{"id":6398,"date":"2019-03-28T06:30:01","date_gmt":"2019-03-28T11:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6398"},"modified":"2020-06-02T16:19:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T21:19:00","slug":"from-gold-to-glory-an-analysis-of-u-s-olympic-boxers-in-the-professional-ranks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/from-gold-to-glory-an-analysis-of-u-s-olympic-boxers-in-the-professional-ranks\/","title":{"rendered":"From Gold to Glory: An Analysis of U.S. Olympic Boxers in the Professional Ranks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong>Robert G. Rodriguez, Mark R. Joslyn, Emily Gruver<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author: <\/strong>
Robert G. Rodriguez, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Political Science
Texas A&M University-Commerce
P.O. Box 3011
Commerce, TX  75429
robert.rodriguez@tamuc.edu
903-886-5317<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robert G. Rodriguez is an associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University-Commerce.

Mark R. Joslyn is a professor of political science and graduate director at University of Kansas.

Emily Gruver is an Honors Student at Texas A&M University-Commerce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Gold to Glory: An Analysis of U.S. Olympic Boxers in the Professional Ranks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The uncertain\nconnections between Olympic and professional success in boxing lead us to\nquestion just how significant Olympic medals are in determining whether an\nOlympian will win a professional world title. We analyzed all U.S. male boxers\nthat competed through the 2012 Olympic Games, with the exceptions of 1980 and\n1904.  We then developed a multivariate\nlogistic model determining the probability of Olympians winning professional\nchampionships; a comparison of the probability of winning a professional world\ntitle between those who won a medal versus those that did not and differences\namong medal winners.   Further, we\nexamined the time it took for medalists\/non-medalists to win professional world\nchampionships.  Our results demonstrate\nthat American Olympic boxing medalists are significantly more likely to win a\nprofessional world championship than those who participated in the games but did\nnot win a medal.   A gold medal effects\nthe probability of winning a world championship the most among medal winners,\nslightly more so than silver medalists, while bronze medalists cannot be\ndistinguished from non-medalists in the likelihood of achieving a pro title.     In terms of time to winning a professional\ntitle, American Olympic medalists are three times more likely to win\nprofessional world titles than non-medalists, and they take significantly less\ntime to do so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Olympic Boxing, Professional World Boxing Championships, USA Boxing Team<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A commonly held\nbelief is that boxers who are successful in the Olympic Games will go on to win\nprofessional world titles. After all, some of the greatest practitioners of the\nsport, such as George Foreman and Oscar De La Hoya won Olympic gold before\nbecoming legendary world champions. In the popular media, Olympic glory\ncontinues to be presented as a fast-track to professional success. For example,\na recent New York Times<\/em> article\nstated, \u201cFor decades, the Olympics were a steppingstone to a professional\ncareer. Introduced in 1904, Olympic boxing turned gold medal winners like\nMuhammad Ali (then known as Cassius Clay), Joe Frazier and Sugar Ray Leonard\ninto household names.\u201d (1) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently,\nFloyd Mayweather, Roy Jones, Jr., and Evander Holyfield, all of whom made it to\nthe Olympic pedestal -but did not win gold<\/em>\nmedals- have also gone on to enormous success as professionals. The Bleacher Report,<\/em> a popular sports\nwebpage, observed the virtues of converting an Olympic medal into a world title\nbelt.   \u201cOn today’s scene, world\ntitleholders James DeGale, Vasyl Lomachenko, Guillermo Rigondeaux and Anthony\nJoshua all won Olympic gold, as did pound-for-pound contender Andre Ward.\nOlympic boxing might not enjoy the same status it did a generation ago,\nparticularly when it comes to ratings. But for serious fans of the sport, it\ncan’t be ignored. It’s a great opportunity to get a first look at a future\nworld champ.\u201d (2)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand,\nthere are also examples of Olympians who did not win medals of any<\/em> color that went on to win pro\ntitles, such as current IBF welterweight world champion Errol Spence, Jr. and\nWBO junior middleweight champ Sadam Ali. Furthermore, there are many Olympic\ngold medalists who never<\/em> hoisted a\nprofessional title belt, including 1980\u2019s era heavyweights Henry Tillman and\nTyrell Biggs. This perspective is pointed out in an ESPN.com<\/em> article from 2008: \u201cAs\ndisappointing as it has been for the U.S. boxers who failed to reach the medal\nround in Beijing, it is by no means the end of the world — especially for\nthose who are intent on pursuing professional careers. Many professional\nchampions didn’t win a medal in the Olympics. Their opponents — the ones who\nenjoyed the elation of victory — have in many cases slipped into obscurity.