*First of all, this thread is not intended to be impolite, or racist. So lets all be mature, and talk about things civilly*
It's no secret the vast amount of success that Eastern Euros have had in pro boxing in the last 10 years.
As of today, Eastern Euros essentially dominate heavyweight and cruiserweight divisions. There is a very strong Eastern Euro presence in Super Middleweight, Middleweight, and there is notable presences in Light Heavyweight, Light Middleweight, and so on. Not to mention Eastern European and overall nonAmerican success in the amateurs has been increasingly proliferant for over 20 years.
It would be entirely accurate to suggest today that Eastern Euros are perhaps more successful than Americans, many of which are black.
When people talk about great boxers of history, many times they focus on Black American boxers from the past.
There is a couple problems with this, namely;
1) In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc Boxing was much less competitive in terms of sheer numbers. The actual size of the talent pool was less. Today, there are 17 weight divisions each with 1,200 boxers per division according to BoxRec. In the 1950s, you had only 8 weight divisions with maybe 500 boxers per division.
So, we are dealing with a much small talent pool when looking at fighter's from the past. Boxing was less competitive in the past, in terms of sheer numbers.
2) In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s etc Boxing was restricted to only a few countries. There were no Russians competing, there were no East Germans competing, there were little Cubans competing, there were no Ukrainians competing. This changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. At this time, it was only Black Americans fighting other Americans, or British. The odd Italian or Western German. But no Eastern Euros whatsoever. Americans did not have to fight Eastern Euros in this time period. Boxing was not a global sport.
3) People have an erroneous time-bias tendency to assume that "things from the past were better". That is to say, that what is viewed today as being good. 5 years from now, when looking back, people will overexaggerate and say "was great". This is a natural time bias to have, but we should be aware that athletes always improve with time both physically and theoretically. This is why world records are always being broken.
When people talk about Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray, Earnie Shavers etc. We fail mention that these guys were champions in a time when boxing was relatively non-competitive and confined only to USA and Commonwealth Europe.
Times have changed, and boxing has become much more global.
Would things have been different had Eastern Euros been competing 20 and 30 years ago? The evidence certainly suggests so.
It's no secret the vast amount of success that Eastern Euros have had in pro boxing in the last 10 years.
As of today, Eastern Euros essentially dominate heavyweight and cruiserweight divisions. There is a very strong Eastern Euro presence in Super Middleweight, Middleweight, and there is notable presences in Light Heavyweight, Light Middleweight, and so on. Not to mention Eastern European and overall nonAmerican success in the amateurs has been increasingly proliferant for over 20 years.
It would be entirely accurate to suggest today that Eastern Euros are perhaps more successful than Americans, many of which are black.
When people talk about great boxers of history, many times they focus on Black American boxers from the past.
There is a couple problems with this, namely;
1) In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc Boxing was much less competitive in terms of sheer numbers. The actual size of the talent pool was less. Today, there are 17 weight divisions each with 1,200 boxers per division according to BoxRec. In the 1950s, you had only 8 weight divisions with maybe 500 boxers per division.
So, we are dealing with a much small talent pool when looking at fighter's from the past. Boxing was less competitive in the past, in terms of sheer numbers.
2) In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s etc Boxing was restricted to only a few countries. There were no Russians competing, there were no East Germans competing, there were little Cubans competing, there were no Ukrainians competing. This changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall. At this time, it was only Black Americans fighting other Americans, or British. The odd Italian or Western German. But no Eastern Euros whatsoever. Americans did not have to fight Eastern Euros in this time period. Boxing was not a global sport.
3) People have an erroneous time-bias tendency to assume that "things from the past were better". That is to say, that what is viewed today as being good. 5 years from now, when looking back, people will overexaggerate and say "was great". This is a natural time bias to have, but we should be aware that athletes always improve with time both physically and theoretically. This is why world records are always being broken.
When people talk about Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray, Earnie Shavers etc. We fail mention that these guys were champions in a time when boxing was relatively non-competitive and confined only to USA and Commonwealth Europe.
Times have changed, and boxing has become much more global.
Would things have been different had Eastern Euros been competing 20 and 30 years ago? The evidence certainly suggests so.
Comment