Black Boxing

I have been following the sport for 25 years...It's the 8th sign of the Apocolypse. I agree with you. Jesus is coming soon!;) Yes I need to know would there have been a Civil War without slavery? I think you know the answer to that question. NO. No slavery=No War. If there was never moral condemnation of slavery but Northen abolitionists this War wouldnt be in the history books...You're correct in that slavery was a definite major contributing factor in the Civil War, but incorrect in that it was because there was a great moral outrage in the North. Most people and politicians didn't care that slavery still existed in the South, they just wanted to keep it from expanding. The bottom line, as always in this country, was dollars. Ending slavery in the south would have drive up the price of agricultural goods, and no one wanted that. There are other contributing factors, too, such as the economic imbalance between the agrarian south and the industrial north, but those are far too complicated to get into on a boxing board.

I have been following the sport for 25 years... & I know the racism in the sport is slanted in the favor of white fighters. I seriously can't think of one case where a fighter was elevated beyond his worth, who happened to be black ! But....guys like Mesi, Mancini, Cooney, Czyz (all good fighters, yes) received a whole lot more press, fan support, opportunities, & money than they would have were they black. Joe Mesi ? C'mon.......he was decent, at best. His skin color is what got him those HBO dates, not his great potential. The powers-that-be are strictly about cash cows. A black fighter, with twice the talent of a white fighter, still won't rake in the $$$ that the white fighter will. Tell me how it would benefit the promoters to fix things so the black fighter advances ? Imagine if an excellent fighter like Stevie Johnston was white ? He'd be a legend & a multi-millionaire. Stevie, instead, will just be fondly remembered & not so rewarded. Gimmee a break, McKay....you & those who have supported you in this thread are idiots, racist idiots with no legs to stand on.

lol the civil war wasnt about slavery....that was a small small small part of the civil war...do your history outside of a liberal books and liberal college. i love how stupid people are.

Why is that every single white fighter whether from the United States or Europe no matter how good is always down played. And other fights even racist ones who associate themselves with figueres such as Malcom X are depicted as heroes. If you watch boxing from the standpoint of a non-racist its clear that there is a bias towards blacks in boxing. Everybody remembers Floyd Patterson but Ingmarr Johansson (as an example) who was World Heavyweight Champion and defeated Floyd Patterson is hardly remembered by anybody. Another point is every single white fighter who is a legitimate contender and happens to be white is always adressed as "white hype or hope." A title which downgrades there actual ability and accomplishments. well since we are asking questions of biased then lets see.......Why is it when a Black boxer is sure of himself shows confidence people always mark him off as arrogant or cocky or just having a bad attitude when it comes to the sport of "boxing" but when a white fighter says the same thing it it said that he is just showing "heart" or his love for the "sport" lets see Floyd Maywearther jr. i see it time and time again announcers and people who do interviews with Floyd always talks good to his face but as soon as he leaves they say " he really has a bad attitude and arrogant one" they never can just say he is a skillful boxer but they have to bring up his attitude Why is that Boxing plays up the Mexico Vs Puerto Rico thing but when Hopkins said "i have alot of african americans wanting me to take on the Puerto Ricans" when he said that the first reply he got was "Oh bernard are you trying to make a race war out of this? " and Hopkins replied " you say Puerto Ricans are proud people but Africans are too and why can't they rally behind me just like the Mexicans rally behind their fighters?" so there is alot of racism in boxing it goes both ways

It's clear that quite a few peope on this board has some racial issues they want to deal with.Put it like this don't just blame blacks or even black fighters blame the jorunalist,the sports writers,the promoters, blame everyone it's everybodys fault that white fighters are down played and yada yada yada you want to cry?All the great fighters no matter what race are respected period.

I told y'all, ditch this stupid thread.

Neither were your ancestors getting hung from trees in NYC in the early 1900s.. Do you know how many white men died to abolish slavery during the Civil War? No it wasnt about states rights that was made up by the redneck South to try and justify their position. This country is far from perfect but its still the best place to live in the world. Dont persecute a whole country for the actions of a few redneck , inbred states! yes i do but black where still being hung by tree up into the 60's in the south do i blame everyone no most of my ancestors are from southern states but what i want to say is that look sam langford he never got a shot at a title and all this great white hype crap happen because when jack johnson won the title whites did not want a black heavyweight champ so the paper need a great white hope to beat him to bring the title back to the white race one the biggest grossing fight was conney vs holmes the played the race card up but if you think about how many great white fighters are there right now name ten and i name ten blacks mexicans cubans etc.

I dont see that bias but I certainly respect your opinion. The press dint make Golota punch bowe in the balls and get knocked out in the first round to Lennox. I believe if the Litschkos wre good they would warrant more respect. Byrd and Rahman didnt get respect as HW champs because they sucked. I know politics and promotion is commonplace in the sport, but if anything I think that only heightens and elevates mediocre white fighters to levels their talent doesnt warrant. To suggest that blacks are naturally better than whites in stupid as well as racist.

I truly believe the reason there are not more White Heavyweight Champions and top contenders is because of the politics and racism associated with boxing. Not with its demogragphics.

Like the starter of this thread said. Every single white fighters accomplishments and abiliites are downplayed merely because they happen to be white. It's very hard to disagree with that.

