BoxRec

Boxing Prospect wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:I'm an RG fan and have enjoyed his recent fights but I think that most of the negativity stemmed from how we, as fans, were force fead his greatness. It seems as though HBO and the RG crazy boxing writers anointed him with this P4P crown before the public could witness enough of his fights to justify this prestigious position fans hold close to their hearts.

I personally believe that Pound for Pound lists should be made up by the fans and the fans only. Not through a network or analysts that have some stake figured into the equation. Max Kellerman spent 12 rounds Saturday Night blowing Roman Gonzales and seemed smitten like a schoolgirl. Trying so hard to make us fans appreciate his ability...continuously pointing out things we should appreciate. Shut the F up. That was a close fight and RG took a heck of a beating. I had RG winning the fight 115-113 and it was so tight down the stretch but Max and RJ Jr was too busy trying to sell RG that they couldn't see how great of a fight that really was.

If the RG bandwagon wasn't forced on us like it was then maybe we'd all appreciate him a lot more than we do. Writers named RG P4P best fighter well before they started showing his fights on tv. So it's ass backwards and I think it's the reason for the disconnect between fans and this kid.

A few little problems here...
Fans only watch what they are given to watch. How many had seen Roman rip the title from Niida? Batter Takayama? Overcome Estrada? Break down Rodriguez? Destroy Yaegashi? ...other than you know the millions who watched some of those fights on Japanese TV (the Yaegashi fight drew numbers that dwarf the US figures for fights). Do we give more credit to American fans that to Japanese, Thai, Russian or Ukrainian fans?

Secondly MOST of ROMAN'S fights have been shown on TV, not just the HBO ones. A crap load have been aired in Japan across pretty much every channel over there (Fuji, WOWOW, think G+ carried some too), Canal 5 (or 4?) in Nicaragua, and channels in Mexico. Again do we only accept fights that have been aired in the US?

Do we have to totally ignore Inoue from the P4P conversation as he hasn't fought on US TV yet has had every fight televised so far on Fuji TV?

Many of the guys you referenced never set themselves ahead of the pack. They were good fighters, but not much better than the guys they beat. It's funny how Wlad's reign could be weak, but Gonzalez is legit. It's the same thing, but now there's a bias in favor of Roman because of ignorance.

Wlad beats:
19-0
20-0
30-4
26-0
28-0
27-0
36-2
and he's a bum.

Also, Ricardo Lopez beats Gonzalez.
So stop all this "best little man ever" shit.

HBO

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:
A few little problems here...
Fans only watch what they are given to watch. How many had seen Roman rip the title from Niida? Batter Takayama? Overcome Estrada? Break down Rodriguez? Destroy Yaegashi? ...other than you know the millions who watched some of those fights on Japanese TV (the Yaegashi fight drew numbers that dwarf the US figures for fights). Do we give more credit to American fans that to Japanese, Thai, Russian or Ukrainian fans?

Secondly MOST of ROMAN'S fights have been shown on TV, not just the HBO ones. A crap load have been aired in Japan across pretty much every channel over there (Fuji, WOWOW, think G+ carried some too), Canal 5 (or 4?) in Nicaragua, and channels in Mexico. Again do we only accept fights that have been aired in the US?

Do we have to totally ignore Inoue from the P4P conversation as he hasn't fought on US TV yet has had every fight televised so far on Fuji TV?

Many of the guys you referenced never set themselves ahead of the pack. They were good fighters, but not much better than the guys they beat. It's funny how Wlad's reign could be weak, but Gonzalez is legit. It's the same thing, but now there's a bias in favor of Roman because of ignorance.

Wlad beats:
19-0
20-0
30-4
26-0
28-0
27-0
36-2
and he's a bum.

Also, Ricardo Lopez beats Gonzalez.
So stop all this "best little man ever" poo.

HBO

I'd not argue with anyone saying Lopez was the best little man...though who did he beat that set themselves aside from the others? Alvarez and a then green Sorjaturung?

