Irish and Italians in early american history, then Black dominance, now eastern europeans dominate the heavyweight ranks!
Are the poor the tough people or are the poor just expoited?
2006-06-05 17:49:03 · 10 answers · asked by betterthanrating 3 in Sports ➔ Boxing
I agree with your premise, since there does seem to be a decline in the quality of Black heavyweights.
When boxing was the top sport in the world, the poor could gain great stardom by attaining the world renown crown of heavyweight champion of the world.
However, the sport has been tainted by curruption and people do not look at the heavyweight champion with the same honor as before.
Now, soccer is the top sport worldwide and fame can be achieved for country instead of individual. African americans want to be NBA players for the fame in the black community.
This did not happen until the 80's.
What the heavyweight division needs is someone to dominate like Tyson did. Maybe the 230 pound Russian is that guy!
So poor = exploited, but not poor when making millions.
boxing = not fame maker so people playing different sports where they are glorified for their pain!
2006-06-06 10:28:17 · answer #1 · answered by happymrzot 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I am sorry but I disagree to an extent (regarding the scrap) .I think its fine hyping a fight but brawling in another country and using weapons (dont know if it was a glass or a tripod stand) is OTT. When I boxed we were always taught about discipline, there was major lack of it there. Having said that The British heavyweight scene is doing well at the moment.It seems the two getting most press are Haye and Chisora,Haye coming off a terrible effort against Klitschko and Chisoara losing his last two fights (one on paper though), you also have David Price and Tyson Fury. America does have Seth Mitchell and Deontay Wilder coming through, the heavyweight division globallly might start to get more exciting in the next 24 months. Domestically the British heavyweight scene has been looking not too bad for the past 24 months also.
2016-03-27 04:10:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are you singling out the heavyweights? This is actually true in all weight divisions. Boxing here has historically been a way for lower-class folks to make it. It's a way to make a big paycheck when you can't afford college and don't have anything else. Yes, people who have had fewer advantages often times tend to be tougher, but the main reason is to try and follow that dream of glory and riches that can't be found anywhere else. Of course, there are those fighters who have the advantages and choose to get into boxing anyway, but it's nowhere near as common.
2006-06-05 20:13:07 · answer #3 · answered by Flif 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would agree with that assesment. Many start off poor and leanr fighting so that they can survive the streets only to realize there's $$$ in it. From the top of my head, Prince Naseem was the exception to that rule. Barrera(?) or was it Morales (?) who beat him so senseless that he retired.
2006-06-06 12:00:40 · answer #4 · answered by Batmen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gene Tunney and Muhammad Ali(Cassius Clay) were not poor but most are from rugged beginnings or at best humble beginnings.
2006-06-05 17:57:20 · answer #5 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Poor are hungry for fame & fortune
The Rich have no need to risk life & limb
for fortune or fame.
2006-06-09 16:20:02 · answer #6 · answered by trebor2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is in the beginning of their careers until they can fight their way to a big payday.
2006-06-06 14:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by DS2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. the Klitchko's are far from poor.
2006-06-06 11:30:45 · answer #8 · answered by speedlump2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boxing dumb you knock your brains out
2006-06-05 17:52:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!
2006-06-11 14:35:26 · answer #10 · answered by Sister 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