\u201d\n(3)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sports analytics organization known as The Stats Zone<\/em>, recently attempted to\ndetermine whether winning Olympic gold is a precursor to a professional world\ntitle. They concluded that winning gold is not a foundation for professional\nsuccess. (4) They only provide one statistic to substantiate their argument,\nhowever, indicating that out of 219 boxers from all nationalities who won gold\nmedals from 1904 through 2012, only 41 went on to become professional world\nchampions, a 18.72% success rate. (4)   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\nresearch is problematic for multiple reasons. It does not take into account the\nfact that only the United States fielded a boxing team in 1904 (and some boxers\ncompeted in more than one weight class), only six nations (England, Wales,\nScotland, Denmark, France and Australia) competed in 1908, boxing was banned by\nSweden and thus not held in 1912, nor does it factor in the effect of Olympic\nboycotts by historical boxing powerhouses (U.S. in 1980, U.S.S.R., Cuba and 14\nEastern Bloc countries in 1984, and Cuba in 1988). Likewise, the author does\nnot consider the fact that most boxers from Communist states were prohibited\nfrom becoming professionals until the 1990s, and in the case of Cuba, must\ndefect in order to box as professionals to this day. In addition, the author\npresents a chart that compares a list of gold medalists with another list that\ncombines those who won silver, bronze or no medal, without distinguishing among\nthem. Finally, the selection of gold medalists who went on to win pro titles\ndetailed in the author\u2019s research appears selective and incomplete.  The comparison group of silver, bronze or no\nmedal winners exhibits similar limitations \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aforementioned examples of various outcomes in the\nprofessional ranks for those who had previously boxed in the Olympic Games lead\nus to question the significance<\/em> of\nOlympic medals in determining the probability of an Olympian going on to win a\nprofessional world title. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study\nexamines male Olympic boxers representing the United States. The United States\nhas fielded a boxing team in every Olympic boxing tournament held since 1904\n(with the exception of the 1908 London games, where the U.S. did not\nparticipate in boxing, and the 1980 political boycott), American boxers have\nnever been prohibited from turning professional, and they have enjoyed\nsignificant success in the Olympics as well as the professional ranks.  Thus, we have a sufficient number of cases\nfor the study. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dynamics of women\u2019s Olympic and\nprofessional boxing are significantly different than those for men. (5) For\nexample, historian Gerald Gems points out, \u201cDespite winning a gold medal as a\nseventeen-year-old at the 2012 Olympic Games, Claressa Shields got little\npublicity and no endorsement deals.\u201d  (6)\nIn addition, women\u2019s boxing has only been an Olympic medal sport since 2012\n(though it should be noted that the 1904 Olympics featured a women\u2019s boxing\nexhibition).   Thus, our analyses only\nfocus on male boxers.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our data\ncollection begins with the first Olympiad that held a men\u2019s boxing competition,\nand ends with the 2012 Olympics, as it typically takes a substantial amount of\ntime for a boxer to adapt from amateur boxing to the professional sport, and we\ndid not consider enough time passed since the 2016 Olympiad to include it. Hall\nof Fame trainer Freddie Roach explains some of the challenges amateur boxers\nface as they become professionals: \u201c\u2026in the amateurs it\u2019s a whole different\nsport. So when you turn pro it\u2019s almost like you have to forget everything\nyou\u2019ve learned as an amateur in order to change into a pro style and it is very\ndifficult to get someone to change.\u201d (7) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the physical\ntoll on a boxer\u2019s body, it also takes time to amass enough victories over\ncontenders to be in position to fight in a world championship match. There are\nnotable exceptions to this, such as 1956 gold medalist Pete Rademacher who\nchallenged world heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson for the title in his\nprofessional debut, or more recently 2008 & 2012 Olympic gold medalist Vasyl\nLomachenko of Ukraine, who fought for a world title in his second professional\nfight. (Incidentally, both lost in their initial cracks at a world title,\nthough Lomachenko went on to become a world champion in his subsequent fight.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, we\ncollected the following measures for all U.S. male boxers who competed at the\nOlympic Games that held boxing competitions through 2012, with the exceptions\nof 1904 (when only Americans participated in boxing), 1908 (when the U.S. did\nnot send a team), and 1980 (when the U.S. team was prohibited from competing\nfor political reasons): Olympic weight category(ies) and year(s) competed,\nmedal\/no medal and type (gold, silver or bronze), professional world title,\nweight, and year won first world title\/no world title. