London 2012 Boxing a success?

So the Olympics are over sadly and oveall I thought London did a great job and Team GB gave the whole country a lift! For me, the best Olympics I have witnessed. But what about the boxing part? Success or not?

Pros:
Success for Team GB of 5 medals, 3 of them gold.
Good crowds and atmosphere in the venues.
Good coverage.

Cons:
Dodgy decisions.
Bad scoring system.
Refs sent home.
Low quality.

Pro or Con:
Womens boxing seems to have caught on. Adams, Taylor etc
Entertaining or not?

Overall I felt let down by the boxing despite Team GB doing well. I think the cons outweighed the pros.

Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

Success for Britain and boxing I thought.

Was at the semis on Friday night and it was wicked. Mongolian fans were great - kept chanting MONG-GO-LIA and everyone in our section got involved.

rowley wrote:Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

A proper scoring system, good judges and officials and higher quality! Alot of the people who went along probably didnt know the first thing about boxing so they will not have been bothered by the standard or the dodgy scoring but for real boxing fans this has been a major issue. They have got to change the way the the fights are scored to make it better. At times I thought it was just pot luck what score would be announced in between rounds. They also have got to let the pro's in to improve the quality.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

A proper scoring system, good judges and officials and higher quality! Alot of the people who went along probably didnt know the first thing about boxing so they will not have been bothered by the standard or the dodgy scoring but for real boxing fans this has been a major issue. They have got to change the way the the fights are scored to make it better. At times I thought it was just pot luck what score would be announced in between rounds. They also have got to let the pro's in to improve the quality.

Do you mean let professional fighters box in it? Without being pedantic, it's supposed to be an amateur tournament-letting pros in would somewhat fly in the face of that don't you think?

Who won the Val Baker Trophy?

horizontalhero wrote:

Do you mean let professional fighters box in it? Without being pedantic, it's supposed to be an amateur tournament-letting pros in would somewhat fly in the face of that don't you think?

Can't persuade Floyd and Manny to fight for £50m each, am sure they will do it for sod all and a chance of a medal.

horizontalhero wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

A proper scoring system, good judges and officials and higher quality! Alot of the people who went along probably didnt know the first thing about boxing so they will not have been bothered by the standard or the dodgy scoring but for real boxing fans this has been a major issue. They have got to change the way the the fights are scored to make it better. At times I thought it was just pot luck what score would be announced in between rounds. They also have got to let the pro's in to improve the quality.

Do you mean let professional fighters box in it? Without being pedantic, it's supposed to be an amateur tournament-letting pros in would somewhat fly in the face of that don't you think?

The Olympics should be the best athletes facing each other. If you are going to have a sport in the Olympics then it should be the top athletes at that sport. Pros are allowed in tennis, basketball, football and other sports and most of the top athletes now are effectively professional anyway unless they come from poorly fnded countries. Someone put up a post recently and it was saying they are thinking of letting pros in for Rio. I think it would be much better.

Gordy wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

A proper scoring system, good judges and officials and higher quality! Alot of the people who went along probably didnt know the first thing about boxing so they will not have been bothered by the standard or the dodgy scoring but for real boxing fans this has been a major issue. They have got to change the way the the fights are scored to make it better. At times I thought it was just pot luck what score would be announced in between rounds. They also have got to let the pro's in to improve the quality.

Do you mean let professional fighters box in it? Without being pedantic, it's supposed to be an amateur tournament-letting pros in would somewhat fly in the face of that don't you think?

The Olympics should be the best athletes facing each other. If you are going to have a sport in the Olympics then it should be the top athletes at that sport. Pros are allowed in tennis, basketball, football and other sports and most of the top athletes now are effectively professional anyway unless they come from poorly fnded countries. Someone put up a post recently and it was saying they are thinking of letting pros in for Rio. I think it would be much better.

You are missing the point here- the Olympics are amateur boxings pinnacle- if you let in pros what would you do for the amateurs? Where's your sense of history?

horizontalhero wrote:

Gordy wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Huge success, full houses every day, cracking atmosphere, decent medal haul and probably the biggest single shot in the arm for womens boxing in its history in this country, difficult to see what more anyone could have asked for.

A proper scoring system, good judges and officials and higher quality! Alot of the people who went along probably didnt know the first thing about boxing so they will not have been bothered by the standard or the dodgy scoring but for real boxing fans this has been a major issue. They have got to change the way the the fights are scored to make it better. At times I thought it was just pot luck what score would be announced in between rounds. They also have got to let the pro's in to improve the quality.

Do you mean let professional fighters box in it? Without being pedantic, it's supposed to be an amateur tournament-letting pros in would somewhat fly in the face of that don't you think?

