No focused american heavyweights

This nationalistic threads are always good for a laugh, but not much more than that.

americans have gotten soft, literally.... i guess in about 5 or 10 years from now we will have another true american heavyweight...

The NBA/NFL excuse is weak and pathetic. There are tons of potential Eastern European Heavyweight Boxers who are doing America isn't the only country in the world that has other sports. it isn't a weak and lame excuse, it is a fact, like tony the tiger says these what if's are getting out of hand, it's great to hear all the different opinions on this, everyone has good points. except for the weak/lame nba/nfl excuse, that is just one of many factual "excuses" about the US HW division. (Combat Sambo, MMA, Kickboxing, Hockey, Olympic Wrestling, Olympic Weightlifting, Powerlifting, Worlds Strongest Man Competitions, etc.)- these sports don't pay **** compared to the NBA/NFL if you didn't know, that's why all the greatest athletes bust their ass from childhood to play football/basketball/baseball in the USA - another fact, not a weak/lame excuse, here's a whatif for you just for fun, what if russia had the billion $$$ NFL? , Vlad would have been an allpro DE or TE, not a boxing champion. not hatin, I love vlad, I wish they would show all the ****talkin goin on between him and Haye on sportscenter and maybe other people besides us would get interested in boxing

no one has ever said that numbskull. If more HWs from basketball and football chose boxing instead of those sports, America would have better HWs. THIS IS TRUE. If more Europeans focused on boxing instead of Soccor/Football, then Europe would have better HWs too. THIS IS ALSO TRUE. Its really not hard to understand. in the end, all these 'what ifs' are just petty excuses. no country is born with 'superior athletes' or 'better fighters', its all about how they train, which is why boxing has had world champions from a huge variety of different countries. Yes and no, you can't escape genetics no matter how hard you try. Genetics wise, blacks have more fast-twiching muscle fibers, making them more explosive and faster but whites (Europeans) are stronger over-all (strongest man in the world - Polish and usually Icelandic or Nordic). Both are alo big. These are the hallmarks of HWs - big and strong. I doubt we will ever see a Chinese or Indian HW boxing champion, ever, doesn't matter if there are 10 billion of them. That's how genetics works. Other than the initial qualities of size and strength, the rest is up to the individual and the environment - training, mental strength, discipline, dedication, etc. I think Americans are spoiled for the most part. Most Americans are not willing to put in the kind of dedication and suffering that boxing requires, and the Eastern Europeans are, that's the main difference.

well what do you expect? if a country's #1 sport is boxing, then obviously theyll have a lot of champions. In theory if every guy in India loved boxing and trained it since they were kids, there would be a huge amount of Indian champions. These 'what if's and excuses are mind numbing. 'If the USSR focused more on boxing it would have been better in boxing', well no ****. that could be said of any country anywhere. and I mean that for American HWs too. 'If HW size Americans werent in football/basketball and trained for boxing at an early age instead' isnt an excuse. Its just an explanation. it just irritates me when people say stuff like 'if the Soviets could have turned pro they would have ruled the division like today'. thats baloney. the best Soviet HWs fighting at the time lost in the Olympics to guys like Frazier, Foreman, Biggs, Rademacher, and Bowe, and this is before they even turned pro. Good arguments, you do have a point. But you have to admit, had you had these Soviets turn pro prior to 1990, you wouldn't have seen the same dominance by the US HWs.

I was being facetious you imbecile. Obviously I am fully aware that American dominance of the heavyweight division for most of the last 100 years had nothing to do with athletes from other nations playing other sports. It's completely irrelevent. You, on the other hand, are calling the excuse 'petty' while still claiming that it is true that American heavyweight boxing is impeded by the NBA and NFL. One of us is a hypocrite. I think you know which one. I had a feeling you were beeing sarcastic, but honestly you can never tell sometimes on this forum. Ive heard worse excuses, really. and how many times do I have to say this? Its not an excuse, its an explanation. If HW sized Americans were in boxing instead of NBA/NFL, there would be more good american HWs. am I saying they would dominate? absolutely not. but it would be better. and it goes like that for EVERY nation. if they put more emphasis on boxing, they would have more top fighters in boxing. its common sense. its true, and a legitimate explanation. but if you start making claims like 'this country would dominate if...', then it becomes an excuse, because youre not just explaining the situation, youre making blown up, unfounded claims.