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequency of U.S. Olympians winning professional world championships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The names and\nperformance of American Olympians that competed in boxing for each Olympiad is\nreadily available on multiple internet sites. Boxrec.com was accessed to\ndetermine the professional records and any world titles won for those who went\non to become professional boxers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Probability of Olympians (medalists and\nnon-medalists) winning professional championships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statistical\nmodel we use to determine the probability of winning professional world\nchampionships examines the data in three ways: overall probability, pre-1960\nand 1960-onwards. Our rationale for examining the data this way is due to the\ninconsistency in the pre-1960 Olympic Games. For example, while nearly 90% of\nU.S. Olympic boxers from 1960 onward turned pro, only 2\/3 of pre-1960 Olympians\nbecame professionals. Also, on several occasions pre-1960, the Olympics were\ncancelled due to world wars (1916, 1940 and 1944), boxing was excluded from the\n1912 Games due to its illegality in Sweden at the time, and the United States\nchose not to participate in boxing at the 1908 London games for reasons that\nare entirely unclear. As mentioned previously, only Americans competed in the\nOlympics in 1904, and furthermore, several Americans competed in the same\nweight category as other Americans in 1920 and 1924. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the\ninconsistencies noted for pre-1960 data, professional boxing underwent\nsignificant changes that affected the professional careers of Olympians from\n1960 to the present. The four major world sanctioning bodies that currently\nrank professional boxers and award world championships did not exist until 1962\nwith the establishment of the World Boxing Association (WBA). (8)  The World Boxing Council (WBC) would follow in\n1963, the International Boxing Federation in 1983, and the World Boxing\nOrganization in 1988. The proliferation of world titles coupled with the\ndramatic increase in the number of weight classes from the traditional eight to\nthe current seventeen, means there have been far more opportunities for\nOlympians from 1960 to the present to win world championships then was\npreviously the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only 8% of\npre-1960 American Olympic boxers won world titles in the professional ranks,\nwhile about 31% of all U.S. Olympians from 1960 onward have done the same.  In sum, given the inconsistencies in the\nOlympic Games, the emergence of world sanctioning organizations and the\nexpansion of weight divisions, we consider it prudent to examine the cases\noverall, as well as statistically controlling for differences before\/after the\n1960 games. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison\nof the probability of winning a professional world title between those who won\na medal and those that did not and the relative effect of a gold medal vs those\nwho won silver or bronze<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As noted in the\nintroduction, there is not widespread consensus on whether winning an Olympic\ngold medal will lead to professional success. There is even less consensus on\nwhether winning a medal of any type will have any impact on winning a world title.\nIs there any difference in the likelihood of someone who wins Olympic silver or\nbronze on becoming a world champ? What about differences between those who won\na medal and those who did not? In order to answer these questions, we conducted\nlogistic analyses to determine if there is a difference between the influence\nof gold, silver and bronze medalists on the likelihood of winning a\nprofessional title.  We also examine the\ndifference in probability between medalists and non-medalists.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison\nof the time it took for medalists\/non-medalists to win professional world\nchampionships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the\npotential benefits of competing in the Olympic Games is the possibility of\nbecoming a professional world champion more quickly than those who do not. The\nmedia exposure generated for Olympic boxers, who are among the relatively few\nathletes that can continue to compete in their respective sports as paid\nprofessional athletes, can be a tremendous economic benefit. Olympic\ncompetitors draw attention from promoters, managers, trainers, television\nnetworks, and fans alike. In addition to their purses for fighting\nprofessionally (which tend to be significantly higher when fights are\ntelevised), they may also be enticed by hefty signing bonuses. While most young\nprofessional boxers are often exploited by manager and promoters while toiling\ntheir trade in small venues, former Olympians often find themselves on the\nfast-track to lucrative fights through skillful management and access to\nquality trainers and facilities.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At least as far back as the 1960\nOlympics, boxers recognized they would have a unique post-Olympic economic\nadvantage among their fellow Olympians. Upon winning the gold at the Olympic\nGames in Rome, a young Cassius Clay, AKA Muhammad Ali, declared, \u201cThat was my\nlast amateur fight. I\u2019m turning pro, but I don\u2019t know exactly how. I want a\ngood contract.