BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:deleted

Far and away your best post in this thread.

ThatOne wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It's a Boxing forum bro, Albert's thoughts are irrelevant to the discussion. Not to mention that statement in the context that you used it screams of bias.

Einstein's thoughts are germaine to this discussion. You are casually dismissing my arguments not because they are lacking but because they don't conform to your prejudice or biases.

I have made several points in this thread. Please enlighten me to as the one you take issue with:

1) Slavery was a particularly despicable institution and the Jim Crowe laws of the post Civil War South were every bit as oppressive as the Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany.

2) Muhammad Ali despite his celebrity staus certainly felt the sting of second class citizenship or American apartheid especially as a young man. Muhuammad Ali was a scant thirteen yeasr old when fourteen year old Emmit Till was lynched for "looking" at a white woman.

3) Muhammad Ali because of his politics , his religion of which he has nearly two billion coreligionists , and his role in the black nationalist movement in an era when issues of race in America and abroad were coming to the forefront made him an icon not to just many whites but people of color throughout the world.

4) Whatever problems exist in parts of Africa and there are many I don't think many Africans wish they were brought over to America as slaves.


I think reasonable people can disagree on "Who influenced the popularity of boxing the most?"


PEACE
THAT ONE

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ThatOne wrote:deleted

Far and away your best post in this thread.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It's a Boxing forum bro, Albert's thoughts are irrelevant to the discussion. Not to mention that statement in the context that you used it screams of bias.

yancey wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:It's a Boxing forum bro, Albert's thoughts are irrelevant to the discussion. Not to mention that statement in the context that you used it screams of bias.

Not to mention the annoying tendency of taking a nickel's worth of information and trying to turn it into a dollar's worth of fact.

Simply not worth the time.

ThatOne wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

yancey wrote:"If you have to explain something so basic to someone as the difference in media outlets & technology, Ezz, that should be your red flag right there that the person isn't worth wasting the time on." Goodnight, Irene




Sounds like an empirically obvious statement to me.

You'd think so, but...

Too bad you and yancey are laboring under the delusion that you defeated the point you and him thought I made and not the point I did make.

Jack Dempsey was a hero to white Europeans and their progeny. To use a colloquialism people in the developing world probably would not have given a rat's ass who he was even if they had the means to be aware of him. Muhammad Ali, on the other hand, because of his embrace of Islam, his involvement in the Pan African movement abroad , his open defiance of the United States government , and his involvement in the black nationalist movement at home was a global icon.

ThatOne wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Though I understand, I do believe you are a captive of "time", and can not fully appreciate the world as it was. Before "all things instant". Souls were stirred perhaps more slowly, but certainly more deeply.

So I don't agree with your attempt to separate his fame from others who for their time could be considered his equal. Pele (did I spell that right?) is another equal that it might be difficult to understand due not to "time" but to "culture". His fame was another who could likely be considered Ali's peer.

Respectfully Pele was a great soccer player; Muhammad Ali was a social, political, and cultural force. I don't remember presidents and potentates from Gerald Ford, George Bush, and Bill Clinton to Leonid Brezhnev and Fidel Castro clamoring to meet Pele.

elmersalsa wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Though I understand, I do believe you are a captive of "time", and can not fully appreciate the world as it was. Before "all things instant". Souls were stirred perhaps more slowly, but certainly more deeply.

So I don't agree with your attempt to separate his fame from others who for their time could be considered his equal. Pele (did I spell that right?) is another equal that it might be difficult to understand due not to "time" but to "culture". His fame was another who could likely be considered Ali's peer.

Respectfully Pele was a great soccer player; Muhammad Ali was a social, political, and cultural force. I don't remember presidents and potentates from Gerald Ford, George Bush, and Bill Clinton to Leonid Brezhnev and Fidel Castro clamoring to meet Pele.

You are wrong on that, this time. All rulers of the world wanted to meet Pele, regardless...For those rulers of the world, even today, meeting Pele, is....PRICELESS!!!

Ambling Alp wrote:We are getting way off track. Lets get back to the thread "Who Influenced Boxing the Most?"

A lot of this is apples and oranges. you can say that ali was the most well known; part of that is due to technology; part of it was because of him.

Jack Dempsey fought in front of some huge crowds. Also worth noting that boxing was the number 2 sport in the United States at the time. There was no real competition from basketball, football etc. Firpo-Willard fought in front of about 80,000 in a fight that was not even for the title. How many people would pay to see them in Ali's era or in modern times?

Sullivan kept a fledgling sport going. Without him, hard to say if the sport would have ever been a major sport. Dempsey drew a wider range of people. Without him boxing would still have been popular, but he helped took it to another level.

When Ali came a long, the sport was declining in popularity. TV ratings were down, networks were starting to cover boxing less. He gave it a shot in the arm. It would have been a minor/niche sport in the 1960s instead of the 1980s-1990s. Fighters who fought him became much better known. Fighters who fought on the undercard of an Ali fight became much better known. The sport was still on free TV regularly while he was still active.

