Comments Thread For: Callum Johnson-Sean Monaghan Added To Bivol-Smith Card

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

Callum Johnson and Sean Monaghan will clash in a crunch Light-Heavyweight battle at the Turning Stone Resort Casino in Verona, New York on Saturday March 9, live on DAZN in the US and on Sky Sports in the UK.
[Click Here To Read More]

[Boxing Logic]

Just so long as we never, ever see the winner in with Bivol, this is... well, it's still not very good, but it's fine. Callum Johnson gave it a good go vs Beterbiev, showed size and heart, and he could be in some fun fan friendly fights with guys on the Sullivan Barrara level, I feel. Then if he shows he's improved enough to dominate that level of opponent, as the only two top light heavyweights Barrera has fought have both done, then fans will be itching to see him get another title shot vs Bivol or any of the other titlists. But until then, fans have no interest. Despite the heart he showed vs Beterbiev, and that great shot he landed to drop Beterbiev, he still got KO'd early, and Beterbiev looks past prime, as is usually the case when a fighter gets past age 32 (he's way past 32, he's 34), so fans are not going to be as excited about someone dropping Beterbiev then getting KO'd early anyway as they would have been in Beterbiev's prime. The fact Beterbiev did not fight Stevenson or any of these guys in his prime not only ruined his career, but it ruins it for everyone else that crosses his path, such as in this case Johnson, too, because now even giving a game performance vs him nets you little credit since he's no longer in his prime.

Then again, had Johnson faced Beterbiev in his prime, he may not have been able to drop him at all, and he may have gotten knocked out even worse. Which is, of course, the reason you don't get as much credit, and you deserve to not get as much credit, when you fight an opponent past his prime compared to in his prime.

[Randall Cunning]

Obviously winner gets Bivol, **** that though wanna see Bivol in something good now

[Oldskoolg]

Hmmm I wonder why the author wrote “Irish-American” to describe him. That’s a very peculiar thing to write. Seems to me writers point out whether someone is Puerto Rican, Mexican, Irish when they are of American nationality but don’t seem to point out “African”-American for those fighters......I wonder why this ignored while others are noted, celebrated, and often catered to....

[Boxing Logic]

Hmmm I wonder why the author wrote “Irish-American” to describe him. That’s a very peculiar thing to write. Seems to me writers point out whether someone is Puerto Rican, Mexican, Irish when they are of American nationality but don’t seem to point out “African”-American for those fighters......I wonder why this ignored while others are noted, celebrated, and often catered to....

African-American boxers are some of the most protected in boxing right now along with the other groups you mentioned, and that's presumably because they bring in more money than foreign boxers, or at least that is the lie promoters keep telling to freeze out foreign boxers from the opportunities they have earned, but so you're right in one sense, if African-American boxers are one of the biggest economic blocks in boxing as a group, or at least promoters and media say they are, then why aren't promoters and media consistent about it and why don't they refer to them as "African-American" for the same reason they refer to "Irish-American" boxers in that way, or "Mexican-American" boxers in that way, which is, presumably, because it is economically viable to market them as such, or in other words, because those groups represent the biggest fanbases in American boxing, and marketing to those groups using the terms they identify as ("Mexican-American," "Irish-American," etc) brings them out to the fights.

If I had to guess, it's probably because Ireland, Mexico, and Puerto Rico are all nations, essentially, but Africa is a continent. When they market "Irish-American" boxers to Irish immigrant fans in the US, or do the same with "Mexican-American" and "Puerto Rican-American," it's because American fans from immigrant families originating from those nations, or even people living in those nations now, feel an emotional connection to their nation of origin or nation, and they will go out to the fight. But Africa is a large continent, and people living in Africa may mostly not feel enough of a connection with black Americans to be swayed by it being an "African-American" fighting in the US enough to travel to America to see the fight like many Irish and Mexican fans do, while meanwhile, the segment of black American fans that isn't racially biased towards only black boxers just identify as being American, or black, or black American, so they don't care either way to read that an "African-American" is fighting beyond the fact he's American and they don't care what race he is, and the segment of black American boxing fans that IS racially biased towards only black American boxers, for them it's a racial thing, a black vs white or black vs Mexican thing, not something around them feeling an emotional connection to their specific nation of origin "Africa" because that's a large continent not a nation. And while most Irish-American or Mexican-American immigrants came to the US only the last few decades, or their parents immigrated only within the last century, so they still feel a strong bond to their former nation which they can identify clearly and specifically, many African-Americans' ancestors were brought to the US three centuries ago, and the exact nation they were brought from is not always known, so they don't feel the same connection to the nation their family came from as many "Irish-American" or "Mexican-American" immigrants whose families have a much more recent connection to their nation of origin, and much more specific knowledge about which nation that was. Do you see what I'm saying?

But in general, I agree with you. Writers should be consistent and hold everyone to equal standards, while weighing context as well. It's the context in this case that has me wondering if this is even one of the times where they failed to do that though. I don't see any problems with referring to American boxers who are black as "African-American" if that's what the boxer himself would prefer, or if that is the default description that makes the most sense or is the most fair, but the comment I just wrote hopefully shines some light on maybe why they don't, or what the differences are, so that you don't just think it's the writer employing a double standard. A double standard means reacting differently to two identical situations. The writer definitely reacted, or characterized, the situations differently, but based on what I just spitballed about here, I'm not sure it's fair to say that the situations are identical, because there are major differences that I noted, not just major ones but major ones that are relevant to the situation in question.

[PBR Streetgang]

I see Johnson dropping and stopping ol' Seanie.

[bulldognyc]

This is turning into a nice card. Johnson and Monaghan are going to beat the hell out of each other. Winner is most likely getting the winner of Bivol vs Smith.

[Mammoth]

That should be fun. But yeah just so long as the winner doesn't get a title shot this is cool with me....

[Mammoth]

This should set up Johnson against Joe Smith Jr tbh

[KTFOKING]

Obviously winner gets Bivol, **** that though wanna see Bivol in something good now

Winner getting Bivol would be an absolute waste of time. Wake up when we get Bivol vs Buatsi.