I dont know about 'dominance', but yes, America would obviously be doing much better if the NFL/NBA athletes were in boxing instead. its true. but its also a petty excuse . just as much of a petty excuse as you and Steelhammer use. I will leave it as this: if an American claims that the best American HWs are in the NFL/NBA and otherwise America would be dominating, then its just a weak excuse. and its just as weak an excuse to say that the Soviets would be dominating the 70s if the best Soviet athletes were trained in boxing instead. I was being facetious you imbecile. Obviously I am fully aware that American dominance of the heavyweight division for most of the last 100 years had nothing to do with athletes from other nations playing other sports. It's completely irrelevent. You, on the other hand, are calling the excuse 'petty' while still claiming that it is true that American heavyweight boxing is impeded by the NBA and NFL. One of us is a hypocrite. I think you know which one.

As I said, I hear fellow Americans claim that the only reason that there isn't American heavyweight dominance is because of other sports taking the best athletes. No other nation's fans ever claim that they don't dominate a division because their best athletes are playing other sports. Simple as that. I dont know about 'dominance', but yes, America would obviously be doing much better if the NFL/NBA athletes were in boxing instead. its true. but its also a petty excuse . just as much of a petty excuse as you Pshhhh....everyone knows the best Eastern European boxers were busy playing Hockey back then. and Steelhammer The Soviets didn't have the money/funds to develop the amatuer system during the cold war. All of the big strong athletic Soviets were forced to go into the military. use. I will leave it as this: if an American claims that the best American HWs are in the NFL/NBA and otherwise America would be dominating, then its just a weak excuse. and its just as weak an excuse to say that the Soviets would be dominating the 70s if the best Soviet athletes were trained in boxing instead.

give me a break. if you bring up a thread like this and someone asks why there are no good HW Americans, then someone will answer with that explanation...which is the truth. if someone tries using that as an actual excuse and tries to say that America would dominate 'if so and so', then I would call them stupid too, because boxers are made, not born. As I said, I hear fellow Americans claim that the only reason that there isn't American heavyweight dominance is because of other sports taking the best athletes. No other nation's fans ever claim that they don't dominate a division because their best athletes are playing other sports. Simple as that.

You're resorting to calling me numbskull because you are fully aware that during periods of American dominance in any weightclass, no European or Asian or South American fan has ever claimed that the only reason that America was dominant was because all their best athletes played other games. American fans, however, do this constantly.give me a break. if you bring up a thread like this and someone asks why there are no good HW Americans, then someone will answer with that explanation...which is the truth. if someone tries using that as an actual excuse and tries to say that America would dominate 'if so and so', then I would call them stupid too, because boxers are made, not born.

The Soviets didn't have the money/funds to develop the amatuer system during the cold war. All of the big strong athletic Soviets were forced to go into the military. Ali, Foreman, Frazier, etc weren't even real world champions because they never competed against the best Soviet athletes. Foreman KOed the best Soviet HW in the world at age 19. Frazier did better at age 20 than Vadim Yemelyanov when he won the Gold medal at HW Ali was more successful than any Soviet at LHW when he won gold in 1960. These were the best Soviet boxers at the time. Dont give me this 'best athletes' stuff. you cant just pick out a good athlete and say 'well Frazier would have lost if this guy was trained in boxing from childhood'

no one has ever said that numbskull. If more HWs from basketball and football chose boxing instead of those sports, America would have better HWs. THIS IS TRUE. If more Europeans focused on boxing instead of Soccor/Football, then Europe would have better HWs too. THIS IS ALSO TRUE. Its really not hard to understand. in the end, all these 'what ifs' are just petty excuses. no country is born with 'superior athletes' or 'better fighters', its all about how they train, which is why boxing has had world champions from a huge variety of different countries. You're resorting to calling me numbskull because you are fully aware that during periods of American dominance in any weightclass, no European or Asian or South American fan has ever claimed that the only reason that America was dominant was because all their best athletes played other games. American fans, however, do this constantly.

Only America offers sports besides boxing. I can't believe that, I was under the impression that the rest of the world played all different kinds of sports too. Bizzare that only America's best potential boxers end up playing different sports. no one has ever said that numbskull. If more HWs from basketball and football chose boxing instead of those sports, America would have better HWs. THIS IS TRUE. If more Europeans focused on boxing instead of Soccor/Football, then Europe would have better HWs too. THIS IS ALSO TRUE. Its really not hard to understand. in the end, all these 'what ifs' are just petty excuses. no country is born with 'superior athletes' or 'better fighters', its all about how they train, which is why boxing has had world champions from a huge variety of different countries.

