What do you guys think about fighters having none or very little amature experience?

[cotto16]

Does it count for that much, Qwai, Mudine, Mcline, Jun-Suk Hwang, Dana Rosenblatt, Khaosai Galaxy, Ola Afolabi, Librado Andred all had none or very little amature experience some went on to be good fighters others great. What are your thoughts on this

[MANGLER]

Depends on what they bring to the table naturally. Some guys need to be groomed before the pros cuz they ain't blessed wit any natural athletic gifts that would aid them in boxing. Obviously, every big guy wit a 6 pk can't box.

[liam_48@msn.com]

You missed of the greatest fighter to have barely any amateur experience?! Roberto Duran. My fealing about boxing in general is you are born a fighter if its in your destiny as such then you will succeed in boxing, however you have to obviously want it and have that dedication but intangibles such as, Speed,a boxing mid etc cant be tought so therefore in my eyes it doesn't really matter whether you have amateur experience or not.

[larryx]

if you are tough and can fight it doesnt matter

[Steak]

the amateurs are so far removed from the pros now, that imo its better to have little amateur experience and go to straight to pros.

look at the top fighters today, and tell me how many of them have a lot of amateur experience.

[cotto16]

the amateurs are so far removed from the pros now, that imo its better to have little amateur experience and go to straight to pros.

look at the top fighters today, and tell me how many of them have a lot of amateur experience.

totally agree dude, u only have to look at james degale for proof

[cotto16]

You missed of the greatest fighter to have barely any amateur experience?! Roberto Duran. My fealing about boxing in general is you are born a fighter if its in your destiny as such then you will succeed in boxing, however you have to obviously want it and have that dedication but intangibles such as, Speed,a boxing mid etc cant be tought so therefore in my eyes it doesn't really matter whether you have amateur experience or not.

Yeah think duran had 14 bouts and won half

[marzblkman]

if you are tough and can fight it doesnt matter

Respectfully I disagree. The "streets", "prisons" are filled with "tough guys" that couldn't do ANYTHING but absorb shots in the ring. I think being "tough" is an overrated attribute and I'd take a "smart" fighter ANYDAY over it.

Frist off to step into the ring, you have to have have some sense of "toughness" there. That said, back to the original question I think it depends.

I think fighters with an excessive number of amateur fights (300+) can be stifled in their pro development primarily due to the sheer number of fights they've had and habits(good and bad) that they've developed.

"Experience" IMO is as good as how you use it. If you've been fighting a bunch of taxi drivers, set ups, etc (hi Julio Caesar Chavez Jr), regardless of how gaudy your professional record is or lack of an amateur pedigree you have, you won't develop when you step in with "REAL" competition.

For you ol skoolers, Dwight Muhammad Qawi I believe had less than 10 amateur fights and this guys was 5'7 fighting at light heavyweight at a time where that division was loaded. However because he had a DAMN good competition in the pro ranks, I'm sure he could adapt more to the steep learning curve he had to overcome despite his lack of an amateur background.

One thing I don't care for that the amateur system encourages is "shoe shine" style of punching. Body punching is rarely given it's due in the amateur system (here in the US atleast) but to me, outside of "movement" this is the one clear distinction between the very good/elite fighters and just the the good ones.

I wouldn't RUSH someone to be pro but I also wouldn't have them fighting so many amateur fights if I had a young charge either.

This may be outside of the scope of here but I know that in tennis Venus and Serena Williams didn't play a lot of junior tennis at all. Their dad felt that he saw plenty of girls (abroad not just the US) that had an excessive amount of junior matches, turned pro very early. Then they burned out by the time they were 23 and 24. With the Williams sisters whether you're fans or not, they've been pro's for nearly 15+ years still in the the top 10 which only a handfull of women can say. I personally attribute that to NOT having played all those "junior matches".

Boxing takes much more of a toll on your body than tennis so I think the logic holds true. Just my opinion.

[Spiegelo]

Amateur experience matters a great deal. It teaches you the ability to adapt to different styles. A lot of people in my gym use high guard, a lot of counter punches, a couple southpaws, 2 ppl there are ambidextrous. On the other hand, you go into a fight with no idea what kinda fighter you're going up against, and find out he bases his style on rolling your punches and waiting on your mistakes. Suddenly you're adapting to this fight plan trying to establish your range and solve this problem. This is just one example. It's not like with the big stars, where you have months to train and prepare for a style coming up with a gameplan, it's a valuable experience that you can only get before you sign pro. It also gets you used to seeing punches coming from all angles and speeds, which is very valuable as well. This isn't to say that some people are lucky enough to have the ability to deal with this without the great am experience ala Duran/Pacquiao, but it certainly helps and is absolutely 100% essential for MOST people.

[Miburo]

Only the supreme natural talents tend to be able to transcend the limitations imposed by having no amateur experience. Incidentally I believe Galaxy was a Muay Thai fighter (like many Thai boxers) before boxing, which should count for something.