Watching Olympic Boxing?

[jyl]

Are you? What do you think?

I like Olympic boxing, it is so different from the pro fights.

Any thoughts about the scoring?

Just watched the Rau'shee Warren fight, he lost in the elimination round to a Korean fighter. The announcers complained about the scoring, landed punches not scored and scored punches not landing. And, it is true, Warren was credited with a punch that he obviously didn't land (he was falling down at the time) and his opponent was credited with a punch that he obviously didn't land. But, frankly, the fighters were evenly matched and the bout was pretty darn close, you couldn't say that either fighter was clearly winning. The Korean was 2005 world champ and beat Warren in their last fight, so not an upset that he won. even if Warren was 2007 champ. And Warren or his corner bear much blame, with 30 sec to go he basically stopped fighting because he thought he was ahead, alas he was a point behind, so he lost 8-9.

I've watched about 20 bouts so far. The scoring is pretty inconsistent. But I haven't seen many bouts that were plainly decided the wrong way. Maybe 17-5 should have been 19-8, but it's not like it should have been 5-17.

Still, makes me think. How practical would it be to score amateur boxing like fencing, using electrically charged striking surfaces on the gloves, and conductive surfaces on the jersey and helmet?

I know, another way to decide a fight is by knockout. But I guess in only 8 minutes, with headgear, you can't count on knockouts. I've seen 3 or 4, in 20 bouts watched.

[DavidI]

As an amateur boxer myself, I don't care for "Olympic Style Boxing." The points are scored when the white portion of the gloves lands. It does not matter how powerful or effective the punch is, only that the white portion lands. Some of the boxers play pitter-patter instead of landing clean, hard punches. I take nothing away from these talented boxers, they are far better than I ever was. I prefer the brawling style of Smokin' Joe Frazier though.

David

[jyl]

The US boxing team is not doing so great so far. AFAIK, 1 failed to make weight, 3 have been eliminated in their first fights (including Warren who was thought to be be best).

I speculate that our fighters typically compete at the Olympics very early in their careers, when they are 18 or so, and then turn pro. AFAIK, only 1 of our boxers (Warren) is in his second Olympics. In many other countries, boxers stay in amateur fighting and come back to the Olympics as repeats/veterans. Also I speculate US fighters tend to learn and train in a pro style, rather than in an Olympics points-scoring style.

I'm just speculating, don't really know. Anyone know about this?

And, this wouldn't explain why we seem to be getting less successful in each successive Olympics. I read that the US boxing medal count has been declining by 2 in each of the last three Olympics, as in 6 then 4 then 2.

[aigel]

IMHO the Olympic scoring sure works a lot better than the "pro" scoring. You are correct that the hard punches count just as much as the soft ones. But don't forget that they will leave their mark on the opponent regardless. You may look at Olympic boxing as "fencing with the fists". I like to watch it better than pro boxing. Also, if you compete, you will be happier in amateur boxing - I have seen a lot of young guys without good coaches (leave along promoters) burnt up in pro fights for a few hundred bucks a pop.

George

[DavidI]

Originally Posted by aigel

IMHO the Olympic scoring sure works a lot better than the "pro" scoring. You are correct that the hard punches count just as much as the soft ones. But don't forget that they will leave their mark on the opponent regardless. You may look at Olympic boxing as "fencing with the fists". I like to watch it better than pro boxing. Also, if you compete, you will be happier in amateur boxing - I have seen a lot of young guys without good coaches (leave along promoters) burnt up in pro fights for a few hundred bucks a pop.

George

Proboxing is not without its faults, but it is a far better system than playing pitter-patter. It is a fighting, brutal sport where blood should be spilled. It is a purel individual sport in which heart can forge the winner. The Olympics has not shown that to me.

David

[kmhemi]

all of the above comments are good. However, I have to side with David on this one. I also used to box, Over ten years ago since I quit, Olympic boxing just doesnt do it for me. While the "pitter pat" as david calls it is quite technical it still lacks alot that boxing requires for me to be insterested.

[sammyg2]

I've spent quite a bit of time in the ring also, but have yet to see a single minute of Olympic boxing from China. I've watched allot of the Olympics so far. Not every minute but at least 2 hours a day, sometimes more.

I know there is Olympic boxing and other more masculine sports going on, I know others have seen them, but I haven't. I get the Olympics on NBC and their spin-off channels and sometime on USA channel, but almost all they show is estrogen sports. Lots of synchronized diving. Lots of swimming, gymnastics, women's beach volleyball, badminton, women's weightlifting, women's cycling and kayaking, equestrian, all kinds of "sports" that cater to the less masculine viewer. They have plenty of human interest stories about the athletes and their struggles, they have some masculine-looking woman (I think) walking around talking about the food in China, but no boxing. It's as if they let San Francisco pick their programming.

I saw the men's basketball team play one game, they must have figured they could get away with that because there are women who will watch because of all the famous names on the team.

I'm all for NBC making money and I understand their need for decent ratings, but they have feminized the Olympics to draw in a larger audience and it is pissing me off.

They still have track and field in the Olympics, right? I hope no one is offended by the javelin throw or running the hurdles or something.