The guys didn't set themselves apart form the pack? There was 3 unified fornicating champions there and linear Flyweight champion that dated back to Miguel bloody Canto! That's setting themselves a lot further ahead of the pack than some of the guys Klitschko beat (and I'm no Klitschko hater, think his wins over Chagaev, Ibragimov, Haye, Peter and Povetkin were great wins even if they weren't exciting wins).

Also numbers don't make a fighter. The #1 ranked WBC Flyweight contender is something like 34-0 but not very good.

just read on Asian Boxing Scene site that Estrada has given up his fly titles to move up to superfly, think this is turning into a tough division for Gonzales.

littlepug wrote:just read on Asian Boxing Scene site that Estrada has given up his fly titles to move up to superfly, think this is turning into a tough division for Gonzales.

yup. like i said somewhere else, i think on style and size, in a lot of ways estrada might be a tougher gig for Inoue than RG would be.

Boxing Prospect wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:I'm an RG fan and have enjoyed his recent fights but I think that most of the negativity stemmed from how we, as fans, were force fead his greatness. It seems as though HBO and the RG crazy boxing writers anointed him with this P4P crown before the public could witness enough of his fights to justify this prestigious position fans hold close to their hearts.

I personally believe that Pound for Pound lists should be made up by the fans and the fans only. Not through a network or analysts that have some stake figured into the equation. Max Kellerman spent 12 rounds Saturday Night blowing Roman Gonzales and seemed smitten like a schoolgirl. Trying so hard to make us fans appreciate his ability...continuously pointing out things we should appreciate. Shut the F up. That was a close fight and RG took a heck of a beating. I had RG winning the fight 115-113 and it was so tight down the stretch but Max and RJ Jr was too busy trying to sell RG that they couldn't see how great of a fight that really was.

If the RG bandwagon wasn't forced on us like it was then maybe we'd all appreciate him a lot more than we do. Writers named RG P4P best fighter well before they started showing his fights on tv. So it's ass backwards and I think it's the reason for the disconnect between fans and this kid.

A few little problems here...
Fans only watch what they are given to watch. How many had seen Roman rip the title from Niida? Batter Takayama? Overcome Estrada? Break down Rodriguez? Destroy Yaegashi? ...other than you know the millions who watched some of those fights on Japanese TV (the Yaegashi fight drew numbers that dwarf the US figures for fights). Do we give more credit to American fans that to Japanese, Thai, Russian or Ukrainian fans?

Secondly MOST of ROMAN'S fights have been shown on TV, not just the HBO ones. A crap load have been aired in Japan across pretty much every channel over there (Fuji, WOWOW, think G+ carried some too), Canal 5 (or 4?) in Nicaragua, and channels in Mexico. Again do we only accept fights that have been aired in the US?

Do we have to totally ignore Inoue from the P4P conversation as he hasn't fought on US TV yet has had every fight televised so far on Fuji TV?

So basically, what your saying is that up until now RG has been fighting and televised within niche markets. Niche markets that put more importance on the lightest weight divisions than do the larger markets like Europe and America, the cash cows of boxing and where the highest paying fights are held and paid for. The imaginary Pound for Pound rankings were created by Americans. England has the most world champions right now and is becoming the hotbed of boxing now with fights like GGG/Brook selling out in 11 minutes. So yeah, I'd say that it's VERY important that a boxer make their name in America and Europe. The whole "if a tree falls in the forest" argument is alive and well with this subject and probably why fans are reluctantly buying in on it.

