Jump to content
TripNSweep

Boxing out of Olympics

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, boconnell said:

Allowing them isn't the issue.  The issue is that no good pro boxer is ever going to fight in the olympics.  They have a limited number of fights and can't waste them in low money olympic fights that mean nothing.  These guys fight like 1-2 times a year.  They aren't going to skip half of their annual income to go represent their country for free under an awful rule set.  If Lebron had to forego half of his games and the corresponding salary, he sure wouldn't be there.  Olympic Boxing is pointless.  It's guys who don't rank in the top 1000 fighting in headgear and a points system.  

Sure, the lb for lb  box office stars have no interest in Oly boxing (though some were former Olympians). They care about hyping their cards to get the most buys and building a personal brand.  And ditto for the boxers who have gained enough of a profile to make it to a TBRB or Ring  top 10 lists.  

Thats a small part of pro boxing though. Most pro boxers do it for short term.  Cans or journeymen make up the bulk.  Lots have day jobs and are only "pro" because they  technically get paid something for a bout.  They will never fight for an alphabet title.  

What Olympic Boxing  has been is a way for upcoming  fighters to gain fame and land  good promoters who will treat them as top prospects . This gives them access to higher profile fights, has their basic needs taken care of,  and starts pathways for title fights.  Medaling at the Olympics has been the main ticket to that. There are other ways of course, but its the main method. 

Look at who has medaled recently at the Olympics. Joshua, Yoka,  Povetkin, Klitshkos, Lewis... The people at the Olympics competing for medals are way better than these 100 ranked pros with padded records.    Emir and Radjonic were  ranked in the top 200 as a pros,   Oly bronze medal level Hrgovic would have killed them then.  T

I'm not a fan of Olympic boxing either. I think its rules are too subjective and I again go back to the is it the nr1 event to win standard for inclusion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, boconnell said:

Allowing them isn't the issue.  The issue is that no good pro boxer is ever going to fight in the olympics.  They have a limited number of fights and can't waste them in low money olympic fights that mean nothing.  These guys fight like 1-2 times a year.  They aren't going to skip half of their annual income to go represent their country for free under an awful rule set.  If Lebron had to forego half of his games and the corresponding salary, he sure wouldn't be there.  Olympic Boxing is pointless.  It's guys who don't rank in the top 1000 fighting in headgear and a points system.  

In certain countries it's a big deal to box in the Olympics. It's also a springboard to a pro career in a lot of cases. Some of the greatest pros ever boxed in the Olympics. For Cuba that's all they have since professional sports are illegal. Just like how wrestling being taken out would have a similar negative impact to boxing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boconnell said:

Allowing them isn't the issue.  The issue is that no good pro boxer is ever going to fight in the olympics.  They have a limited number of fights and can't waste them in low money olympic fights that mean nothing.  These guys fight like 1-2 times a year.  They aren't going to skip half of their annual income to go represent their country for free under an awful rule set.  If Lebron had to forego half of his games and the corresponding salary, he sure wouldn't be there.  Olympic Boxing is pointless.  It's guys who don't rank in the top 1000 fighting in headgear and a points system.  

To pretend you know things about Olympic boxing, you should first at least acknowledge that they dropped the headgear about five years ago. (Men’s division). 
 

Olympic boxing is a catalyst to many a pro career. In our country, it’s a drive that gives a lot of inner city kids something to strive for, teaching them a lot about discipline, commitment, and other life skills, instead of learning how to break down kilos for the most profit. In other countries there is huge meaning in Olympic boxing. 
 

It needs cleaned up for sure, but like wrestling, the one to one combat is in the fundamental spirit of the Olympics. It needs to be cleaned up so it can stay, because it most definitely belongs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lurker said:

To pretend you know things about Olympic boxing, you should first at least acknowledge that they dropped the headgear about five years ago. (Men’s division). 
 

Olympic boxing is a catalyst to many a pro career. In our country, it’s a drive that gives a lot of inner city kids something to strive for, teaching them a lot about discipline, commitment, and other life skills, instead of learning how to break down kilos for the most profit. In other countries there is huge meaning in Olympic boxing. 
 

It needs cleaned up for sure, but like wrestling, the one to one combat is in the fundamental spirit of the Olympics. It needs to be cleaned up so it can stay, because it most definitely belongs. 

So you didn't disagree with anything I said except for the headgear part.  