Dude Im white and when is the last time that there was a white heavyweight boxer to be proud of. Golota is a headcase, Klitschkos are chumps, Corrie Sanders liked golf better, Gerry Cooney had no heart, Mesi get the point. The last great white heavyweight was Marciano. These issues may not have relevance to some but they are factual. Hell Im a huge fan of baseball and even played Division 1 baseball in college so thats my game. Do you think Babe Ruth would have been as dominant had he played against black competion? NOT! Racial issues are sensitive to some but nonetheless they do exist. I agree to disagree with you. I think most here would agree that there is an anti white bias in boxing. Who becomes prominant in boxing has as much to do these days with politics and promotions as it does actual talent.

If the boxing press and press in general was not under the total tyrannny and lies of the jews you would not have this situation of pro black bias in boxing. Not this again

Still have to be optomistic inspite of the corruption and racism in the sport. Can't give up hope. Maybe things will take a change for the better.

Kill this stupid thread. Just kill it and drop the stupid subject. It doesn't even have the grace of being completely banal like most threads.

Why is that every single white fighter whether from the United States or Europe no matter how good is always down played. And other fights even racist ones who associate themselves with figueres such as Malcom X are depicted as heroes. If you watch boxing from the standpoint of a non-racist its clear that there is a bias towards blacks in boxing. Everybody remembers Floyd Patterson but Ingmarr Johansson (as an example) who was World Heavyweight Champion and defeated Floyd Patterson is hardly remembered by anybody. Another point is every single white fighter who is a legitimate contender and happens to be white is always adressed as "white hype or hope." A title which downgrades there actual ability and accomplishments. Really a shame what the world of boxing has come to isn't it? No longer about fair and honest competition but instead about political motives and racism, notably that against white boxers.

No question that there is a very very strong anti white element in the boxing world.

If the boxing press and press in general was not under the total tyrannny and lies of the jews you would not have this situation of pro black bias in boxing.

Its a legitmate and obvious questoins. That deserves to be answered with a reasonable response. problem is,,,your statements are innaccurate marciano wasnt idolized? there hasnt been many good white heavyweights,,,thats the problem,,,and this is coming from a white boy

Why is that every single white fighter whether from the United States or Europe no matter how good is always down played. And other fights even racist ones who associate themselves with figueres such as Malcom X are depicted as heroes. If you watch boxing from the standpoint of a non-racist its clear that there is a bias towards blacks in boxing. Everybody remembers Floyd Patterson but Ingmarr Johansson (as an example) who was World Heavyweight Champion and defeated Floyd Patterson is hardly remembered by anybody. Another point is every single white fighter who is a legitimate contender and happens to be white is always adressed as "white hype or hope." A title which downgrades there actual ability and accomplishments. johansson was trash..thats why he's not rememberd u little fun boy

So if the Civil War wasnt mostly fought over slavery then what was it fought over.I'll try to simplify as best I can. Slavery was definitely an issue, but not in the simplified way that textbooks try to describe. There was no mass calling for the end of slavery in the South from Northern states, only for it to be contained in states that were already Slave States. Lincoln himself ran on this platform, even though his party was strongly abolotionist. He even went so far as to push through the Crittendon-Johnson Resolution of 1861 which stated that the purpose of the war was not to end slavery. One of the root causes of South Carolina's move to secede was related to tariffs imposed by Washington on European goods. Europeans were suffering economically because of the constant wars on the continent and abroad, and in an effort to raise capital, tried to dump cheap goods on the US market. This led Congress, dominated by Northern states, to impose high tariffs on goods imported from Europe in order to protect the budding American industrialization. The net effect of the tariffs was to increase the price for raw goods and cause Europeans to reduce imports of American goods, such as cotton. This meant that farmers in the South, who relied heavily on income from exported goods suffered a decrease in sales and an increase in the cost of the goods they needed to do business at the same time. The reason that Congress, more specifically the House of Representitives, was dominated by the North was that immigrants came primarily to the North because the job market in the South was dominated by slavery, therefore held less opportunity. The increase in population meant increased representation in the House. With the disproportionate immigration to the North, the people felt a need to protect future jobs on the frontiers by disallowing the addition of more Slave states. Kansas was initially a Slave territory until they were denied Statehood because of it. The laws in Kansas changed and they were set to be admitted as a Free State when the Civil War broke out. The limitiation of admission of Slave States meant that as more Free States were admitted to The Union, the abolitionists would gain more and more strength in Congress, eventually dominating the Senate as well as the House. Southern politicians and landowners felt that this would eventually lead to the end of slavery, causing great disruption in the economic system in the South. Faced with what they tought were unfair economic conditions as well as the threat of the eventual end of slavery several Southern states seceded in the wake of South Carolina's secession. Another thing that your history book likely didn't teach you was that the Emancipation Proclomation did not free all slaves. It only freed those in areas still under Confederate control as of January 1, 1863 and even named states, and portions of states, where slavery would still be legal. It was part punishment to Southern states, and part recruitment effort. The Union was losing more men than it was recruiting, the draft was causing riots because it only drafted the poor (they didn't even try to disguise the fact that you could buy your way out of the draft in those days, for a sum that was astronomical for the working class and poor, but barely noticable to the wealthy) and desertion was escalating. The hope was that it would incite the newly freed slaves to rise against their masters and create another front for the Confederacy to have to defend. Anything else you need to know?