I'm using the word they're using you sad mongoloid. And it's actually sad that you always have to resort to my education level. Only show your jealousy, since you didn't had the intellect nor the dedication to do something with your life.
LMAO you're the one who has always brought up your education level in the past, you idiot! Why do you think I always mock you about it? As for your other comment, no shit you are using their words ... I'm asking YOU what you think that totally vague phrase actually means... I'm asking you to critically think about it For a guy that constantly boasts of how educated he is and how uneducated everyone else is by comparison, you can be amusingly daft
I've barely ever talked about it, except when I was arguing on things that were directly related to my field of expertise. Yet, you,re so bitter about your life that you always have to bring it up (like it's something to be ashamed of, ). And at ''critical' thinking''. Oh god.. The chip on your shoulder keeps on getting bigger
Not to mention that this whole decline thing is also completely in contradiction with the improvement in drugs, nutrition and training that we've seen since the 30's
I get what McDogg is saying but I agree with X, the talent pool is definitely back on the rise, and it was bad before. It's worth pointing out as I think JOM said (I have been skim-reading these posts to be fair) that you HAVE to take into account the fall of the iron curtain. It isn't coincidence that there has been a huge influx of talented, highly-skilled Eastern European fighters that have been popping up lately. There were a lot of great amateurs like Papp (yes I know he was from Central Europe but he was held back for the same reasons as Eastern Europeans at the time), who were never allowed to challenge the American dominance because of politics. There has obviously been a decline in US boxing but a huge part of that perception is because of the end of the Soviet Union.
JAWS is a boxing participant. One of the 6+million! Who can forget him going to town on that heavybag
LOL you've mentioned it probably 50 times ... why do you think it's part of the parody? Yeah, critical thinking like "hmmm what does this phrase actually mean?"
So why aren't the top tens of the divisions loaded with ex-soviet countrymen? This is the same stuff Irish parroted for years... there's a small smattering here and there but that's it, the whole "soviets took over" is utterly baseless especially outside the heavyweight division
But yes, I'm utterly confused. Only a scholars such as you (who works as a mason) could know the actual meaning of this obscure expression
Lol, do you actually follow boxing. There is ton of division that are either loaded with ex soviets fighters, (CW, LHW, JW), or that are dominated by an ex-soviet (MW, JLW)
Guy sounds like the old fart in quebec that claims that the talent level in hockey is weaker than ever now, cause the quebecers no longer are dominating as they once was.
Lol great comparison Have you managed to figure out what that daft statistic you cited actually means yet?
As I said before, there's not much to interpret there. It only means that about 6,5 millions americans consider that they box (I guess if I download the 50$ report, they would be more precise, but I'm not interested enough to pay this). Sure it doesn't tell us about the level at which they are boxing, but unless you can find such stats, that's the best that we have. But I do get your point that it is a rather meaningless stats.
I'd bet a good 4.5 million is women doing "kickboxing" aerobics Pay the $50! Quit being cheap, this is important stuff!
Which is what i pretty much said the first time i quoted the stat, but no wonder you missed it since your inabilty to comprehend a simple phrase is legendary. But to give credence to your argument, ive seen some stats on the number of pro compared to the 30s in the us, and the fall is drastic. Still, i dont think its enough evidence to claim that the talent pool is shallower. Especially since the way the numbers were compilated in each era was different, and it is limited to the us only. Personally, i would rend to think that the fall is mostly due to the fact that revenue in boxing are lot more polarized now than they were in the days (mostly because of tv). So low level guys wont stick in it, but the special talents will
Cdogg makes some great points: the popularity of boxing is not only about the amount of people, it is a cultural thing too. For some reason, in 1920s boxing was the most popular individual sport, then it began to decline. In the 30s the following of the sport reduced already, even though as a hobby it remained super popular for decades. However in boxing it is even more common to overrate the old days than it is in other sports, even by the greatest of experts. Ray Arcel claimed Benny Leonard was far superior to Duran, Nat Fleisher argued that Ray Robinson lacked the skills of Stanley Ketchell etc. Thus, even though it could be that the talent level is low now, if history teaches us anything it is that we are poor in judging that. That is the reason I am not completely convinced - eye-test is too crappy
It really depends on the generation. While you say that older fans might overrate previous generations, you seem to ignore the fact that the newer generation overrates the current crop. Hence why you have countless fans who believe that Floyd is the GOAT and that Pac was way better than Duran.
Not ignoring anything, just not stating the bloody obvious. It merely underlines my point about the fact that we all are poor judges when it comes to development of the sport
Old days syndrome happens in every sport ... what I'm talking about isn't that ... if it was I'd be one of these nutters who thinks "Dempsey > Ali" which I'm clearly not
Perhaps in some cases... but some shit is extremely obvious. For instance, the eyes don't lie in telling us that Ray Leonard was miles better than Keith Thurman, for example.
There's not an astronomical gap between Duran and Pac, and I've always maintained it would be a competitive fight. I mean, Duran is a top 10 atg and Pac is a top 20 atg. My general feeling is that both at their bests, Duran was better and would have won.
Floyd has GOAT credentials. Get over it. In any other era with his relative resume (relative to the available fighters of that time), longevity, unbeaten record, multiple weight classes, record number of title opponents and title wins...he'd have been given serious consideration as the GOAT. The fact is that the old boy club is on the whole more ludicrous than the guys that tend to lean toward contemporaries. Athletes in all sports are getting bigger, faster and stronger. Records exist to be broken. You can't tell me that the athletes in boxing are regressing when every other sport is progressing., Makes no logical sense. Roy Jones would have likely EMBARRASSED guys like Monzon and Hagler for example. It's blasphemy to say that based on nostalgia. Had Ali never fought Liston and existed today...no one would have predicted that he'd have beaten Liston so easily.
Sure we do The film doesn't lie... even adjusting for the obvious deficiencies of early filming technology, Dempsey is extremely crude compared with fighters filmed just 10 years later never mind Ali... however, compared with his peers he's advanced... the rapid evolution of technique and strategy is more obvious between say 1915 and 1930 than at any other period of boxing history for which a solid amount of film exists ... this observation is bolstered by the fact that there's little if any difference between bouts filmed in 1905 vs 1915 ... the point I'm making is we know that Dempsey was a major figure of a revolution of technique and strategy and we also know (thanks to our eyeballs) that the revolution was so effective that fighters just 10-15 years later look like they are participating in a different sport than he was. There's no such dichotomy with a Duran/Pac comparison
So what is your explanation for the fact that the keenest boxing minds such as Ray Arcel have made a similar mistake? That is what bothers me. The video doesn't tell us the truth about Owens vs Bolt either, nor does recollection. Not saying the situations are similar of course
Even keen boxing minds aren't immune to nostalgia I'm looking at this with cold detachment... why on earth would I be nostalgic for Benny Leonard? He died decades before I was born ... so obviously I'm not But Ray Arcel was a Jewish kid and a teenager when Benny Leonard was the idol of American Jews, universally beloved and worshipped... this was a time of naïveté and hero worship and for Jewish Americans of the time he was a God... I think it's unreasonable to expect Arcel to objectively rate Leonard, all things considered, regardless of his expertise