Because while it's nice guys can build their name and go on to stardom, that doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to watch them box before they're stars.  Just like nobody watched Olympic baseball this summer even though the USA team included future stars (and even a few former MLB guys).  If the Olympics isn't the peak of a sport, then nobody much cares about it.  Determining who the 1000th best guy is just doesn't make people care.  And unfortunately the Olympics isn't about giving opportunities to inner city kids (who dream way more about earning money as pros then they do of fighting as unpaid amateurs).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, boconnell said:

So you didn't disagree with anything I said except for the headgear part.  

Because while it's nice guys can build their name and go on to stardom, that doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to watch them box before they're stars.  

You’re wrong. 
Won’t even get into the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about removing the equestrian events. They are only slightly more inclusive than competitive yachting (ie if your not a millionaire, you aren’t going anywhere) and I feel I can say with most confidence (I’m a large animal veterinarian) that the horse does all of the work and gets none of the credit. A few cycles ago there was an equestrian competitor in the Olympics that was in their 70’s, not quite the age you think of a prime athlete being.

One thing to add about the equestrian events. There is a ton of old money supporting them. They probably aren’t going anywhere.

I can understand weightlifting being moved because of drugs, but I think that’s a shame. it’s a sport that 90% of the word can do with minimal equipment. Boxing’s removal surprises me too, with the worldwide appeal. Although I don’t disagree with the comments about Olympic boxing not being the best product. 

Edited by Animal197

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boconnell said:

So you didn't disagree with anything I said except for the headgear part.  

Because while it's nice guys can build their name and go on to stardom, that doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to watch them box before they're stars.  Just like nobody watched Olympic baseball this summer even though the USA team included future stars (and even a few former MLB guys).  If the Olympics isn't the peak of a sport, then nobody much cares about it.  Determining who the 1000th best guy is just doesn't make people care.  And unfortunately the Olympics isn't about giving opportunities to inner city kids (who dream way more about earning money as pros then they do of fighting as unpaid amateurs).  

Its a stepping stone. The preferred route actually (at least the most meritocraticly  available  one).

Think of it as the wrestling equivalent of competing for Iowa or Penn before trying to make the FS senior team. Just more important because boxing doesn't have trials.  Its not really about the 1000th best guy,  think more developmental phase. 

Just to demonstrate, take a look at the TBRB's current p4p. These are most of the mega starts of boxing.  Of that list 4 (Usyk, Spence, Golovkin , Taylor) competed in the Olympics.  Of the remaining ones who did not, many  tried but failed to qualify. And in most of those cases, the people without  olympic participation have natural affinities to big PPV spending markets. Which matters a lot in pro boxing. 

Don't think of pro boxing as  working the same way the major American sports where just getting into the league is a big success.  Becoming a pro boxer is not hard, making money as a pro boxer is. 

 

But I agree with you. Olympics shouldn't be a developmental stepping stone for a sport.  Not that the organizers care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Animal197 said:

I agree about removing the equestrian events. They are only slightly more inclusive than competitive yachting (ie if your not a millionaire, you aren’t going anywhere) and I feel I can say with most confidence (I’m a large animal veterinarian) that the horse does all of the work and gets none of the credit. A few cycles ago there was an equestrian competitor in the Olympics that was in their 70’s, not quite the age you think of a prime athlete being.

One thing to add about the equestrian events. There is a ton of old money supporting them. They probably aren’t going anywhere.

I can understand weightlifting being moved because of drugs, but I think that’s a shame. it’s a sport that 90% of the word can do with minimal equipment. Boxing’s removal surprises me too, with the worldwide appeal. Although I don’t disagree with the comments about Olympic boxing not being the best product. 

It doesn't bother me. 

I view the horse as the athlete.

Horses were in the ancient games.

At least they are the ultimate prize in the events. The medals have the right meaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HawkY said:

But I agree with you. Olympics shouldn't be a developmental stepping stone for a sport.  Not that the organizers care. 

I know it's a huge developmental step.  I know many of the top earners that people want to watch started in the Olympics.  I just think almost every Olympic sport is the best of the best competing.  Boxing is not that and can't be because of money.  So fans largely ignore it.  So it doesn't matter how great the Olympics are for development, boxing ends up on the chopping block because nobody cares about development.  If Canelo Alvarez was boxing for Mexico, they wouldn't be considering removing the sport.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, wrestlingphish said:

I am of the opinion that if the Olympics are not the pinnacle of the sport then the sport not be included. Get rid of basketball, golf, etc.

