Better suited to the pro game.

Feel free to add anything I miss due to self-induced boredom while writing this and cutting it short.

During this Olympics there have been a lot of comments saying this one or that one is better suited to the pro game (Evans, Joshua etc). But the comments never seem to be backed by any evidence? I'm going to attempt to define some fundamental differences between the Pro and Amateur game. Then when people make comments like he's better suited to the pro game, they can actually back them up, and pass them thoughts and understanding off as their own. It seems 606 is a haven for people with encyclopaedic knowledge of the game who read a comment on the actual intricacies of boxing and paraphrase it to feign understanding. There are undoubtedly a few who have the balance between knowing everything and combining understanding; Manos is an example.

Anyway, rant over.

The main differences are duration, point scoring, protection etc. I will not elaborate further on those. However there are subtle differences in technique, between what is rightly, or wrongly, considered traditionally to be a Pro or Amateur style. Personally I do not subscribe to the notion of a distinct differentiation between the two styles as there are more similarities than there are differences, and all of the techniques are used in both sports to different degrees by various fighters. It seems, that those that make the transition to the Pro game and become greats often have the ability to combine the two styles more effectively (disbarring out and out power punches, and to a lesser extent, pressure fighters….both of which exist in the amateur ranks too).

The large scale differences in the clichéd techniques of amateur and pros:

To generate more power, Pro's sit down on their shots more. A single punch can win a round in the Pro game (10-8 and all other permutations). But better still the wages are the same if the other guy is KO’d in 36 seconds or 36minutes. That’s good motivation to avoid a 12 round war of attrition.

Pros’ hold their feet more, obviously for the above reason, but also to conserve energy, which is necessary due to the potential to fight over extended distance, as the lower body contains huge oxygen sapping muscles. Therefore it is best to ration their use.

When going forward, Pro’s often heel toe more than amateur boxers. This makes it more difficult to push off the ball of the foot and use foot defences as effectively. Amateur boxing often involves a first phase attack, then drawing the opponents counter, followed by a foot defence and second phase attack (being 1st and 3rd), for that reason, heel-toeing would be a cardinal sin because it’s nigh on impossible to push off the front heel effectively. However, this method of attack/defence is extremely tiring on the legs therefore better suited to the shorter distances.

Head movement is better developed in the Pro game because torso defence is often necessary when heel-toeing holding the feet or sitting down on shots. What’s more, is that body shots are more important in the pro game, therefore good head movement is essential for closing the distance whilst at the same time making the opponent miss........It is also easier to establish head movement on the flatter feet more associated with Pro’s.

Clinching used to be reserved for the Pro’s but it seems it is infiltrating the amateur game more and more.

Bored.

I forgot to add, the penalisation of flurries in the amateur game (i.e. Selby).

So, bearing all of the above in mind, which Olympians are better suited to the pro game?

Or perhaps better questions, for those that follow the pro game exclusively, are;

1) which Pro's utilise an amateur style effectively?

2) which Pros' do you think would do well if allowed to compete in the amateurs?

3) Which Pro's should have stayed amateur?

I thought the insult in the first paragraph would have got more people biting and evoked a response.

if the insult you're referring to is the comment that there are several on here (and any other board) who know everything and understand little, then i'd agree with you, and i can guess who you might be thinking of. Can't tar all with the same brush though and you might get more responses without the baiting. I don't follow amateur boxing as it goes, but am seldom short of an opinion regardless...

I think your points on the pro amateur distinction are interesting and valid. I also think that the changes in the scoring system have probably influenced that distinction... as you've suggested, there's not much point in throwing combinations unless you miss with the first one, though some of them still do.

For me, when i look at amateurs who i think will make good pro's, it's less about style as such and more about whether they look like they'll have the physical attributes and strength to be 12 round fighters, and to a lesser extent whether they have flaws that might be tricky to iron out. I worried about khan, because he threw punches in clusters and left himself open to counters. 8 years on, he still hasn't been able to drop that habit completely. I think az picked evans to have the style to make it as a pro, he might be right, but not unless he can learn to stop dropping his defensive hand everytime he throws a punch. Basic technical flaws can obviously be worked on, but it's amazing how hard some habits are to break.. or break for good. Ask anyone who has changed their golf swing.