It's ok to point out how much American Heavies suck, but people get offended when you offer explanations for the obvious. :nonono: Only America offers sports besides boxing. I can't believe that, I was under the impression that the rest of the world played all different kinds of sports too. Bizzare that only America's best potential boxers end up playing different sports.

well what do you expect? if a country's #1 sport is boxing, then obviously theyll have a lot of champions. In theory if every guy in India loved boxing and trained it since they were kids, there would be a huge amount of Indian champions. These 'what if's and excuses are mind numbing. 'If the USSR focused more on boxing it would have been better in boxing', well no ****. that could be said of any country anywhere. and I mean that for American HWs too. 'If HW size Americans werent in football/basketball and trained for boxing at an early age instead' isnt an excuse. Its just an explanation. it just irritates me when people say stuff like 'if the Soviets could have turned pro they would have ruled the division like today'. thats baloney. the best Soviet HWs fighting at the time lost in the Olympics to guys like Frazier, Foreman, Biggs, Rademacher, and Bowe, and this is before they even turned pro. It's ok to point out how much American Heavies suck, but people get offended when you offer explanations for the obvious. :nonono:

well what do you expect? if a country's #1 sport is boxing, then obviously theyll have a lot of champions. In theory if every guy in India loved boxing and trained it since they were kids, there would be a huge amount of Indian champions. These 'what if's and excuses are mind numbing. 'If the USSR focused more on boxing it would have been better in boxing', well no ****. that could be said of any country anywhere. and I mean that for American HWs too. 'If HW size Americans werent in football/basketball and trained for boxing at an early age instead' isnt an excuse. Its just an explanation. it just irritates me when people say stuff like 'if the Soviets could have turned pro they would have ruled the division like today'. thats baloney. the best Soviet HWs fighting at the time lost in the Olympics to guys like Frazier, Foreman, Biggs, Rademacher, and Bowe, and this is before they even turned pro.

sigh, this^^ card people play is irritating. The Soviets were prevented from turning pro...but they werent prevented from fighting in the amateurs/Olympics in particular. If you didnt know, George Foreman, when he was like 19 years old, knocked out the best Russian HW in the world, Ionas Chepulis, in the Finals. Likewise a young Joe Frazier was the gold medalist in 1964 at HW(meaning he was better than the best Soviet HW at that time), and Pete Rademacher KOed the best Soviet boxer Lev Mukhin(Honoured Master of Sports of the USSR) by KO in the first round in 1956, Tyrell Biggs winning gold in 1984, Riddick Bowe beating Soviet Aleksandr Miroshnichenko in 1988, etc. I think there would have been a few Soviets in the HW division worth of note, but a lot of their best guys were beaten by young version of the 70s HWs. Pshhhh....everyone knows the best Eastern European boxers were busy playing Hockey back then.

Perhaps if there were no Iron Curtain from the mid 40's until nearly 1990, there would have been Eastern Europeans dominating the heavyweights much sooner. Of course, had that happened, people would have said that Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes, Ali etc. were nothing but bums, and the best athletes then were playing football, basketball and baseball. sigh, this^^ card people play is irritating. The Soviets were prevented from turning pro...but they werent prevented from fighting in the amateurs/Olympics in particular. If you didnt know, George Foreman, when he was like 19 years old, knocked out the best Russian HW in the world, Ionas Chepulis, in the Finals. Likewise a young Joe Frazier was the gold medalist in 1964 at HW(meaning he was better than the best Soviet HW at that time), and Pete Rademacher KOed the best Soviet boxer Lev Mukhin(Honoured Master of Sports of the USSR) by KO in the first round in 1956, Tyrell Biggs winning gold in 1984, Riddick Bowe beating Soviet Aleksandr Miroshnichenko in 1988, etc. I think there would have been a few Soviets in the HW division worth of note, but a lot of their best guys were beaten by young version of the 70s HWs.

Sometimes American fight fans embarrass me with their ignorance toward other countries. It's as if they are under the impression that only America has other sports besides boxing.

Perhaps if there were no Iron Curtain from the mid 40's until nearly 1990, there would have been Eastern Europeans dominating the heavyweights much sooner. Of course, had that happened, people would have said that Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes, Ali etc. were nothing but bums, and the best athletes then were playing football, basketball and baseball.