What is the pinnacle? There is no actual world championship in many sports.  US was full of NBA stars in Tokyo and still lost at least one game. Probably not the pinnacle for the US, but it is for Lithuania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What is the pinnacle? There is no actual world championship in many sports.  US was full of NBA stars in Tokyo and still lost at least one game. Probably not the pinnacle for the US, but it is for Lithuania.

I think therein lies the issue. I think many, many look through a very narrow scope when talking about whether or not a sport is ‘important’ enough to be in the Olympics. Just because it’s not that big in my country, my region of the country, my household….does not mean that’s the case across the globe. Poster above said Olympics shouldn’t about providing kids an Avenue to a better life. Should it be about whether or not American public finds it permissible? 
 

a lot of the comments on here are exactly the same thing we were fighting in 2013. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

What is the pinnacle? There is no actual world championship in many sports.  US was full of NBA stars in Tokyo and still lost at least one game. Probably not the pinnacle for the US, but it is for Lithuania.

I bet if you asked the Lithuanians if they would rather play in the NBA for 8 years or play in the Olympics twice they would say they would rather be in the NBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

What is the pinnacle? There is no actual world championship in many sports.  US was full of NBA stars in Tokyo and still lost at least one game. Probably not the pinnacle for the US, but it is for Lithuania.

What is pinnacle? Simple. Poll the top athletes in a sport about if they could win one event what would it be. If the majority say something other than Olympics,  then Oly is not the pinnacle. It won't be 50-50 in the majority of cases. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up some pro basketball leagues around the world.  Salaries are very significant but are dwarfed by NBA salaries, so I can imagine many if not most male players aspire to the NBA as youngsters.   Most of the players on the national teams in Europe seem well set in their careers and they probably prefer to win their league and then the World Cup/Olympics. 

I imagine the World Cup/Olympics are more important to females than males.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me whether or not it’s the pinnacle of the sport is not the deciding factor, while it certainly carries weight. But more important is levels of participation worldwide. Basketball, soccer, baseball, all belong because they are all played worldwide. Even basketball went back to college kids I’d want basketball in the Olympics; it’s worldwide. 
 

As it relates to boxing, when you think of Olympics, “greatest athlete” is a very common theme. That’s individualistic by nature. And boxing being a combat sport goes all the way back to the root of the Olympics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lurker said:

I think therein lies the issue. I think many, many look through a very narrow scope when talking about whether or not a sport is ‘important’ enough to be in the Olympics. Just because it’s not that big in my country, my region of the country, my household….does not mean that’s the case across the globe. Poster above said Olympics shouldn’t about providing kids an Avenue to a better life. Should it be about whether or not American public finds it permissible? 
 

a lot of the comments on here are exactly the same thing we were fighting in 2013. 

Now you're just making stuff up.  I said "unfortunately the Olympics isn't about giving opportunities".  But that doesn't fit the argument you wanted to make so you claimed I said it shouldn't be about providing kids an avenue to a better life.  

But beyond completely misrepresenting what I said, you're still beating up strawmen here.  Nobody has once said Americans don't like a sport so it should be removed.  People have said sports should be removed if the Olympics isn't near the pinnacle of that sport.  That has zero to do with what Americans like.  You're just completely making stuff up so you can beat up a straw man.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurker said:

To me whether or not it’s the pinnacle of the sport is not the deciding factor, while it certainly carries weight. But more important is levels of participation worldwide. Basketball, soccer, baseball, all belong because they are all played worldwide. Even basketball went back to college kids I’d want basketball in the Olympics; it’s worldwide. 
 

As it relates to boxing, when you think of Olympics, “greatest athlete” is a very common theme. That’s individualistic by nature. And boxing being a combat sport goes all the way back to the root of the Olympics. 

But all those sports you listed are year round giant industries with their own events.

Why do they have to monopolize everything?

Why is it that the fringe sports are always on the jumping block while farces like Olympic Tennis are the untouchables? Some  multi millionaire tennis player hops in his jet, loses at the games,  shrugs his shoulders and hops back on his jet to play the 20th tournament of the year right after. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HawkY said:

But all those sports you listed are year round giant industries with their own events.

Why do they have to monopolize everything?

Why is it that the fringe sports are always on the jumping block while farces like Olympic Tennis are the untouchables? Some  multi millionaire tennis player hops in his jet, loses at the games,  shrugs his shoulders and hops back on his jet to play the 20th tournament of the year right after. 

$$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...