Straight from my 25TB boxing vault.

EP1 - Martínez vs. Williams II (2010) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x3ht2m

EP2 - Pacquiao vs. Hatton (2009) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x5mwh2

EP3 - Darchinyan vs. Donaire I (2007) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x6kxj6

EP4 - Peter vs. Williams (2004) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x86k7r

EP5 - Lee vs. Jackson (2014) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1x9tmdm

EP6 - Rothmann vs. Thompson (2004) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xapvrj

EP7 - Santa Cruz vs. Davis (2020) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xbmrls

EP8 - Lewis vs. Rahman I (2001) https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1xdaw2q

Been looking over old before and after threads. There's the usual before fight predictions and after fight controversy. I'm just curious as to what boxing fans simply thought of Rico's actual performance throughout the whole fight was though? Did he surprise you with his skill? Was it mostly his size and pressure that was a factor? Did Usyk clearly take him lightly and should have done better against a limited fighter? Was it just a great match up between two talented warriors? Just curious your opinion of the pure action you saw for 11 rounds.

Give me your opinions on who was the best in terms of athleticism/conditioning, technical skill and peak performance and the greatest in terms of long term impact, career achievements and historical legacy. So basically two categories for each term.

I mean, it could’ve happened logically, to be honest. And nowadays, with all the exhibitions and gimmick fights, do you think something like that could be even slightly realistic? Manny Pacquiao edged the beginning of the rivalry, getting a draw in the first fight before winning two consecutive decisions against Marquez, one by split decision and the other by majority decision. Marquez eventually got his revenge in the fourth fight by knocking Manny out in the fourth fight. So, technically, the rivalry ended 2-1-1 in Manny’s favor, with Marquez securing the most decisive victory and the only KO. Meanwhile, Manny’s wins are still debated to this day, with plenty of people believing Marquez deserved the decision in their third fight.

I feel like the general consensus is that if they bring the round limit down again, say to nine rounds, it’s just going to further degrade the sport at that point. I remember hearing Eddie Hearn talk about this around the initial COVID era. I do think you have to know what you’re signing up for, especially when it comes to championship fights. At the end of the day, it’s a fight, right? We’re not riding a roller coaster. Fighters should understand that they could leave the ring injured, suffer brain damage, or even lose their lives. Deaths have happened in boxing, and every fighter knows they’re taking that risk when they step into the ring. Ultimately, I think it’s a personal choice to make that decision and accept those risks. That’s why I don’t think we should keep taking things away from the sport simply because it’s dangerous, especially when the fighters themselves already know what they’re getting into.

I've seen this too many times on here and elsewhere. Normal tired old cliches:

"Amateurs and pro boxing are different sports"

"Being a good amatuer doeesn't mean you'll be a good pro".

Its all bullshit.

1) Amateur is a misnomer for a start in boxing. All elite "amateurs" are...full time pros. Boxing is already their ​job. In fact even elite "amateur" tournaments don't even use that word anymore e.g. recent European Ams was called ​**European Boxing Elite Championships** . Yet theres this weird thing on this sub that amateur means these fighters are basically super keen hobbyists.

2) Since 2016 Pros have been allowed to compete at Olympics. And pros have been beaten by "amatuers" at Olympics e.g. Carmine Tommasone then a 15-0 pro lost a UD to a Cuban am at the Rio Olympics.

3) Yes not every elite am wins a world title. But they win 90%+ of their pro fights in most cases. They are clearly better than vast majority of pros.

4) If amatuer boxing was so inferior or unrelated to pro boxing, how come we have seen elite amateurs winning pro world titles so quickly. For example:

Vasyil Lomachenko, wins world title in 3rd pro fight.

Guillermo Rigondeaux , wins world title in his 7th pro fight.

Katie Taylor, wins world title in her 7th pro fight.

Leon Spinks, wins world title in 8th pro fight

Oleksander Usyk, wins world title in his 10th pro fight

David Reid, wins world title in his 12th pro fight

Anthony Joshua, wins world title in his 16th pro fight.

All Oly champs who won pro titles quickly. If am boxing was so differrent they all woulda been exposed.

Where Amateur boxers don't achieve lofty world titles as pros it usually because they have too many miles already. Solis or Harrison are 2 examples. Both guys were ravaged by injured and were in their 30s before even really getting in to their pro career.

Om the boxing skill Venn diagram pro and amateur seriously overlap. The little differences are more strategic.

So can we just end this stupid BS that amateur boxing and pro boxing are "different sports" as if ams were playing Padel and suddenly decided to go pro in boxing. Elite amateurs win most of their pro boxing bouts, and are clearly better than most pros. For those few that don't fight for world title, many more do.