how come most great fighters are from America?

CorkMan

They all seem to come from America. I am not trying to be bias but like you have Ali from the heavyweights, Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweights, Willie Pep/Henry Armstong from the lightweights.

Boxing is a worldwide sports, but they all seem to eminate from the US. They are no ATG South African, Asian (par Pacquiao) fighters. Areas like Scandinivia have hardly any. Mexico is an exception, but then Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Urugay etc have not many great fighters.

strobe

I'd imagine it's a combination of money, popularity and promotional ability. It is historically a very popular sport in America, in the past it would have been considered one of the four main sports in the country along with basketball, baseball and football. So more popularity means more naturally talented athletes would enter the sport. More money versus say Paraguay means better gyms, better trainers, better equipment, better nutrition, so better boxers in general. Then the fact that because the big money was to be made in America by American fighters fighting means that American fighters were always going to be promoted better than say English fighters. Which means they were always going to be the ones that get the big fights/title shots.

If Cassius Clay had of been born and grew up in South Africa we would have never heard of him.

megadodge

Most great fighters used to come from America.

One of the main reasons was, as Strobe said, the popularity of pro boxing in the US, whereas in almost every other country it would be very much a minority sport.

However, nowadays there are excellent pro boxers from countries where pro boxing didn't even exist until the last decade or two (eg. Armenia, Ukraine).

Even Ireland, despite a great amateur boxing tradition never had many pro boxers, but now probably has more than it ever had (at least operating out of Ireland).

So, on the law of averages, the more widespread boxing is and the more diversified the competition the wider the trawl of world champs and great fighters, hence the US's declining dominance.

keane=cock

how many people live in america?

how many boxers from america are not great?

its a huge country so the chance of them having greats is vastly increased...

cppromotions

Its all to do with supply and demand there are so many gyms and so many fighters with so little promotions to to keep all the fighters busy whichs means only the best fighters in each gym will get the fights so you have to be talanted to get the fights in turn you only get to see great fighters on the other hand a lot of the fighters you see on shows here only have to be good ticket sellers.

colly10

I would say the Americans dominating the sport is a thing of the past. They have a huge population and it's a popular sport there but they don't dominate it like they used to.

Look down through the list of current champions here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions

There arn't many yanks and those that appear are mostly not the best in their weight class

cppromotions

I agree that American fighters are not dominating anymore but some of the best champions are American based or they are trained by American trainers a lot of the fight scene in the USA is based around the UFC which is flying at the moment and taking from boxing.

Wild_Dogger

I also think it's down to opportunities .
Much more oportunity to be discovered . Probably with the popularity of the sport there too. American fighters have always had better market ratings in the predominant US media coverage , particularly in the early days.

Possibly, I believe genetic advantage slightly favours Afro-americans .
Debatable subject , but every human variant/race will excel in different ways .
You only have to look at the Olympics to see the same regions win the same events every time .

megadodge

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

I also think it's down to opportunities .
Much more oportunity to be discovered . Probably with the popularity of the sport there too. American fighters have always had better market ratings in the predominant US media coverage , particularly in the early days.

Possibly, I believe genetic advantage slightly favours Afro-americans .
Debatable subject , but every human variant/race will excel in different ways .
You only have to look at the Olympics to see the same regions win the same events every time .

I'm not saying you're wrong, as it's something I often wondered about, but why Afro-Americans? What genetic advantage do they have over their West African ancestors/counterparts?

Plus if they're genetically favoured why do Mexicans and various Central American countries do so well with completely different genetic makeup?

Wild_Dogger

megadodge wrote: »

but why Afro-Americans? What genetic advantage do they have over their West African ancestors/counterparts?

Plus .....?

Well I think thats where 'opportunity' kicks in .
Boxing flourished in poor parts of America , ghettos had many gyms of limited equipment , but plenty of knowledge and experience.
Kids in Ghana gather to fight in town squares to box , with little direction or development .

As for the Mexicans , I dont know , I thnk they are very hard working , long distance fighters ...... probably cultural style . Its always been like that .
But the Mexicans only do well up to a limited weight category .
I think Latinos with their typical body-type would struggle in the heavier classes .

Unlike, lets say the Nordic and East European fighters , whose genetic make-up would favour the upper weight classes .

The Asians then would be built for speed . Having a nimble typical body-type.

But I'm going to say the Afro-Americans have slightly better overall athleticism .
It may have something to do with succesive generations of manual labour during slavery times .
I dont mean that to be controversial , but it seems possible .

megadodge

Again, while I don't totally disagree with what you're saying (the 'controversial' bit at the end has some merit and I've heard it before), I think your reasoning on some points is not quite right.

Mexicans don't do well in the higher weight classes simply because there aren't a whole lot of them up there. Mexicans and Asians (in general) are smaller people, therefore by the law of averages there will be more of them in the lower weights meaning they will be stronger there.

By the same token, Europeans would on average be bigger races therefore they would have more numbers in the higher weights, hence their strength there. I don't think it has anything to do with body-type.

As for Asians being quick and nimble - mabye Pacman is, but for the most part I regard Asians as being strong and not particularly fast - Thais and Koreans.

Carlos_Ray

Population, resources, interest. The end.

Wild_Dogger

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Population, resources, interest. The end.

thanks for the contribution .

As for Afro-americans , they make up just one eight of the US population .
Demographic figures for 2010 say just 12.4 % are afro-american , or just under 38 million of a 300+ million population.

So why do blacks lead the way in representing the US internationally ?
Also to wonder why Black people in Britain have a similar status , but not quite as dominant as their brothers in America.

Genetics is a difficult and complex topic , but one I think is relevant .
Man in his natural state had one good physical attribute ...... that he had great stamina and the ability as a long distance runner .

The closer to your natural roots , the more physical potential .

iluvcheese92

its only the afro americans really...the whites are mostly bums thats whu they're all taking up MMA

Kaizer Sosa

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

But I'm going to say the Afro-Americans have slightly better overall athleticism .
It may have something to do with succesive generations of manual labour during slavery times .
I dont mean that to be controversial , but it seems possible .

Yeah, I don't think it has anything to do with successive generations of manual labour and proably more to do with the greater presence of fast twitch muscles in people of west African descent. They are more naturally muscular as a result but also more prone to weight gain. Heard all about it during the okympics. It's the same reason why blacks dominate sprinting.

Daroxtar

OK, elephant in the room here. It's far more to do with social reasons than genetics that afro americans and latinos are good boxers.

Boxing is and always has been a sport dominated by people from lower social standing. America has a big population of people who are living in crime ridden areas. Many of these are black or hispanic.

Take a look at how many great boxers came from the slums of cities and how many of them admit themselves that only for boxing they'd have ended up incarcerated. How many great fighters have criminal records? How many got into trouble when they finished in the ring?


Boxing was a way to keep tough young kids out of jail. People will follow their peers and success breeds success so if you have some tough young kid winning in the ring others will follow his example and try to emulate him. Winners often become good coaches and the cycle continues...think of kerry footballers or kilkenny hurlers.


Nature play a part alright but nurture plays a bigger one IMO

tysonslovechild

i think its more a combination of getenitics and the style they are tought in america, the american style of boxing has always been a more dominanant style , just look back through past olympics and you see. Its always a more slick, stick and move style that i think suits the afro american race as it requires good foot work and i think this suits afro americans more as there naturally more nimble. I dont just think its boxing where genetics is proven right, just look at athletics espeically the 100m sprint, the top 5 runners in the world are coloured. And as it has been said before population and the fact that some young men from the ghettos past and present have used boxing as a way to achieve a better life and stay away from crime.