BoxRec

Just read an article by Sir Henry Cooper on skysports.com predominately about Hatton but he goes on to comment on a general thesis on boxing, here are a few snippets of it:

"Many fighters get paid big money to turn professional, but they can't be as hungry with all that money sat in the bank.
"They come from the middle class these days. Before lads would start boxing to get out of the environment they lived in.
"Anyone who turns professional because they love the game needs watching because they'll end up in a bad way.
"Boxing's a way of earning money to get out of poverty."

Heres a full link to the article:

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 83,00.html

I think he brings up a decent point.

For example, when watching build up to Prescott-Khan there was coverage of Prescotts life in Columbia and interviews with Prescott saying how his life is at risk every day and how he slept in a small room next to his boxing gym, I remember thinking wow Khan obviously WANTS to win this fight but Prescott NEEDS it (and we all know the result of that fight!)

Theres examples everywhere you look: Pacquio in the Phillipines, many of the mexican and south american boxers..

I just question weather any fighter with a cushty lifestyle and everything handed to them on a plate (Khan, olympic hopefulls etc.) can ever have the desire and drive (and ultimately success?!) of those who are fighting for the survival and wellbeing of themselves and their families?

What do people think?

Ye its a good point Eubank made it about DeGale as well but the likes of Pacquiao and Duran who had to fight for the money whereas the Olympians will get everything they want its not there fault but surely sleeping on the streets make's you want it more

I don't think so. I certainly think that Third World hunger can push a boxer to achieve more than his talents alone would bring, but I think the extra facilities and better health in developed countries counts for a lot, too. Otherwise why does the USA lord it over Colombia and even Mexico, Japan over the Philippines, Germany over the rest of Europe, etc.

Certainly getting a huge cash injection at the start of a career can blunt a fighter's ambition, though - Audley, Ricardo Williams...

oliverfennell wrote:I don't think so. I certainly think that Third World hunger can push a boxer to achieve more than his talents alone would bring, but I think the extra facilities and better health in developed countries counts for a lot, too. Otherwise why does the USA lord it over Colombia and even Mexico, Japan over the Philippines, Germany over the rest of Europe, etc.

Certainly getting a huge cash injection at the start of a career can blunt a fighter's ambition, though - Audley, Ricardo Williams...

Flawed.

America doesn't laud it over anyone now, certainly not Mexico, and the Germans rely on fighters from around the Eastern block to decorate their stables. How many actualt Germans top their bills.

Hunger breeds hunger. Equally, with the investment that goes into a Olympian to sign them up, its amazing the protection and latitude they're afforded, all of which affects their prospects for success.

If an Olympian cost £500,000k to sign, a promoter will persevere far longer with a guy's poor attitude, lack of development etc than some jug eared trier from a council estate. Giving the pampered sod even more scope for not trying.

Though I'd argue its mostly about personality. If you want it, you want it. You see that in every walk of life.

OK, I mean the US has historically been much more successful Latin America. I know the boxing landscape is changing but I'm sure if you look it up statistically, the more affluent countries will have had more world champions than the developing nations. And yes, a lot of Germany's success is based off Eastern Europeans, but those are Eastern Europeans with access to Germany's First World facilities.

Of course a man who literally has to fight to eat is going to be a dangerous man, but you can't really get away from the First World (whether it be the US, UK, Japan, Germany...) producing (or at least developing, in Germany's case) the best-achieving boxers. These are countries which do have poverty but even the poorest people in those countries will have access to housing and food.

There is some sense to it however Skill beats Will

If a guy comes from a wealthy upbringing but is hugely skilled, takes a good shot, is fit as a fiddle and smacks hard then it does not matter a shit how much more you may want it.

I dont believe that Ali came from a particularly poor, struggling backround for example. His parents were not rich but he was hardly going to school with holes in his shoes.

How about Calzaghe, Hamed, McKenzie, Klitschko, Lennox, Roy Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard etc etc etc, they all had pretty normal and standard upbringings.

Furthermore, in Coopers day it was like that, but name the greatest international and domestic fighters since 1990 and work out for yourself how many came from poverty.

This is not Joe Louis times when the poor blacks were raised with 27 kids, all in one bed while papa was out sharecropping and just turning over dust and the kids ate half a slice of bread each day washed down with a glass of muddy water.

Obviously the African, some Asian and Mexican fighters had a shitty upbringing but that is because there countries are still pretty backward but just like richer countries or continents like Europe and North America those regions turn out some good and some awful fighters.

This Rocky film / Cinderella Man times are long gone generally. People box because of many reasons and some are good and some are bad.