\u201d (9) In contrast, the highly acclaimed two-time Olympic medalist\nand U.S. decathlete Rafer Johnson, who had carried the American flag in the\nopening ceremonies of the 1960 Rome games recalled, \u201c\u2026at that moment, I didn\u2019t\nhave a clue what I was going to do next.\u201d (9)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case of\nEvander Holyfield, who was a part of the highly successful 1984 Olympic boxing\nteam (all but one of the twelve-member team won a medal; including nine gold)\nis demonstrative how even earning a bronze medal (through a highly\ncontroversial disqualification) can lead to recognition and riches. In his\nofficial biography, Holyfield describes meeting with President Reagan,\nparticipating in a multiple city parades, and receiving fan mail from around\nthe world: \u201cSuddenly, every promoter in the country wanted to represent\n[Holyfield]. He was \u2018hot property\u2019 now, his name recognition was high, and\noffers started coming in from all over. A couple of months ago, Evander needed\na sponsor to purchase a used car. Now, he was being offered enough money to buy\na comfortable house\u2026The 1984 Olympic boxing team was broad enough to attract a\nlot of attention from various professional management and promotion organizations\u2026Main\nEvents offered Evander $250,000 to sign and promised him another $2 million\nwithin four years.\u201d (10)  Holyfield won\nhis first of many world championships in his twelfth professional bout, just\ntwo years after the Olympics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example of what\ncan happen to talented amateur fighters who do not make the Olympics and\nsubsequently have to struggle in the professional ranks without the benefits of\nmedia exposure, sound management, and promotion is the case of Aaron \u201cThe Hawk\u201d\nPryor. By the time he competed in the U.S. Olympic Boxing Trials in 1976, Pryor\nhad compiled an astonishing 220-4 record according to U.S. Olympic boxing coach\nRollie Schwartz. (11) Standing between Pryor and Montreal, however, was highly\nacclaimed Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) and amateur World Champion Howard Davis,\nJr. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his\nautobiography, Pryor claims that politics were to blame for Davis getting the\nnod in two box-off fights that would determine U.S. representative in their\nweight category. (11) Pryor writes, \u201cHoward Davis was true red, white and blue\nand hailed from a good family. Aaron Pryor was a symbol of everything that was\nwrong with Black America. If you were on the Olympic Committee, which athlete\nwould you have picked to represent our country?\u201d (11) Regardless, it was Davis\nwho would go on to win gold and be awarded the Val Barker Trophy for being the\nmost outstanding boxer of the Olympic Games by the International Amateur Boxing\nAssociation (AIBA). What is certain is that as professionals, Pryor had far\nmore obstacles on his way to a world title than Davis, who would fight for -but\nnever win- a professional championship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pryor explains the\nstark differences between his and Davis\u2019 paths in the pro ranks in his\nautobiography. Not only did he suffer the indignity of becoming one of Davis\u2019\nsparring partners, he lamented his $200 per bout salary in comparison to Davis,\nwhom Pryor claims was being paid $250,000 per fight: \u201cIn boxing, a fighter\nneeds to have a good team behind him to support. That includes a good promoter,\nwho\u2019ll match up the fighter with tough opponents. A manager, who\u2019ll organize\nthe boxer\u2019s training camp, pay for expenses, and watch out for his financial\ninterests. And of course, a trainer, one who\u2019ll push that boxer to the\nlimit…\u201d (11) It would take Pryor four long years and several changes to his\nteam before earning a title shot- and winning it in August, 1980. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These stories exemplify the effect\nan Olympic medal (or lack thereof) can have on a boxer\u2019s career, and in this\nstudy, we examine whether there is a difference in the amount of time it takes\nfor medalists, non-medalists and medalists of any type to win their first\nprofessional world title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our statistical\nanalyses reveal several intriguing findings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequency\nof U.S. Olympians winning professional world championships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Olympic\nboxing medalists are significantly more likely to win a professional world\nchampionship than those who participated in the games but did not win a medal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1.  <\/strong>Descriptive Statistics.  Professional Title and Olympic Medal 1920-2012<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professional Title<\/strong><\/td>No Medal<\/strong><\/td>Medal<\/strong><\/td>TOTAL N<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Yes<\/td>12.31<\/td>40.45<\/td>52<\/td><\/tr>
No<\/td>87.69<\/td>59.55<\/td>167<\/td><\/tr>
