BoxRec

In the wake of the Pacman's dominant performance I felt compelled to ask this question as it genuinely intrigues me. It also touches on the somewhat thorny issue of race/culture and the whole nature vs nuture debate.
Manny has seemingly proven that there's no 'genetic' disadvantage (if indeed, there is such a thing, as that in itself is a contentious premise) and given the accepted wisdom that the majority of boxers tend to come from under-privileged backgrounds, you'd think the Philippines would be awash with talent.
However, while there are clearly a number of decent boxers there who operate a couple of levels below Manny's stature, it appears to be under-represented at world level. Is it just a cultural thing in that boxing is a minority sport, and if so, will we see a new generation of Filippino fighters emerge on the world stage further down the line, having been inspired by Manny?
Equally, given the phenomenal success of African-American boxers, why have so few fighters from Africa reigned on the world stage (bar notable exceptions such as Azumah Nelson) and why do countries like Ghana appear to produce some great fighters, but those from East Africa (e.g. Kenya) seem nothing more than punch-bags?
For what it's worth, I can't help but think that too often people focus on what they perceive to be genetic attributes when actually the role of culture is far more important i.e. nuture is actually far more influential than people think. For example, I can't name a single boxer of note that Pakistan has produced, yet there are numerous examples of decent British boxers of Pakistani heritage, most notably Amir Khan.
Have to stress I've no agenda here and I'm just genuinely intrigued by what others think...

I think it is environmental and socioeconomic factors is some of the 3rd world countries that stop more kids getting into boxing. Perhaps lack of wide spread training facilities as well as general culture bias plus lack of effective role models plays a part not to mention that if they have to earn a living from a young age because of poverty etc then boxing and sports that require dedication and funds take a back seat. In that respect when a boxer does make it from these countries then I guess there has been exceptional dedication and focus at work.

Deserter wrote:Manny has seemingly proven that there's no 'genetic' disadvantage (if indeed, there is such a thing, as that in itself is a contentious premise)

What do you mean by this? Who doesn't believe that some people have a genetic advantage over others?

More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

DG. wrote:More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

Genetically though there has been some input from other races (white and native Indian mainly) into the gene pool.

Anyway to the main question, I would suggest that the main problem in Africa vis a vis boxing is the lack of facilities and the mechanisms and organisational structure a bit a lacking for Amateur and pro boxing.

I have heard a theory that black people naturally have a higher muscle to fat ratio, no idea if it is true though, but there definately is a higher proportion of black people in top flight sport.
In the far east boxing isn't that popular compared to kick boxing and muay thai.
While boxing is often bred in the ghetto's, poverty is so bad in much of Africa that many of the people in their equivalent ghetto's are just not healthy enough

Lack of decent training facilities, lack of coaches, lack of opportunities, lack of a decent amateur system, inability of country's promoters to compete with western countries.

Maybe all African novices get ruined by getting bashed up in Commonwealth title fights on their debuts!!

DG. wrote:More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

DG you know exactly what I mean, and as E has already picked up, it doesn't reflect the fact that in many cases (and you've mentioned this before in previous posts), there has been significant genetic 'mingling' in the centuries since those first ancestors from Africa arrived.
I can easily change the phrase to African-based if that really makes you feel any better

Horse wrote:

Deserter wrote:Manny has seemingly proven that there's no 'genetic' disadvantage (if indeed, there is such a thing, as that in itself is a contentious premise)

What do you mean by this? Who doesn't believe that some people have a genetic advantage over others?

Very simply the fact that certain individuals with a political agenda have frequently skewed the genetics issue to suit that agenda and have consequently put forward hypotheses that simplify and consequently distort the whole issue of genetics.

Proof, if any was needed, that Randolf Duke was right, and Mortimer Duke was wrong.

Nurture trumps nature.

Access to quality training and gym facilites, opportunities to fight, nutritional considerations, and tradition and history of boxing in the local community are all vital factors holding back boxers from countries in SE Asia and Africa.

Anyone think of anything else?

E wrote:

DG. wrote:More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

Genetically though there has been some input from other races (white and native Indian mainly) into the gene pool.

We do not want to involve the input of rapists and colonial slave masters.

The indian input is minimal.

In fact, I do not want to turn this thread into a rant about the negative input of 'THE MAN' so for that reason, I am out!

If the black race was not diluted by slavery they would be no Klitschko ruling the hevyweight Division!

Oooooooooo, controversial!

DG. wrote:
If the black race was not diluted by slavery they would be no Klitschko ruling the hevyweight Division!

Just when you thought DG couldn't sink any lower....

Carbo wrote:

DG. wrote:
If the black race was not diluted by slavery they would be no Klitschko ruling the hevyweight Division!

Just when you thought DG couldn't sink any lower....

Sink lower?

Ah de truth!

Truth hurts!

STOP STALKING ME!

DG. wrote:

E wrote:

DG. wrote:More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

Genetically though there has been some input from other races (white and native Indian mainly) into the gene pool.

We do not want to involve the input of rapists and colonial slave masters.

The indian input is minimal.

In fact, I do not want to turn this thread into a rant about the negative input of 'THE MAN' so for that reason, I am out!

If the black race was not diluted by slavery they would be no Klitschko ruling the hevyweight Division!

Oooooooooo, controversial!

But surely then, by your own rationale, heavyweights in modern-day Africa should be ruling the roost as they are 'undiluted', yet bar Samuel Peter, there aren't any worth speaking about.

its not really for genetic reasons (they only affect size hence mongoloid are generally a smaller race than caucasian/negroid but as for it affecting thier fighting or strength-size ratio thats BS) its mainly due to the trainning facilites or lack of which has already been mentioned.
mexico is generally reguarded as a poorer country but have many boxing gyms with decent equpiment in many african countries and the phillipines the main concern isnt boxing gym equpiment but just surviving

Sam Peter is a pudding with a padded record and got owned when he stepped up. The 1st Toney fight was a gift too.

And Vitali made him quit on his stool after 3 years of inactivity.

DG. wrote:More African?

We all went to the West indies the USA and the UK.

The black fighters holding titles are African..

West Indies blacks see themselves as superior to black africans though i hear and don't consider themselves African.