My biggest problem with naming RG P4P best in Boxing though simply comes down to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge that a boxer who weighs less than my dog is Boxing's best. It's simple math. RG's dominating over limited talent pool these years and it's limited because a small percentage of grown men, athletes, can make a scale read that light. The average weight of men in this world is around 160lbs or more. Not many boxers can make 115lbs but many can make 160 and that's why I think it's criminal to not consider GGG the best P4P fighter in the world. RG could grab a top 5 spot on my list, i could live with that, but not #1. Just how i feel.

caldo2025 wrote: So basically, what your saying is that up until now RG has been fighting and televised within niche markets. Niche markets that put more importance on the lightest weight divisions than do the larger markets like Europe and America, the cash cows of boxing and where the highest paying fights are held and paid for. The imaginary Pound for Pound rankings were created by Americans. England has the most world champions right now and is becoming the hotbed of boxing now with fights like GGG/Brook selling out in 11 minutes. So yeah, I'd say that it's VERY important that a boxer make their name in America and Europe. The whole "if a tree falls in the forest" argument is alive and well with this subject and probably why fans are reluctantly buying in on it.

My biggest problem with naming RG P4P best in Boxing though simply comes down to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge that a boxer who weighs less than my dog is Boxing's best. It's simple math. RG's dominating over limited talent pool these years and it's limited because a small percentage of grown men, athletes, can make a scale read that light. The average weight of men in this world is around 160lbs or more. Not many boxers can make 115lbs but many can make 160 and that's why I think it's criminal to not consider GGG the best P4P fighter in the world. RG could grab a top 5 spot on my list, i could live with that, but not #1. Just how i feel.

"Niche" is small right? Yet his fight with Yaegashi got several million viewers. What were the figures for his bout with Cuadras? Neither Japan or Mexico would be considered a niche by any boxing fan with half a brain. It's not like he's fighting in India or Bolivia where boxing is scarce but two of the counties with rich boxing histories. He may not have been fighting regularly in big money markets but certainly not hiding in niche countries.

Lets also not forget that the Korakuen Hall hosts more shows than any other venue.

The imaginary pound or pound was indeed created by Americans who wanted to suggest that Ray Robinson was the best fighter on the planet if all fighters were of equal size. Whether that fighter was the size of a dog, a bear or a blue whale.

We talk about "limited talent pool" but what do you ACTUALLY mean by that? Using boxrec's own database there are 1,357 Heavyweights, yet the talent pool there has been notoriously weak in recent years with men who are bloated, out of shape and generally very poor fighters. The same database lists Middleweight as having 1,567. Notably there are more Super Featherweights listed by the datebase (1,396) than there heavyweights and there are 2,000 Lightweights, 2,200 Welterweights.

Also the thing to consider more importantly than anything that argument is "does more competitors mean a deeper talent pool"? There's depth in numbers but is there talent to that depth? Is having fighters like Roberto Jimenez, Pavel Siska, Josef Kuricaj, Adilson Nolli, Jose Lugo, Derek Waker, and Brandon Bennett really adding to the "talent pool" at Heavyweight?

For what it's worth database actually shows the following-
Total fighters (male) 25,346

Between 105lbs and 115lbs we have 2048 fighters
From 118-130 we have 5094 fighters (and from 105 to 130 we have 7142)
From 135-154 we have 7711 (and from 118 to 154 we have 12805 from 105 to 154 we have 18853)
From 160 and up we have 6493

Only around 1 in 4 fighters fight at 160, 168, 175, 200lbs or Heavyweight.

I guess using those numbers the top fighter would likely lie between 135 and 154lbs in terms of probability, with close to 1 in 3 fighters fighting between those wrights, and in fact between 135 and 147 we have close to 6,000 (5988) fighters. ...

you can present the facts all you like, some people will still say 'shallow talent pool', when what they really mean is 'uh, 'Muricans don't fight in those classes, uh'.

Boxing Prospect wrote:

caldo2025 wrote: So basically, what your saying is that up until now RG has been fighting and televised within niche markets. Niche markets that put more importance on the lightest weight divisions than do the larger markets like Europe and America, the cash cows of boxing and where the highest paying fights are held and paid for. The imaginary Pound for Pound rankings were created by Americans. England has the most world champions right now and is becoming the hotbed of boxing now with fights like GGG/Brook selling out in 11 minutes. So yeah, I'd say that it's VERY important that a boxer make their name in America and Europe. The whole "if a tree falls in the forest" argument is alive and well with this subject and probably why fans are reluctantly buying in on it.