The Olympics should be the best athletes facing each other. If you are going to have a sport in the Olympics then it should be the top athletes at that sport. Pros are allowed in tennis, basketball, football and other sports and most of the top athletes now are effectively professional anyway unless they come from poorly fnded countries. Someone put up a post recently and it was saying they are thinking of letting pros in for Rio. I think it would be much better.

You are missing the point here- the Olympics are amateur boxings pinnacle- if you let in pros what would you do for the amateurs? Where's your sense of history?

Actually I agree with you. I do not think events like football or tennis should be in the Olympics because it is all pros. But if you are going to allow pros into some sports and not others then its not fair. And most of the top athletes are pro now anyway. Keep a seperate competition for the amateurs outside of the Olympics but the Olympics should be the best in the world competing or else the sport should not be in there in the first place.

even if i were to accept your arguement, there is one reason why it couldn't happen- no one gets paid for competing in, or winning the Olympics, so why would any pros risk injury for no financial reward. Ther's also the issue of what you would do about countries in which pro boxing is banned-or would you have amateurs figthing pros in this scenario? Pro's competing in Olympics would reduce this magnificent tournament to an international prize fighter with second rate pros competing, not one elite fighter would do it.

I've not been a fan of pro boxing for many years - too much about hype, posturing and not taking on the most credible challengers (bring back Dennis Andries v Jeff Harding - 12 rounds where they just stood toe to toe and pummelled away at each other). However, I quite like amateur boxing (which appears to be more a skill sport) and enjoyed watching much of it at these Games.

Positives for the Games:
1 - The womens boxing competition was of a much higher standard than I expected, with great technical proficiency from the better fighters. Deserves to be extended in the next Olympics.
2 - Team GB performed well overall
3 - Crowds and atmosphere was great.

Negatives
1 - The scoring system. I didn't mind the absence of the running scores as used in the last few games, but it seems to be a complete lottery as to whether a shot is scored or not. The judges need to be more generous, in scoring good jabs and body shots, and there needs to be a bonus system for knock-downs.
2 - There were a couple of poor refereeing decisions, which changed the results of fights. There was the famous one where the guy was knocked over about half a dozen times and never given a standing count (which I think was just incompetence on the part of the ref), but also a disqualification of an Iranian boxer for doing two thirds of naff all wrong, and one where an official warning and 2 point penalty (again for nothing) swung a fight.

Overall, a good competition, but not perfect.

dummy_half wrote:I've not been a fan of pro boxing for many years - too much about hype, posturing and not taking on the most credible challengers (bring back Dennis Andries v Jeff Harding - 12 rounds where they just stood toe to toe and pummelled away at each other). However, I quite like amateur boxing (which appears to be more a skill sport) and enjoyed watching much of it at these Games.

Positives for the Games:
1 - The womens boxing competition was of a much higher standard than I expected, with great technical proficiency from the better fighters. Deserves to be extended in the next Olympics.
2 - Team GB performed well overall
3 - Crowds and atmosphere was great.

Negatives
1 - The scoring system. I didn't mind the absence of the running scores as used in the last few games, but it seems to be a complete lottery as to whether a shot is scored or not. The judges need to be more generous, in scoring good jabs and body shots, and there needs to be a bonus system for knock-downs.
2 - There were a couple of poor refereeing decisions, which changed the results of fights. There was the famous one where the guy was knocked over about half a dozen times and never given a standing count (which I think was just incompetence on the part of the ref), but also a disqualification of an Iranian boxer for doing two thirds of naff all wrong, and one where an official warning and 2 point penalty (again for nothing) swung a fight.

Overall, a good competition, but not perfect.

You are spot on with the positives and negatives but overall I was not impressed with the skill level of the amateurs. Compared to before there do not seem to be many good amateurs. Mayweather is considered by most experts to be the best boxer in the world at the moment but he only got bronze in his Olympics so it shows how the standards have been slipping. Especially if Audley Harrison can win a gold medal. They need to do something about improving the quality and I think that means letting pros in next time in Rio. Im sure someone like Mayweather would love the opportunity to go back and try and win a gold medal. He doesnt need the money anymore so I think for him an Olympic gold would be really something that he would want. The Olympics should be the best athletes competing against the best.

Mayweather wouldn't get out of bed for less than $10m. Unless that gold medal comes in 24 carat white gold, overlaid with platinum, is diamond encrusted and as big as one of the 'rims' on his 'ride', he wouldn't give a monkeys about avenging his bronze.

the scoring really ruined it for me. For this reason alone I didn't watch as much as I hoped I would as it was so frustrating. I found it impossible to relate what I saw to what the final scores were.

They should at the very least revert to having scores in plain view again

qc2 wrote:the scoring really ruined it for me. For this reason alone I didn't watch as much as I hoped I would as it was so frustrating. I found it impossible to relate what I saw to what the final scores were.