Total N<\/td>130<\/td>89<\/td>219<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Approximately 40% of American Olympic medal winners\n(without distinguishing between gold, silver or bronze) obtained professional\nworld titles. This does not include the 1980 U.S. Olympic boxing team, in which\nfive of the eleven team members won professional championships despite being\nprohibited from competing in Moscow, nor does it include the participants in\nthe 1904 Olympics, where only Americans participated.  Approximately 12% of Olympians that did not\nwin medals would eventually win world titles in the pro ranks.  Just under a quarter  of all Olympic boxers (23.7%) won\nprofessional world titles, regardless of whether they won a medal in the Games.\nThus the data suggest Olympic medals matter for professional success.  We can however be more precise with\nadditional statistical analyses.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Probability\nof Olympians (medalists and non-medalists) winning professional championships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a multivariate\nlogistic model displayed in Table 2, we included two independent\nvariables.  First, we represented medals\nas a simple dichotomy:  medal winner = 1,\n0 \u2013 no medals.  Second, we characterized\nthe aforementioned changes in professional boxing \u2013 the emergence of world\nsanctioning organizations and the expansion of weight divisions \u2013 to control\nfor an expected increase in the number of possible titles won:  1 = Olympics 1960 onward, 0 \u2013 Olympics prior\nto 1960.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both variables are statistically\nsignificant and correctly signed.  For\nOlympians beginning in 1960, the likelihood of winning professional world\ntitles increased significantly (b = 1.42, p<\/em>\n< .00).  This result confirms our\nexpectations regarding the changes in pro-boxing in the early 1960s.   More important, Olympic medal winners are\nmore likely to achieve pro titles than non-medalists (b = 1.55, p<\/em> < .00).  The estimated effect is substantial.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2.  <\/strong>The Estimated Effects of Olympic Medals on the Probability of Winning a Professional Title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Independent Variables<\/strong><\/td>Coefficient<\/strong><\/td>Std. Error<\/strong><\/td>z – stat<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Medal Winner<\/td>1.55*<\/td>.353<\/td>2.36<\/td><\/tr>
CHANGES IN PRO BOXING<\/td>1.42*<\/td>.430<\/td>3.32<\/td><\/tr>
Constant<\/td>-2.98*<\/td>.445<\/td>-6.69<\/td><\/tr>
Chi-square<\/td>36.2<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
N<\/td>219<\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*p<\/em> < .01.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the model\nestimates, the probability of an Olympic medalist from 1960 onward winning a\nprofessional world title is\n0.50, while the likelihood of a non-medalist achieving the same feat\nduring the same era is about 0.17 — see Table 3. The difference in\nprobabilities demonstrates the power of an Olympic medal for professional\nboxing success.  An Olympic medal increases the likelihood of\nwinning a world title by approximately 0.33. For the earlier Olympics, 1920\nthrough 1956, the chances of an Olympian winning a world title are notably\nslim, whether a medal winner (0.194 chance) or not (0.48).  A medal in\nthis era increased the chances of a world title by a mere .146 \u2013 less than half\nthe chance a medal generated in the modern era.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3. <\/strong> Estimated Probabilities Of World Title Success Derived From Logistic Model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/td>ESTIMATED PROBABILITIES<\/strong><\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
TIME PERIOD<\/strong><\/td>MEDAL TO WORLD TITLE<\/strong><\/td>NO MEDAL TO WORLD TITLE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1920 TO 1956 OLYMPICS*<\/td>.194<\/td> .048<\/td><\/tr>
1960 TO 2012 OLYMPICS**<\/td>.500<\/td>.174<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*Excludes\nthe 1904 Olympiad where only Americans competed; the U.S. did not send a team\nin 1908; boxing was not held in 1912; and the 1916, 1940 and 1944 Games were\ncancelled due to world wars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

**Excludes\nthe 1980 U.S. boxing team that boycotted the Moscow Games<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The impact on the\nprobability of winning a professional title of gold, silver and bronze\nmedals.  <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, we examine the relative effects of medal type on\nthe likelihood of winning a professional title. \nThe effect of each medal is estimated relative to no medal.   The three measures are:  1 = gold medal winner, 0 \u2013 no medal; 1 =\nsilver medal winner, 0 \u2013 no medal; 1 = bronze medal winner, 0 \u2013 no medal.  Table 3 shows the logistic estimates for\nmedal category.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4.  <\/strong>The Estimated Effects of Olympic Medal Type on Likelihood of Professional Title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Independent Variables<\/strong><\/td>Coefficient<\/strong><\/td>Std. Error<\/strong><\/td>z – stat<\/strong><\/td>dy\/dx<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Gold Medal<\/td>1.98*<\/td>.432<\/td>4.58<\/td>.398<\/td><\/tr>
Silver Medal<\/td>1.67*<\/td>.624<\/td>2.38<\/td>.351<\/td><\/tr>
