Comments Thread For: Should Amateur Records Count in Evaluating Greatness?

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Thomas Hauser - I received an email recently from a reader who asked whether a fighter's amateur record should be considered in evaluating whether the fighter was great. It's a good question. Three fighters stand at the pinnacle of amateur boxing. Hungarian middleweight Lazlo Papp (1948, 1952, and 1956) and Cuban heavyweights Teofilo...
[Click Here To Read More]

[1hourRun]

Mark Breland was hailed in the 1980s as possibly the greatest amateur boxer of all time. He compiled a 110-1 record with 73 knockouts (the sole loss came on a 3-2 split decision) and won a gold medal at the 1984 Olympics. But he fell short of greatness as a pro.

Amateur is a bunch of crap. Mark Breland is standing next to tha champ, the 'Bronze-Bomber' Deontay Wilder : one won Gold with a amateur record of 110-1. The other, a Bronze ; despite the lack of experience and proper training with a pitiful record of 21-5. Who is greater?



Here is another great example : The UK's Audley Harrison won Gold at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, but what happened when he faced rising HW prospect Deontay 'Bronze-Bomber' Wilder? Ask Anthony Joshua, ( another gold-medalist, who got dominated by failed Olympic Hopeful Andy Ruiz ), Anthony watched fellow British Gold-Medalist get pummeled by the 25-1 2008 Beijing Bronze medalist, in person at ringside, and decided to duck Deontay ever since.

[Earl-Hickey]

No it shouldn't

Personally it annoys me when guys do more than one Olympic cycle unless they are REALLY young at their first one like 17 or something then maybe.

But a lot of these Eastern euros they stay there until they are 30 with grey bollock hairs, it's ridiculous.

[Lomasexual]

Three men at the pinnacle... doesn't include Loma... author is a clown.

[Ant1979]

It just provides a bit of back story, nothing more.

[BoxingIsGreat]

I don't think much of Loma's pro career up to this point, but I rate him good because of his amateur background. It counts for a lot in overall evaluation. Without that, Loma hasn't done much in pro boxing.

This thing can go both ways. I sometimes do disregard it when the Loma fanboys overrate his pro career and go over the top.

Hauser sucks.

[BoxingIsGreat]

It just provides a bit of back story, nothing more.

Not in Loma's case. It's the highlight of his overall boxing career, if you know your boxing and have followed him over the years. Loma was an amateur great but a good pro boxer, not great.

[YNG]

I don't think you should judge a fighter if he doesn't have an extensive amateur career but I do believe that amateur accolades add up to the legacy of fighters, look at Dela Hoya, Leonard, Patterson, Lomachenko, Foreman and many others, they say the Olympics were their highest point.

[Ant1979]

Not in Loma's case. It's the highlight of his overall boxing career, if you know your boxing and have followed him over the years. Loma was an amateur great but a good pro boxer, not great.

His amateur record certainly defines him, but not greatness. Unless of course it's amateur greatness which will always be a shadow to professional greatness.

Granted his amateur record is a one-off but he will ultimately judged by his record in the professional ranks, along with every other boxer. If he turned pro after his first Olympic triumph he could well have been perceived a greater boxer than he is today but we'll never know.

[BoxingIsGreat]

His amateur record certainly defines him, but not greatness. Unless of course it's amateur greatness which will always be a shadow to professional greatness.

Granted his amateur record is a one-off but he will ultimately judged by his record in the professional ranks, along with every other boxer. If he turned pro after his first Olympic triumph he could well have been perceived a greater boxer than he is today but we'll never know.

Yes. I'd say if he had turned pro earlier he could've been sporting a record of 50-5 or something like that by now. We never know. It is what it is tho.