They should at the very least revert to having scores in plain view again

Great point! Completely agree. If they dont change the scoring it will become very unpopular. At times it seemed like pot luck!

Gordy wrote:

qc2 wrote:the scoring really ruined it for me. For this reason alone I didn't watch as much as I hoped I would as it was so frustrating. I found it impossible to relate what I saw to what the final scores were.

They should at the very least revert to having scores in plain view again

Great point! Completely agree. If they dont change the scoring it will become very unpopular. At times it seemed like pot luck!

I just found the standard to be quite poor.....mix that in with the point system (or lack thereof) and it became a little unwatchable which is a real shame as it was the only part of the games I was looking forward to.

alma wrote:Mayweather is only interested in money, Gordy. The clue is in his nickname.

I am not a fan of Mayweather but to say he would not be interested in going back to get a gold medal is very unfair. The rules are that once you become a pro you cannot go back to amateur so it was because of this Mayweather could not go back and try and win gold. If they let pro's in for the Rio games I think he would definately want to win gld but the problem is they are in four years time and by then Mayweather could be to old. But he has made a fortune from boxing at this stage so money is not as important now for him as it was when he first went pro.

Gordy wrote:

alma wrote:Mayweather is only interested in money, Gordy. The clue is in his nickname.

I am not a fan of Mayweather but to say he would not be interested in going back to get a gold medal is very unfair. The rules are that once you become a pro you cannot go back to amateur so it was because of this Mayweather could not go back and try and win gold. If they let pro's in for the Rio games I think he would definately want to win gld but the problem is they are in four years time and by then Mayweather could be to old. But he has made a fortune from boxing at this stage so money is not as important now for him as it was when he first went pro.

On what basis do you know any of that Gordy? On what EVIDENCE? Are you an EXPERT? Mayweather is a boxer, so he is an expert, and he says all he cares about is money. Surely your opinion HAS to fall in line with his?

Also:

HE'LL BE 39 BY RIO YOU GOOOOOOOOON......

From an Irish perspective, the games were a big success. We finished 5th on the medal table, which considering the Country's size and our boxing budget is a massive achievement. Team GB spent almost 10 million pounds on their boxing team and won 5 medals, whereas Ireland spent 1.3 million Euro's and won 4.

Just out of interest, when people say the quality was poor, to what are they comparing it to? These games have certainly been no worse than the quality of the previous two or three Olympics in my opinion.

Gets boring doesn't it TopHat, now given the choice between £30mil and a shot at an olympic gold medal I know which one i'd go for as would Mayweather. In a boxing sense that is.

6oldenbhoy wrote:From an Irish perspective, the games were a big success. We finished 5th on the medal table, which considering the Country's size and our boxing budget is a massive achievement. Team GB spent almost 10 million pounds on their boxing team and won 5 medals, whereas Ireland spent 1.3 million Euro's and won 4.

Just out of interest, when people say the quality was poor, to what are they comparing it to? These games have certainly been no worse than the quality of the previous two or three Olympics in my opinion.

I haven't seen much amateur boxing overall recently I must admit but something as simple as a Kindelan/Khan final has been missing since 2004 there does seem to have been a decline.

6oldenbhoy wrote:From an Irish perspective, the games were a big success. We finished 5th on the medal table, which considering the Country's size and our boxing budget is a massive achievement. Team GB spent almost 10 million pounds on their boxing team and won 5 medals, whereas Ireland spent 1.3 million Euro's and won 4.

Just out of interest, when people say the quality was poor, to what are they comparing it to? These games have certainly been no worse than the quality of the previous two or three Olympics in my opinion.

I think probably alot of people dont really follow the amateur boxing scene. So when they say the quality was porr they might be comparing it the kind of top level pro fights they watch which will obviously be of a higher standard, as opposed to previous games.

I disagree. Yes, there is not anyone as good as Kindelan at the moment, but he was a 30+ veteran in 2004. He knew all the tricks of the trade, but that only comes with experience. Lomachenko, Iglesias, Ramirez are all briming with talent but are still all under 25, Ramirez is only 18 so give the guys time to improve. Watch Zou Shiming at his peak, he's right up there among the best amateurs I've ever seen. There is plenty of talent there.

In the amateurs I see talent for what it is not for what it may become, comparing the class of 2012 to 04 it does seem a lot weaker with the potential to be just as good but then a lot of the talent may and will turn professional. Does seem a long time ago that we had top quality american amateurs but that is largely based on hindsight and seeing what they became in the paid ranks.

I agree on paper that the 04 class looks superior, but that's largely due to what they have gone on to achieve as professionals. Cubans are defecting with more regularity now, which weakens the talent pool somewhat, but other nations, GB, Ireland etc are catching thwm up.

The performance of American amateurs will improve with the introduction of the 10 point must system. They seem far more suited to it in my opinion. It favours volume and aggression more, which the American team had in spades.