bronze Medal<\/td>.980<\/td>.476<\/td>1.82<\/td>.180<\/td><\/tr>
CHANGES IN PRO BOXING<\/td>1.52*<\/td>.441<\/td>3.45<\/td>.207<\/td><\/tr>
Constant<\/td>-3.06*<\/td>.457<\/td>-6.69<\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
Chi-square<\/td>40.04<\/td> <\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr>
N<\/td>219<\/td> <\/td> <\/td> <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*p<\/em> < .01.  DY\/DX represents change in likelihood of\nprofessional title as measure changes from 0 to 1.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two findings are noteworthy.  First, Olympic gold (b = 1.98, p<\/em> < .00) and silver (b = 1.67, p<\/em> < .00) medals are statistically\nsignificant factors toward achieving a pro boxing championship, relative to not\nwinning a medal, though a bronze medal is not (b = .980, n.s.).  So while our previous anslyses in Table 2.\nshowed that an Olympic medal is better than no medal, it is gold and silver\nthat largely drive professional success. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The column dy\/dx reports the marginal changes in probability of winning a pro title as the independent variable changes from no-medal to gold, silver, or bronze.\u00a0 For example, winning a gold medal boosts the probability of achieving a professional title by nearly 0.40.\u00a0 A silver medal, 0.351.\u00a0 Consider the size of the increases in probabilities.\u00a0\u00a0 Compared to the estimated increase in professional titles as a result of structural changes in professional boxing (0.207), the contributions of gold and silver medals are impressive.\u00a0 In this way, individual Olympic achievement matters more than structural changes in professional boxing that created greater\u00a0\u00a0 opportunities for professional titles.[1] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison\nof the time it took for medalists\/non-medalists to win professional world\nchampionships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is Figure 1\nthat represents the number of years after the Olympics that a boxer took to win\nhis title.  Among Olympians who went on\nto win professional world championships, 72% did so within 5 years, nearly 50%\nwin their title in years 4 or 5.  Another\n20% take 7 years or longer.       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Table 5 displays\nthe average number of years to a professional title by medal category.  Clearly, gold medal performances hasten the\nascent to a world title.  On average gold\nmedalists take less than 3 years. Compare this to silver, bronze and no-medal\nOlympians.  Finally, consider the\nstandard deviations, which reflect variation in the number of years to a pro\ntitle.    For example, bronze medalists\nexhibit the greatest variation, nearly 3 and a half years \u2013 with the average of\n5 years.  This means that some bronze\nmedalists take approximately 8 years while others 2.  The path toward a title can be comparatively\nslow or quick for a bronze medalist. \nSuch variation is not evident among gold medalists.  The progress to a title is rapid and\ncomparatively uniform.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 5.  <\/strong>Time to World Title by Medal Category.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olympic Performance<\/strong><\/td>Average Years<\/strong><\/td>Standard Deviation<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Gold<\/td>3.8<\/td>1.4<\/td><\/tr>
Silver<\/td>5.1<\/td>2.7<\/td><\/tr>
Bronze<\/td>5.3<\/td>3.3<\/td><\/tr>
No Medal<\/td>6.0<\/td>2.6<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The overarching conclusion of this study is that American Olympic medalists -of any type- are about three times more likely to win professional world titles than non-medalist Olympians, and they take significantly less time to win their first pro championship. In other words, although there are examples to the contrary, the performance of American boxers in the Olympic Games is indeed a strong predictor of future professional world championship success, and those who win medals will likely have the opportunity to enjoy the material benefits that come with winning title belts much earlier than those who do not. Olympic gold is especially likely to lead to professional glory.[2] <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, American\nsilver medalists have a statistically similar likelihood to go on to win\nprofessional world championships as their gold medal counterparts. Thus,\nOlympic silver medalists should not fret over the idea that if they do not win\ngold, their professional careers will be negatively impacted. In fact, they can\nlook for inspiration from one of the top pound-for-pound fighters of the past\n25 years: 1988 silver medalist Roy Jones, Jr. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Future research\nmay consider comparing Olympian and non-Olympians\u2019 prospects for professional\ntitles.  It could be that making the\nOlympic team, regardless of Olympic performance, markedly increases the chances\nof professional success.  We selected an\nelite group of amateur boxers and then discovered important differences in\nprofessional trajectories based on various grades of Olympic success.  Comparing this elite group with a larger\ncross-section of non-Olympic boxers that turned pro would offer a valuable and\ncomprehensive analyses of Olympic and professional achievement.