won in order to win Gold, very rarely would a fighter pick up the Gold/Silver having only had 5 fights, and never in recent times has it been won in 4.

While I agree that Olympic Gold is a notch above I'd have thought you of all people would know it requires more fights to win at the World's.

Big, on average it is 5 fights for BOTH tournaments. Hey, there very well could be examples of 6 fights to win either, but on average I would say it is 5

I know Ray Leonard won 6 fights at the 76' games to earn gold, and his defeated finalist, Aldama, also had 6 fights.

I cannot recall 6 fights at the worlds. There may well have been, but recently, the average for both tournaments is 5.
Lomachenko, a recent winner, had 5 at the 2009 worlds. He also had 5 in Beijing.
Correction: Frankie Gavin did have 6 to win gold at the 2007 worlds.

Rigondeaux in 2001 and 2005 had 5 both times to win gold at the worlds.

Carruth had 4 at the 92' games, and Sutherland, had he made the 2008 games final, would
have had 4 for the gold. This would be rare, as I imagine 6 would be rare.

I will try to get some past stats for the worlds and see just how many of the recent winners had 6 fights.

The 2007 worlds did see a fair few winners have 6 fights. But, conversely, there have been
many winners that have had 5 to win gold. I would say more over the years.

The 2009 worlds being the most recent also see many 5 fight winners. Some 6 winners too.

BTW, I would consider 2003 recent, and Povetkin had 4 fights to earn world gold
at super heavy. Looking at both tournaments (fights wise) I think it's much of a muchness really.

The Davestator · 08-09-2010 06:48PM

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

I wonder do the world champs know deep down that they are not really the best in the world when theyre lying in bed at night. Its pretty hollow unless you unify the division IMO

walshb · 08-09-2010 06:54PM

The Davestator wrote: »

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

I am not entirely with you regarding this statement? Are you saying that an Olympic gold medalist wins every time he faces a reigning world champion, amateur or pro?

Hissing Sid · 08-09-2010 07:59PM

The Davestator wrote: »

Interesting points regading gold and a world title.
IMO, a gold medalist who fights a reigning world champ (either amateur or pro rules) wins every time, therefore a gold medal is not the pinnacle of the sport.

Explain Pete Rademacher then.
Olympic heavyweight gold in 1956, pro debut in 1957 was a world title fight which he lost to Floyd Paterson.

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 08:27PM

walshb wrote: »

Big, on average it is 5 fights for BOTH tournaments. Hey, there very well could be examples of 6 fights to win either, but on average I would say it is 5

I know Ray Leonard won 6 fights at the 76' games to earn gold, and his defeated finalist, Aldama, also had 6 fights.

I cannot recall 6 fights at the worlds. There may well have been, but recently, the average for both tournaments is 5.
Lomachenko, a recent winner, had 5 at the 2009 worlds. He also had 5 in Beijing.
Correction: Frankie Gavin did have 6 to win gold at the 2007 worlds.

Rigondeaux in 2001 and 2005 had 5 both times to win gold at the worlds.

Carruth had 4 at the 92' games, and Sutherland, had he made the 2008 games final, would
have had 4 for the gold. This would be rare, as I imagine 6 would be rare.

I will try to get some past stats for the worlds and see just how many of the recent winners had 6 fights.

The 2007 worlds did see a fair few winners have 6 fights. But, conversely, there have been
many winners that have had 5 to win gold. I would say more over the years.

The 2009 worlds being the most recent also see many 5 fight winners. Some 6 winners too.

BTW, I would consider 2003 recent, and Povetkin had 4 fights to earn world gold
at super heavy. Looking at both tournaments (fights wise) I think it's much of a muchness really.

Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight are different, in the Olympics the maximum number of fights need to win Gold/Silver at Heavyweight is 4, although that is also the minimum number(unless withdrawals from injuries occur). The World Championship's at Heavyweight/Super-Heavyweight require 5/6 depending on the year so nowdays a fighter is guaranteed at least 1 if not 2 more fights at those weights in the World Championships compared to the Olympics. You can consider 4 tournaments ago recent if you want but it doesn't change that fact that things have been different since.