My biggest problem with naming RG P4P best in Boxing though simply comes down to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge that a boxer who weighs less than my dog is Boxing's best. It's simple math. RG's dominating over limited talent pool these years and it's limited because a small percentage of grown men, athletes, can make a scale read that light. The average weight of men in this world is around 160lbs or more. Not many boxers can make 115lbs but many can make 160 and that's why I think it's criminal to not consider GGG the best P4P fighter in the world. RG could grab a top 5 spot on my list, i could live with that, but not #1. Just how i feel.

"Niche" is small right? Yet his fight with Yaegashi got several million viewers. What were the figures for his bout with Cuadras? Neither Japan or Mexico would be considered a niche by any boxing fan with half a brain. It's not like he's fighting in India or Bolivia where boxing is scarce but two of the counties with rich boxing histories. He may not have been fighting regularly in big money markets but certainly not hiding in niche countries.

The imaginary pound or pound was indeed created by Americans who wanted to suggest that Ray Robinson was the best fighter on the planet if all fighters were of equal size. Whether that fighter was the size of a dog, a bear or a blue whale.

We talk about "limited talent pool" but what do you ACTUALLY mean by that? Using boxrec's own database there are 1,357 Heavyweights, yet the talent pool there has been notoriously weak in recent years with men who are bloated, out of shape and generally very poor fighters. The same database lists Middleweight as having 1,567. Notably there are more Super Featherweights listed by the datebase (1,396) than there heavyweights and there are 2,000 Lightweights, 2,200 Welterweights.

Also the thing to consider more importantly than anything that argument is "does more competitors mean a deeper talent pool"? There's depth in numbers but is there talent to that depth? Is having fighters like Roberto Jimenez, Pavel Siska, Josef Kuricaj, Adilson Nolli, Jose Lugo, Derek Waker, and Brandon Bennett really adding to the "talent pool" at Heavyweight?

For what it's worth database actually shows the following-
Total fighters (male) 25,346

Between 105lbs and 115lbs we have 2048 fighters
From 118-130 we have 5094 fighters (and from 105 to 130 we have 7142)
From 135-154 we have 7711 (and from 118 to 154 we have 12805 from 105 to 154 we have 18853)
From 160 and up we have 6493

Only around 1 in 4 fighters fight at 160, 168, 175, 200lbs or Heavyweight.

I guess using those numbers the top fighter would likely lie between 135 and 154lbs in terms of probability, with close to 1 in 3 fighters fighting between those wrights, and in fact between 135 and 147 we have close to 6,000 (5988) fighters. ...

I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

caldo2025 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:

caldo2025 wrote: So basically, what your saying is that up until now RG has been fighting and televised within niche markets. Niche markets that put more importance on the lightest weight divisions than do the larger markets like Europe and America, the cash cows of boxing and where the highest paying fights are held and paid for. The imaginary Pound for Pound rankings were created by Americans. England has the most world champions right now and is becoming the hotbed of boxing now with fights like GGG/Brook selling out in 11 minutes. So yeah, I'd say that it's VERY important that a boxer make their name in America and Europe. The whole "if a tree falls in the forest" argument is alive and well with this subject and probably why fans are reluctantly buying in on it.

My biggest problem with naming RG P4P best in Boxing though simply comes down to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge that a boxer who weighs less than my dog is Boxing's best. It's simple math. RG's dominating over limited talent pool these years and it's limited because a small percentage of grown men, athletes, can make a scale read that light. The average weight of men in this world is around 160lbs or more. Not many boxers can make 115lbs but many can make 160 and that's why I think it's criminal to not consider GGG the best P4P fighter in the world. RG could grab a top 5 spot on my list, i could live with that, but not #1. Just how i feel.

"Niche" is small right? Yet his fight with Yaegashi got several million viewers. What were the figures for his bout with Cuadras? Neither Japan or Mexico would be considered a niche by any boxing fan with half a brain. It's not like he's fighting in India or Bolivia where boxing is scarce but two of the counties with rich boxing histories. He may not have been fighting regularly in big money markets but certainly not hiding in niche countries.

