Baby Face Finster wrote:That's a fallacy. Boxers are born not made. Just because someone makes it at football doesn't mean they would also have made it as boxers. The skills are completely different.
But it is extremely plausible that big men who could have succeeded as Heavyweight have fallen through the net and into the ranks of the NFL.
Anything is plausible. It's plausible that if Canadian's took up boxing instead of hockey we would have a whole lot more world champions. How many world strong man competitors have become boxing champions? You'd think that their strength would translate well into boxing but none that I know of have ever succeeded. The same with bodybuilders. You could make a whole lot more in boxing than bodybuilding but how many converted bodybuilders have succeeded as boxers? None that I know of. Plausible yes, realistic no.
Just because someone is athletic in one sport doesn't necessarily mean they would be just as athletic in the other. Michael Jordan is the perfect example. The best in basketball but very ordinary in baseball. I know a few have actually succeeded in more than one sport but those are very few and far between. The most successful boxers are those that do it from an early age. If they go into other sports there is no need to speculate what could have been as they selected the sport they liked the most. Like I said earlier. Boxers are born not made.
To succeed in any sport, it requires time - I can think of very few dominant world champions who did not have a long and extensive amateur career. Bernard Hopkins is the only one.
Bodybuilders physiques are not useful - most of these guys can barely muster a jog because their muscles are ridiculously overpumped - it's all for show - most of them would get their asses whupped in a street fight by anyone with even a little boxing skill because they are slow and immobile. Strongmen also are also generally way too big.
Mariusz Pudionowski has been relatively successful in MMA, but I think he boxed as an amateur before strongman.
Crease wrote:The problem is as Burt Sugar was saying for years before his untimely death - "all the best US Heavyweights are in the NFL" - they are getting millions upon millions in their contracts, and that robs them of the hunger to succeed in the boxing ring.
Sugar did not say this in the 1990's. Football and basketball have thrived for years while the USA owned heavyweight boxing.
Many football players that did not make the NFL have tired boxing. DaVarryl Williamson achieved top ten status for a while.
This argument is just an excuse to try and explain away why the U.S. doesn't dominate heavyweight boxing anymore. Participation in American football has always been high for African Americans. Using that as the sole reason for the decline in the domination of the U.S. in heavyweight boxing is simply a cop out. It couldn't be because of higher participation rates of boxing outside of the U.S. could it? No, of course not.
Baby Face Finster wrote:This argument is just an excuse to try and explain away why the U.S. doesn't dominate heavyweight boxing anymore. Participation in American football has always been high for African Americans. Using that as the sole reason for the decline in the domination of the U.S. in heavyweight boxing is simply a cop out. It couldn't be because of higher participation rates of boxing outside of the U.S. could it? No, of course not.
You keep repeating the same points over and over again. I completely disregard what other people are telling you. There's no point it talking to you.
Baby Face Finster wrote:This argument is just an excuse to try and explain away why the U.S. doesn't dominate heavyweight boxing anymore. Participation in American football has always been high for African Americans. Using that as the sole reason for the decline in the domination of the U.S. in heavyweight boxing is simply a cop out. It couldn't be because of higher participation rates of boxing outside of the U.S. could it? No, of course not.
You keep repeating the same points over and over again. I completely disregard what other people are telling you. There's no point it talking to you.
You keep repeating the same mantra over and and over again also. Could the end of U.S. heavyweight superiority not be because the world has now much more participation in the pro ranks as opposed to trotting out the old...."If African Americans didn't go into football the U.S. would still dominate the heavyweight division!"?
As far as the opinion of Bert Sugar, it is simply the opinion of one man that isn't backed by any facts or statistics. I wouldn't expect anything else coming from his mouth as he was first and foremost an American and as such I'd expect him to want to see Americans excel at boxing, and when that isn't happening then of course he is going to find an excuse to explain away why it's not. I bet he never entertained the idea that maybe the world has simply caught up to the U.S. in boxing.
Canada is still the greatest hockey country in the world but because of the increased rise in participation in the U.S. it has dramatically cut down the gap in quality that used to exist between Canada and the U.S.. I think the same thing has happened in boxing. Russian and East European boxers along with the Cubans never used to join the paid ranks. They would stay an amateur their whole lives unless they defected. Since the end of the cold war and the fall of communism boxers from the Eastern bloc and defecting Cuban boxers see the potential to make money that wasn't there for them before and don't spend their entire careers in the amateurs. This I think is much more likely the reason for the diminished superiority of U.S. heavyweights.
Baby Face Finster wrote:This argument is just an excuse to try and explain away why the U.S. doesn't dominate heavyweight boxing anymore. Participation in American football has always been high for African Americans. Using that as the sole reason for the decline in the domination of the U.S. in heavyweight boxing is simply a cop out. It couldn't be because of higher participation rates of boxing outside of the U.S. could it? No, of course not.
You keep repeating the same points over and over again. I completely disregard what other people are telling you. There's no point it talking to you.
You keep repeating the same mantra over and and over again also. Could the end of U.S. heavyweight superiority not be because the world has now much more participation in the pro ranks as opposed to trotting out the old...."If African Americans didn't go into football the U.S. would still dominate the heavyweight division!"?
As far as the opinion of Bert Sugar, it is simply the opinion of one man that isn't backed by any facts or statistics. I wouldn't expect anything else coming from his mouth as he was first and foremost an American and as such I'd expect him to want to see Americans excel at boxing, and when that isn't happening then of course he is going to find an excuse to explain away why it's not. I bet he never entertained the idea that maybe the world has simply caught up to the U.S. in boxing.
Canada is still the greatest hockey country in the world but because of the increased rise in participation in the U.S. it has dramatically cut down the gap in quality that used to exist between Canada and the U.S.. I think the same thing has happened in boxing. Russian and East European boxers along with the Cubans never used to join the paid ranks. They would stay an amateur their whole lives unless they defected. Since the end of the cold war and the fall of communism boxers from the Eastern bloc and defecting Cuban boxers see the potential to make money that wasn't there for them before and don't spend their entire careers in the amateurs. This I think is much more likely the reason for the diminished superiority of U.S. heavyweights.
Could it be that it is a combination of both?
Is it to unrealistic that both American athletes are in other sports and The invasion of eastern European countries?
I don't know the truth probably lies between the 2.