In most weight-classes at the World Championships the majority of the field are now required to win 6 fights to win Gold, a disproportionate % of those winning Gold come from those in the part of the draw with only 5 fights so you list individual examples of fighters winning Gold in 5 fights if you want but considering all the men equal most fighters will have 6 fights to win Gold from the onset. Of course most fighters are required to win 5 fights to win Gold at the Olympics(except Heavy and Super-Heavy where it's always 4) but the point still stands that the World's generally requires more fights and as I said before I'm surprised you didn't know that.

I'm definitely of the opinion that once you've qualified for the Olympics it's easier to medal at it(including winning Gold) than at the World Championships.
But overall in a fighters career it's much easier to win World Championship medals than Olympic medals.

The Davestator I'd like to see you clarify that aswell, do you mean for instance that James Degale was better than any Middleweight in the World either amateur or pro and under the rules of either code when he won Gold in Beijing ?

As this discussion goes overall Amateur boxing and professional boxing are two different codes in the same way that Association Football, Gaelic Football, Aussie Rules, American Football, Canadian Football, Rugby Union and Rugby League are all different codes of the one thing(Football).
Okay you can probably match they as similar in the way that Rugby Union is to Rugby league or American Football is to Canadian Football but they're not the same thing and as such achievements between the two can't properly be compared.

walshb · 08-09-2010 09:05PM

Big, as far as I know, the majority of champs from 2009
were 5 fight champs. So, it's inaccurate for you to
claim that the majority need 6 fights to win.

I won't swear on that, but I am nearly sure.

You also claim that at heavy and super, it is ALWAYS
4 fights to win Olympic gold.

So, explain Savon winning three golds, and having 15 fights (5 per games)

It is not a case of me knowing anything. I have provided many
examples where world golds were won with 5 fights, and ONE
with 4 fights.

Big Ears · 08-09-2010 09:56PM

walshb wrote: »

Big, as far as I know, the majority of champs from 2009
were 5 fight champs. So, it's inaccurate for you to
claim that the majority need 6 fights to win.

I won't swear on that, but I am nearly sure.

You also claim that at heavy and super, it is ALWAYS
4 fights to win Olympic gold.

So, explain Savon winning three golds, and having 15 fights (5 per games)

It is not a case of me knowing anything. I have provided many
examples where world golds were won with 5 fights, and ONE
with 4 fights.

Check it out Walshb, you'll find that from the start, the majority of fighters are faced with 6 fights to win Gold.

For the Flyweight, Bantamweight, Featherweight, Lightweight, Light-Welterweight, Welterweight and Middleweight divisions the majority of fighters were faced with the task of winning 6 fights in order to win Gold from the draw. Just under 50% at Light-Heavyweight and Heavyweight.
In some weights only a handful of fighters were offered the opportunity to win Gold in 5 fights. I can't remember if any seeding was in place for the tournament but it would certainly make sense if there was, because as I stated before a disproportionate amount of the winners had only won 5 fights and a lot of the big names were in that part of the draw even when that part of the draw was very small.

As regards the part in bold, I stated always is, not always was. I'm aware that the 16 participants only in the Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight divisions was introduced in 2000 and that before that a fighter may have to fight 5 times to win Gold. Hence while you'll see Savon actually has only 14 wins from his 3 Olympic Golds.

I'm talking about the way things are, you are listing examples from 1992/1996 and 2003. In the next Olympic games in 2012 there will only be 16 participants at Heavyweight and Super-Heavyweight, it will take 4 fights to win Gold at those weights, that's the way the system is. The 2011 World Championships will require 5/6 fights to win Gold at those weights, no less, that's the way the system is and will be for the foreseeable. future.

So when you said it takes 4/5 fights to win Gold at the World's and 4/5 fights to win Gold at the Olympics you were wrong. A fighter can no win World Championship Gold in 4 fights anymore, and a Heavyweight/Super-Heavyweight can not win Olympic Gold in 5 fights(or more) anymore. Maybe things have just gotten mixed up but it seems to me you didn't know that and what also seems clear to me is you're unaware that most fighters are faced with the prospect of 6 fights to win Gold at the World's.....that much is a fact, it's the way the system is.

In 1904 George Finnegan had to fight twice at the Olympics, once to win the Gold at Flyweight and once to pick up Silver at Bantamweight. He also fought a fellow American in both of those bouts. What does that have to do with the way things are now ?, sweet **** all.

What is the relevance of Amateur Boxing?

Comments