The imaginary pound or pound was indeed created by Americans who wanted to suggest that Ray Robinson was the best fighter on the planet if all fighters were of equal size. Whether that fighter was the size of a dog, a bear or a blue whale.

We talk about "limited talent pool" but what do you ACTUALLY mean by that? Using boxrec's own database there are 1,357 Heavyweights, yet the talent pool there has been notoriously weak in recent years with men who are bloated, out of shape and generally very poor fighters. The same database lists Middleweight as having 1,567. Notably there are more Super Featherweights listed by the datebase (1,396) than there heavyweights and there are 2,000 Lightweights, 2,200 Welterweights.

Also the thing to consider more importantly than anything that argument is "does more competitors mean a deeper talent pool"? There's depth in numbers but is there talent to that depth? Is having fighters like Roberto Jimenez, Pavel Siska, Josef Kuricaj, Adilson Nolli, Jose Lugo, Derek Waker, and Brandon Bennett really adding to the "talent pool" at Heavyweight?

For what it's worth database actually shows the following-
Total fighters (male) 25,346

Between 105lbs and 115lbs we have 2048 fighters
From 118-130 we have 5094 fighters (and from 105 to 130 we have 7142)
From 135-154 we have 7711 (and from 118 to 154 we have 12805 from 105 to 154 we have 18853)
From 160 and up we have 6493

Only around 1 in 4 fighters fight at 160, 168, 175, 200lbs or Heavyweight.

I guess using those numbers the top fighter would likely lie between 135 and 154lbs in terms of probability, with close to 1 in 3 fighters fighting between those wrights, and in fact between 135 and 147 we have close to 6,000 (5988) fighters. ...

I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

which is exactly how I feel about the heavyweights, its got the lowest skill level in the sport and with no upper weight limit which gives them licence to come in as fat as they like, but they hit harder than the other divsions so that makes them worth watching right ? the heavy weights are long past having any appeal to a genuine boxing fan due to many factors and I think most see them as a sideshow act IMO

caldo2025 wrote: I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

History is history, how about we look at the present day?
Okay so staying with the database on here (active boxers only)-
Mexico 3,116
US has 3,090
Japan 1,432
UK 936
Philippines 760
China 456
Germany 421
Russia 362
Thailand 337
Puerto Rico 255
Nicaragu 249
Ukraine 163

So Mexico and Japan have more active fighters (4538) than the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Germany combined (4447) yet they are still to be considered niche markets?

To me watching out of shape heavyweights serves no interest, I watch for skills and action.

littlepug wrote: which is exactly how I feel about the heavyweights, its got the lowest skill level in the sport and with no upper weight limit which gives them licence to come in as fat as they like, but they hit harder than the other divsions so that makes them worth watching right ? the heavy weights are long past having any appeal to a genuine boxing fan due to many factors and I think most see them as a sideshow act IMO

not sure about the bolded bit and if I can speak for 'most' or 'genuine' boxing fans but i am with you 10% on this one brutha

Boxing Prospect wrote:

caldo2025 wrote: I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

History is history, how about we look at the present day?
Okay so staying with the database on here (active boxers only)-
Mexico 3,116
US has 3,090
Japan 1,432
UK 936
Philippines 760
China 456
Germany 421
Russia 362
Thailand 337
Puerto Rico 255
Nicaragu 249
Ukraine 163

So Mexico and Japan have more active fighters (4538) than the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Germany combined (4447) yet they are still to be considered niche markets?

To me watching out of shape heavyweights serves no interest, I watch for skills and action.

b-b-b-but they're not 'Muricans. nor are they in weightclasses contested by 'Muricans, s-s-s-so, 'limited talent pool', uh

Counter-puncher wrote:

littlepug wrote: which is exactly how I feel about the heavyweights, its got the lowest skill level in the sport and with no upper weight limit which gives them licence to come in as fat as they like, but they hit harder than the other divsions so that makes them worth watching right ? the heavy weights are long past having any appeal to a genuine boxing fan due to many factors and I think most see them as a sideshow act IMO

not sure about the bolded bit and if I can speak for 'most' or 'genuine' boxing fans but i am with you 10% on this one brutha

10% ! well its a start ha ha

So from what I'm reading, we have to ignore the vast majority of his fights because they weren't on HBO for Muricans to see?