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition,\nfuture studies can apply our general design to Olympians from other countries\nto examine whether this is an example of American exceptionalism, or if similar\ndynamics exist across the globe. For example, the fall of the Soviet Union in\n1991 opened the floodgates for highly decorated amateur Eastern European boxers\nto enter into the professional ranks and win a multitude of world\nchampionships. As historian Arne K. Lang points out, \u201cDuring a brief period in\n2006, the most valued heavyweight belts belonged to Wladimir Klitschko\n(Ukraine), Oleg Maskaev (Kazakhstan), Nikolay Valuev (Russia) and Sergei\nLiakhovich (Belarus).\u201d (13) Klitschko was a gold medalist in the 1996 Olympics\nin Atlanta, where Liakhovich competed but did not medal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An examination of\nworld title holders from any nationality in February 2018 reveals that 13 of 70\nchampions (18.5%) had participated in the Olympic Games. Of the 13 Olympians\nwho are current professional world champions, 5 were gold medalists, 1 had won\nsilver, 2 won bronze (both American), and 5 did not medal (two of whom are\nAmerican). (12) Our study makes it clear that the Olympic Games have the power\nto alter the professional career paths of boxers, especially if they win a\nmedal.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participation in\nthe Olympic boxing competition is a tremendous achievement in itself. The\nqualification process has significantly changed over time, as have the rules.\nIt is an extremely competitive sport, and participating in the Olympic Games is\nthe pinnacle of amateur sport. Since boxing is one of the few Olympic sports\nthat athletes can continue to compete in as professionals, the media exposure\ngenerated through participating in the Games can undoubtedly impact the\ntrajectory of fighters\u2019 careers. As our study demonstrates, winning any type of\nmedal dramatically increases the likelihood of professional success, as\nmeasured by winning a world championship, and it increases the rapidity of\nwinning such a title, which in turn, can impact lifetime earnings potential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Belson, K. (2016). Pro Boxers at the Olympics: An\nOpportunity, or a Dangerous Power Grab? The New York Times. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/08\/16\/sports\/olympics\/pro-boxers-at-the-olympics.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Seekins, B. (2016). Olympic Boxing 2016: Boxers with Best\nChance to Be Professional Stars. Bleacher Report. Retrieved from: http:\/\/bleacherreport.com\/articles\/2655062-olympic-boxing-2016-boxers-with-best-chance-to-be-professional-stars<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Houston, G. (2008). Professional champions who didn\u2019t\nmedal in the Olympics\u201d ESPN. Retrieved from: http:\/\/www.espn.com\/sports\/boxing\/news\/story?id=3550753<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. TSZ (2016). Is Olympic Gold a Precursor to Becoming a\nProfessional World Boxing Champion? The Stats Zone. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.thestatszone.com\/olympic-gold-professional-boxing-world-champion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The Guardian (2009). Olympics Opens Doors to Women\u2019s\nBoxing. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/uk\/2009\/aug\/13\/olympics-women-boxing<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Gems, G. (2014). Boxing: A Concise History of the Sweet\nScience. Rowman & Littlefield. Lanham, MD. p. 243.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Silver, M. (2008). The Arc of Boxing: The RISE and\nDECLINE of the SWEET SCIENCE. McFarland. Jefferson, NC. p. 114-115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. WBA (2018). World Boxing Association History. Retrieved\nfrom: http:\/\/www.wbaboxing.com\/wba-history\/world-boxing-association-history#.WpR13ainHIU<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. Maraniss, D. (2008). Rome 1960: The Olympics that Changed\nthe World. Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. p. 283<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Holyfield, E. & Holyfield, B. (1996). Holyfield: The\nHumble Warrior. Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville, TN. p. 105-108.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Pryor, A. & Terrill, M. (1996). Flight of The Hawk:\nThe Aaron Pryor Story. Book World, Inc. Sun Lakes, AZ. p. 39-43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. The Ring Magazine. (2018). Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.ringtv.com\/ratings\/?weightclass=251<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 13. Lang, Arne K.\n(2008). Prizefighting: An American History. McFarland. Jefferson, NC. p. 245.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]\u00a0\u00a0 If we repeat the statistical analyses but explicitly<\/em> compare gold to bronze and silver to bronze \u2013 excluding Olympians that do not medal –\u00a0 we discovered that gold significantly increased the likelihood of a professional title (b = .98, p<\/em> < .05) but silver does not (b = .67, n.s.).\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, among Olympic boxing medalists, a gold medalist, predictably, possess the best shot at winning a professional title.