The popularity of Sullivan, Dempsey, Ali and a few others influenced the popularity of boxing greatly. It's impossible to pick just one.

raylawpc wrote:Back to the original topic: Anybody heard of Richard K. Fox?

hitman09 wrote:Ali doesn't really belong in this discussion. IMO he was probably the most famous boxer ever, by quite a margin, but he didn't improve the popularity of boxing by much. As has been said, he was popular as a personality more than as a boxer, and the fans he brought in were mostly only Ali fans rather than boxing fans.

I think John L. Sullivan is the answer.

Edit: The first post mentions "vaulting boxing into a new era of popularity", something Ali certainly did not do.

ThatOne wrote:Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano need to be mentioned. Louis' rematch with Schmeling with all the racial overtones and the attendant publicity was much more than a sporting event.

Louis, Ali, Dempsey, Marciano, Sullivan, Tunney, and Foreman have to be in the pantheon of boxers who have reached legendary status. It seems odd putting Foreman in that group but he belongs.

raylawpc wrote:Back to the original topic: Anybody heard of Richard K. Fox? I think he deserves a shout-out.

I also think its impossible to pick a person who "influenced the popularity of boxing the most?" Each era had fighters who brought fans into the fold. How do you measure who influenced its popularity the most?

About Muhammad Ali, though. I do wonder how much he influenced the popularity of boxing as opposed to the popularity of Ali. When I was in college, I can remember alot of students - after they found out what I did as someone who worked in the game - would say that they were boxing fans. However, when you drilled down in the conversation, it turns out they were Muhammad Ali fans, not boxing fans. Many of them had never seen another boxer besides Ali (and his opponents) in action, and then only if it was on Wide World of Sports. Some had actually never seen him fight! Other than the name heavyweights Ali fought, many had never heard of the other top tier heavyweights, and you'd get blank stares if you mentioned Carlos Monzon, Bob Foster, etc. So I do wonder . . .

hitman09 wrote:Ali doesn't really belong in this discussion. IMO he was probably the most famous boxer ever, by quite a margin, but he didn't improve the popularity of boxing by much. As has been said, he was popular as a personality more than as a boxer, and the fans he brought in were mostly only Ali fans rather than boxing fans.

I think John L. Sullivan is the answer.

Edit: The first post mentions "vaulting boxing into a new era of popularity", something Ali certainly did not do.

Ambling Alp wrote:

hitman09 wrote:Ali doesn't really belong in this discussion. IMO he was probably the most famous boxer ever, by quite a margin, but he didn't improve the popularity of boxing by much. As has been said, he was popular as a personality more than as a boxer, and the fans he brought in were mostly only Ali fans rather than boxing fans.

I think John L. Sullivan is the answer.

Edit: The first post mentions "vaulting boxing into a new era of popularity", something Ali certainly did not do.

Ali saved boxing as a major sport. It would have been a niche sport 20-30 years before it did if it was not for him. TV ratings were declining. Networks were not covering boxing in the early 1960s like they were in the 1950s. After he was gone the sport declined considerably.
Even people that did not like Ali still followed his fights and rooted for his opponents. Anyone that fought Ali became a bigger name. Fighters that fought on his undercards became bigger names.

Many people got interested in boxing because of Ali. He is why I got interested.

hitman09 wrote:Many people got interested in boxing because of Ali. He is why I got interested.

Ambling Alp wrote:

hitman09 wrote:Ali doesn't really belong in this discussion. IMO he was probably the most famous boxer ever, by quite a margin, but he didn't improve the popularity of boxing by much. As has been said, he was popular as a personality more than as a boxer, and the fans he brought in were mostly only Ali fans rather than boxing fans.

I think John L. Sullivan is the answer.

Edit: The first post mentions "vaulting boxing into a new era of popularity", something Ali certainly did not do.

Ali saved boxing as a major sport. It would have been a niche sport 20-30 years before it did if it was not for him. TV ratings were declining. Networks were not covering boxing in the early 1960s like they were in the 1950s. After he was gone the sport declined considerably.
Even people that did not like Ali still followed his fights and rooted for his opponents. Anyone that fought Ali became a bigger name. Fighters that fought on his undercards became bigger names.

Many people got interested in boxing because of Ali. He is why I got interested.

Ambling Alp wrote:Maybe I'm not as far off from what hitman,John L and raylaw think.

Boxing was very popular in the 1950s, when TV was new. However, as basketball, football, and other forms of entertainment became more popular, boxing began to suffer. By 1964, it clearly was not as popular as it had once been.

I am not arguing that boxing was at it's most popular when Ali was active. It was not on primetime TV on a weekly basis like often was in the 1950s, it However, it was still a major sport and fairly popular.
The major networks still carried it boxing frequently on weekends and occasionally on primetime even through the early 1980s.

When you have an exciting heavyweight champion, it helps the sport as a whole. Casual fans pay more attention to not only the heavyweight contenders, but other weight classes as well. If Ali had not came onto the scene, boxing probably would have been sunk almost as low as it is now by the early 1970s.