Sounds about right

'Muricans

(and Euros, who are the same size as 'Muricans)

Boxing Prospect wrote:
So Mexico and Japan have more active fighters (4538) than the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Germany combined (4447) yet they are still to be considered niche markets?
.

this is exemplary use of statistics, bruh

Counter-puncher wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:
So Mexico and Japan have more active fighters (4538) than the US, UK, Puerto Rico and Germany combined (4447) yet they are still to be considered niche markets?
.

this is exemplary use of statistics, bruh

I've had a very unexciting day I'm afraid

littlepug wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:
"Niche" is small right? Yet his fight with Yaegashi got several million viewers. What were the figures for his bout with Cuadras? Neither Japan or Mexico would be considered a niche by any boxing fan with half a brain. It's not like he's fighting in India or Bolivia where boxing is scarce but two of the counties with rich boxing histories. He may not have been fighting regularly in big money markets but certainly not hiding in niche countries.

The imaginary pound or pound was indeed created by Americans who wanted to suggest that Ray Robinson was the best fighter on the planet if all fighters were of equal size. Whether that fighter was the size of a dog, a bear or a blue whale.

We talk about "limited talent pool" but what do you ACTUALLY mean by that? Using boxrec's own database there are 1,357 Heavyweights, yet the talent pool there has been notoriously weak in recent years with men who are bloated, out of shape and generally very poor fighters. The same database lists Middleweight as having 1,567. Notably there are more Super Featherweights listed by the datebase (1,396) than there heavyweights and there are 2,000 Lightweights, 2,200 Welterweights.

Also the thing to consider more importantly than anything that argument is "does more competitors mean a deeper talent pool"? There's depth in numbers but is there talent to that depth? Is having fighters like Roberto Jimenez, Pavel Siska, Josef Kuricaj, Adilson Nolli, Jose Lugo, Derek Waker, and Brandon Bennett really adding to the "talent pool" at Heavyweight?

For what it's worth database actually shows the following-
Total fighters (male) 25,346

Between 105lbs and 115lbs we have 2048 fighters
From 118-130 we have 5094 fighters (and from 105 to 130 we have 7142)
From 135-154 we have 7711 (and from 118 to 154 we have 12805 from 105 to 154 we have 18853)
From 160 and up we have 6493

Only around 1 in 4 fighters fight at 160, 168, 175, 200lbs or Heavyweight.

I guess using those numbers the top fighter would likely lie between 135 and 154lbs in terms of probability, with close to 1 in 3 fighters fighting between those wrights, and in fact between 135 and 147 we have close to 6,000 (5988) fighters. ...

I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

which is exactly how I feel about the heavyweights, its got the lowest skill level in the sport and with no upper weight limit which gives them licence to come in as fat as they like, but they hit harder than the other divsions so that makes them worth watching right ? the heavy weights are long past having any appeal to a genuine boxing fan due to many factors and I think most see them as a sideshow act IMO

I agree. The heavyweight nowadays are pathetic and tough to watch but that's really only been the last 10 years or so. Boxing was never more exciting watching Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield and Bowe dance for those great years. Wlad, the statue, hijacked the division for too long and he's literally the inspiration for day dreaming. I couldn't be more unimpressed with watching him fight. But the lightweight have really never been appealing to mainstream boxing fans. I don't know if it's because their fights are frenzies and a million punches a round. Who knows but there's a reason why no one pays to see it here in American and Europe.