\u00a0 We believe that a larger sample of Olympians would yield stronger results and show silver to be more important than a bronze in predicting pro titles.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2] As of February 2018, The Ring Magazine<\/em>\u2019s top-ten pound-for-pound boxers include two-time Olympic gold medalist Vasyl Lomachenko (ranked #3), two-time gold medal winner Guillermo Rigondeaux (ranked #10), silver medalist Gennady Golovkin (ranked #1), and non-medalist Olympian Errol Spence, Jr. (ranked #9). (12) 3<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Authors:Robert G. Rodriguez, Mark R. Joslyn, Emily Gruver Corresponding Author: Robert […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[300],"tags":[1474,1475],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1Fc","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":87,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/olympism-bibliography-selected-bibliography-for-further-search-on-olympics-or-olympism\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":0},"title":"Olympism Bibliography : Selected Bibliography for further search on Olympics or Olympism","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Richard Bell, Ed.D. Baimbridge, M. (1998) 'Outcome uncertainty in sporting competition: the Olympic games 1896-1998', Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 161-164.[Competition] Barney, R. K. (1992) 'Born from dilemma: America awakens to the modern Olympic Games, 1901-1903', Olympika, Vol.1, pp. 92-135. [USA] [Modern Games History] Barney,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":394,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/international-olympic-academy-masters-degree-program-specifications\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":1},"title":"International Olympic Academy Master’s Degree Program Specifications","date":"September 9, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Introducing an Olympic Movement innovation, in collaboration with the Department of Sports Organization and Management of the University of Peloponnese (UOP), Sparta, the International Olympic Academy (IOA) now offers a Master's Degree Scholarship Program for the Academic year of 2010-2011. The course title is, \"Olympic Studies, Olympic Education, Organization and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":89,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-modern-perspective-of-the-ancient-olympic-events\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":2},"title":"A Modern Perspective of the Ancient Olympic Events","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. Richard Bell, Ed.D. Today's Modern (Summer) Olympic Games have 32 different categories of competitive events. When you consider that of these many, like track and field, have several events within the category and then break down further to men=s and women=s and team and individual competition, it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":388,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-place-and-role-of-olympism-in-higher-education\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":3},"title":"The Place and Role of Olympism in Higher Education","date":"August 5, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Anton\u00edn Rychteck\u00fd, Charles University, Czech Olympic Academy, Prague, Czech Republic ### Introduction Interpreting the place and role of Olympism in higher education is a necessary and pertinent issue. The close relationship between the Olympic Movement and universities dates back as far as 1894. The fact that the IOC was established\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":423,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/interdisciplinary-approach-of-the-teaching-of-olympic-principles-to-the-students\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":4},"title":"Interdisciplinary Approach of the Teaching of Olympic Principles to the Students","date":"June 30, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. A M. Najeeb, National Institute of Technology associate professor and head of Physical Education, Calicut, India ### Introduction Illustrious Celebrities on the dias, in the august gathering, ladies and gentlemen committed to the noble Olympic movement, Greetings from India. I am Dr. A.M. Najeeb, a physical education professor in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":420,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/medicine-and-the-olympic-games-of-antiquity\/","url_meta":{"origin":6398,"position":5},"title":"Medicine and the Olympic Games of Antiquity","date":"June 28, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. Spyros Retsas Mr President of the International Olympic Academies, Distinguished Directors, Ladies and Gentlemen; it is a distinct honor and a great pleasure indeed to return to the magic of Ancient Olympia on the occasion of the 11th International Session for Directors of the National Olympic Academies. I am\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6398"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6398"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6398\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7302,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6398\/revisions\/7302"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}