Of the last set of olympians, at the time i thought billy jo saunders had the best set of attributes, guess the jury is out still on that one.

Of this set, although as of today we could end up with 3 golds, none of them really excite me, though I sense joshua has the physicality, strength, decent handspeed and attitude that with time and quality training could go somewhere. There is the touch of the bruno's about him though and that athletic build but without what i would call athletic (fluidity of) movement is my concern/caveat

Well I suppose with the benefit of hindsight you could say alot of the successful amateurs that went pro but didnt really make it would have been better off staying amateur. Although the financial rewards for going pro would often make up for this.

I think the amateur system of scoring seems to favour defensively sound and accurate punchers. Taking the current big two in pro ranks, Mayweather and Pacquiao, I would say Mayweathers style more suited to the amateurs where his accuracy means he can register single, clean, clear punches for the judges to score and is defensively sharp enough to make the other guy miss. Sometimes in the pro ranks, workrate and aggression (effective or not) can win the day making a fighter of Mayweathers style vunerable to being outworked.

In the amateur game aggression doesnt really come into the judges scoring unless its in registered hits. So I dont think its suits Pacquiaos style who can jump in and throw 4 or 5 combination punches but if his opponent shells up he may end up scoring no points at all for clean hits, and then leaves himself open for single scoring counter punches. Even if Pacquiao did land 4 or 5 punches in a flurry the scoring system might only register 2 of them as it does not seem to reward combination punching.

Audley Harrison is maybe another of these fighters in retrospect had a style suited more to amateurs. In the pro game he doesnt throw alot of punches but when he does it tends to be single, clean punches that would catch the eye of amateur judges, but leaves himself open to being outhustled by guys like Martin Rogan in the pro ranks who can just outwork him and roughouse him.

In general, the amteur game has been much less tolerant of the inside, roughhouse kind of fighting that Hopkins for example excells in. Refs would penalise this far more in the amateurs. However in the amateurs this kind of spoiling seems to have become more prevalent, espcially from fighters in the final round who are ahead and look to simply hold and spoil to the final bell. I think this cost Cammarelle against Joshua. He gave away the third round by trying to just hang on and spoil to kill the clock.

Agreed, Cammarelle shot himself in the foot in the final round, but I think it was as much tiredness as it was tactics. 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.

Joshua reminds me of Bruno also. Even when Cammarelle caught him against the ropes he had a bit of frozen rabbit in the headlights about him.

Mayweather style would certainly suit the amateurs, he is one of those with an awsome blend of styles.

If Ryota Murata, the Japanese Olympic gold medalist, has great power (not sure if he has?) then he would be a decent pro middleweight, very much in the mold of Alex Arthur. Walking his man down with a shell like guard. If he doesn't have power then forget it, he'd be out worked in the same way as Arthur but lose on points. The Brazilian would be decent also.

Ofcourse Lomenchenko will succeed. The guy does hand stand press ups without the use of a wall. Crazy. Watch this video, ITS THE BIZZ!! HAHA! (you may want to mute the sound)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxHRTQKKnyQ

Do you think lomachenko will definatley go pro? Would be a real shame if he didnt, great boxer!

He's signed to AIBA pro boxing, along with quite a few others. I'm not 100% sure if it's basically a promotional body, or a new code of boxing all together. No idea how it will work.

Anyone got any info on AIBA pro boxing, it sounds very interesting but strange, "AIBA will launch APB in autumn 2013, a fully professional competition that will still allow boxers to compete in the Olympic Games. APB will revolutionize the world of boxing and establish a blueprint for its development".

I really can't get my head round this. Maybe the sport is about to take off.....
I'm excited.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/pound-for-pound-best-lomachenko-latest-addition-to-apb/#more-447