All the "niche" and "talent pool" talk is just dressed-up provincialism.

littlepug wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:
"Niche" is small right? Yet his fight with Yaegashi got several million viewers. What were the figures for his bout with Cuadras? Neither Japan or Mexico would be considered a niche by any boxing fan with half a brain. It's not like he's fighting in India or Bolivia where boxing is scarce but two of the counties with rich boxing histories. He may not have been fighting regularly in big money markets but certainly not hiding in niche countries.

The imaginary pound or pound was indeed created by Americans who wanted to suggest that Ray Robinson was the best fighter on the planet if all fighters were of equal size. Whether that fighter was the size of a dog, a bear or a blue whale.

We talk about "limited talent pool" but what do you ACTUALLY mean by that? Using boxrec's own database there are 1,357 Heavyweights, yet the talent pool there has been notoriously weak in recent years with men who are bloated, out of shape and generally very poor fighters. The same database lists Middleweight as having 1,567. Notably there are more Super Featherweights listed by the datebase (1,396) than there heavyweights and there are 2,000 Lightweights, 2,200 Welterweights.

Also the thing to consider more importantly than anything that argument is "does more competitors mean a deeper talent pool"? There's depth in numbers but is there talent to that depth? Is having fighters like Roberto Jimenez, Pavel Siska, Josef Kuricaj, Adilson Nolli, Jose Lugo, Derek Waker, and Brandon Bennett really adding to the "talent pool" at Heavyweight?

For what it's worth database actually shows the following-
Total fighters (male) 25,346

Between 105lbs and 115lbs we have 2048 fighters
From 118-130 we have 5094 fighters (and from 105 to 130 we have 7142)
From 135-154 we have 7711 (and from 118 to 154 we have 12805 from 105 to 154 we have 18853)
From 160 and up we have 6493

Only around 1 in 4 fighters fight at 160, 168, 175, 200lbs or Heavyweight.

I guess using those numbers the top fighter would likely lie between 135 and 154lbs in terms of probability, with close to 1 in 3 fighters fighting between those wrights, and in fact between 135 and 147 we have close to 6,000 (5988) fighters. ...

I think that a better way to illustrate the point that i was trying to make is to consider boxing history. America has had the most world champions in Boxing history by far, it's not even close. Mexico has the second most and they don't even have half as many world champions as the USA. So where the boxing talent has been coming from is not really arguable with those facts. American has clearly produced the most talent in the sport. With that said, America has only had 3 world champions in the flyweight division since 1962. Only 3 and the reasoning is simple, we have never really had any quality boxers that light because most Americans can't weigh 112 pounds. There's no talent pool here for it.

This should explain everything. If the top country in boxing history, by far, historically is unable to field any talent in a weight division then you have to figure that into the equation when considering the legitimacy of a boxer's dominance. This is why i call it a "niche" because it's not for everyone...it's special like a sideshow to the big stage in my mind. That's just how i feel.

which is exactly how I feel about the heavyweights, its got the lowest skill level in the sport and with no upper weight limit which gives them licence to come in as fat as they like, but they hit harder than the other divsions so that makes them worth watching right ? the heavy weights are long past having any appeal to a genuine boxing fan due to many factors and I think most see them as a sideshow act IMO

What I have never understood is why aren't there more Mexicans in the heavyweight division? From what I understand, Mexico has some pretty large people, weight wise. Do most Mexicans over 200 lbs not participate in sports?

squiggy wrote:All the "niche" and "talent pool" talk is just dressed-up provincialism.

jbizzle20 wrote: What I have never understood is why aren't there more Mexicans in the heavyweight division? From what I understand, Mexico has some pretty large people, weight wise. Do most Mexicans over 200 lbs not participate in sports?

Almost all of those 200+ pounds men are still under 6 feet, so they have no business competing against HW giants.

boxing_rocks wrote:

jbizzle20 wrote: What I have never understood is why aren't there more Mexicans in the heavyweight division? From what I understand, Mexico has some pretty large people, weight wise. Do most Mexicans over 200 lbs not participate in sports?

Almost all of those 200+ pounds men are still under 6 feet, so they have no business competing against HW giants.

Not even someone built like Cain Velasquez?