Boxing requires very little sporting talent

According to that logic the pinnacle of talent and sports are found in snooker, table tennis and tennis. Absolutely Soccer too. Nobody has ever played for the first time ever at 19 and been a top pro

This is a great post because it highlights something nobody else is talking about. Human males have been physically adapted, by over a million years of evolution, for strike fighting, and especially for delivering powerful strikes with a closed fist, aka boxing. AI Overview: In evolutionary biology and psychology, there is a prominent theory suggesting that male bodies are partially shaped by natural and sexual selection for physical combat. Competition for resources and reproductive success favored males who were physically dominant and adept at fighting. 1, 2] Scientists point to several specific physiological and anatomical features that suggest a historical adaptation for fighting, particularly hand-to-hand combat and punching: 1, 2] Upper-Body Strength: On average, human males have roughly \(75\%\) more upper-body muscle mass than females, which provides a significant advantage in grappling and striking. The Human Fist: Unlike other primates, human hand proportions allow for the formation of a rigid fist, which some researchers argue evolved specifically to deliver blows without breaking the hand. Skull and Facial Structure: Certain features, such as more robust cheekbones, jaws, and brow ridges, correspond to the bones most frequently broken in fights, leading to the theory that early male hominins evolved more "punch-resistant" faces. Shoulder Mechanics: Male shoulder girdles allow for powerful, fast forward-arm motions that are optimized for throwing and striking. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] This is why boxing is known as the oldest competitive sport and "the king of combat sports" it's also the reason why any big, powerful guy will always be in with "a punchers chance" against a boxing champion. Or even a fucking grizzly bear! Because there is at least one documented case of an athletic, 200lb plus guy turning a charging grizzly by catching it coming in with a single huge punch to the head. He broke his hand and wrist doing it, but the grizzly stopped its charge, thought "fuck that .. I'm outa here" and ran away. The talent pool for boxing or any combat sports is basically 'The planet Earth. Because every single person in the World, needs an ability to defend themselves. It is an essential skill; this becomes very apparent when you first start attending school. Almost instinctually, people start to sort themselves out into levels'. And those levels are defined by 'who is the best fighter. That was one of the experiences for me personally in school. And it is the same for most people all over the World'. Note: So being able to fight, and be a competent athlete is an essential skill in life 'and has been for 1000's of years. And when I refer to being a component athlete, I am talking about the fundamental athletic skills such as running, jumping, throwing, sprinting, and endurance events. Those are the fundamental athletic skills which are used in all sports'. The facts of reality on planet earth is 'playing Soccer, Tennis, NFL, Basketball, you name it. Non of those activities have been a essential skill for survival. They are leisure activities that have only really gain popularity, in the last 100 years. And a lot of the reasons predominantly for mainstream team sports being popular is just a social thing. People want to be a part of a group'. I will actually acknowledge that Tennis does take a lot of talent 'and I personally rate all individual sports, separate to team sports. I just believe they have a higher level of jeopardy, and demand a higher work ethic to either become the best or just compete at a top level'. There are certain sports, where you don't have to be a supporter to have a interest 'Boxing is one of those sports. It is not a leisure activity, which is why it is quite silly to compare it to mainstream modern day team sports'. And I am specifically highlighting those sports 'because the thread starter, is using those sports to demean boxing. They have only been a factor for approximately 100 years. Will they even be relevant in 1000 years time? Will a leisure activity be relevant in 1000's years time. There is a likely-hood that mankind could have create new sports to overhaul them'. To conclude: Overall boxing demands both innate talent and then a supreme level of work ethic 'to force yourself into a sport as barbaric as boxing in this civilized world, needs an athlete to have a very extreme competitive attitude'. The pressure to win is just off the scale 'if you are not winning, then you don't move forward. In many other sports, especially the mainstream modern day team sports. A rookie athlete can just show a flash of talent, and get some sort of contract with a team'. In boxing the world 'does not work like that. If Anthony Joshua did not win the 2012 Olympics, his career may have taken a completely different trajectory' etc.

I'm hoping to make the OP realise that by comparing boxing to tennis, he is illustrating exactly why the point he's been trying to prove in this thread is wrong.. If tennis is all about talent, then why couldn't somebody with a natural talent for tennis take it up age 21 and compete with Nadal? Truth is, tennis isn't primarily about talent, it's about taking up a very basic, simple sport at a young age, then spending years and years repetitively practising the same basic moves, in the same situations, over and over again, until they become second nature and you can respond instinctively and instantly without having to think about it, to whatever your opponent does. Obviously,there is an element of natural ability, aka talent, involved, but years of repetitive practice, from childhood on, under the supervision of an experienced professional coach, is the most important factor. And if boxing is all about physical attributes, then how could somebody like Fabio Wardley take up boxing at age 21 and become a world champion in a division full of guys with the same physical attributes as him? Answer: The same reason why Usyk could first set foot in a boxing gym at the of 15 and become world amateur champ and Olympic gold medalist 6 years later. And 6 years after that, he wins his first world title as a pro. Obviously, repetitive training to build up fitness, muscle memory and instinctive reactions is also important in boxing, but talent matters more in boxing than in tennis, which is why naturally talented guys like Fabio and Usyk can progress so much faster in boxing than in tennis. I get it. I just decided to do it differently. But of course, a lot can be said, and I think you can get more practical skills from boxing than from tennis, for example. Is boxing the hardest or the most demanding sport? It depends on what defines those two. Because gymnastics is harder and more demanding on the body in one way. In another, it is boxing that is tougher for the body, because of the damage. Taekwondo also requires more skills; in the end it creates worse quality fighters than boxing, I'd say.

Boxing or fighting is an innate ability for most people 'tennis, football, basketball are not innate abilities or activities. They have to be taught from the bottom up. They are modern day leisure activities, with in reality very little history within mankind's time on earth'. I think you are way off if you claim 'boxing involves less talent. Because? Fighting is one attribute which as aided in our survival for 1000's of years. In nature being able to play Soccer, Tennis and basketball will not really aid in your survival. Those activities have merely only risen up in society, since humans have become more comfortable and society a lot more civilized'. There is no need to be hysterical about this deathoftheclown 'surely you are not one of those men who get all hysterical watching other men run around a field kicking a ball? Come on. Do you really think men were behaving like this 1000's of years ago? No they were not. Men were ether fighting or being forced to be great athletes. And when I say great athletes, I am not talking about kicking a football, or throwing a ball into a basket'. And the fact of the matter is? The best athletes in the world 'are not in the sports you have mentioned on this thread. To attempt to put down boxing'. The fastest, strongest and most enduring athletes in the world are not soccer, tennis, basketball players. We know this because? Sport such as Track and Field, Cycling, Swimming, Olympic, Power lifting and strong man events. The fundamental basis of all those sports is to measure mankind's pure ability when it comes to speed, endurance, power and strength'. Note: You are obviously most likely a hysterical fan of soccer 'whoever you think if hard man in soccer, is getting absolute pulverized in a boxing ring or street by a top level boxer. Players like Roy Keane, and whoever they are all getting smashed up badly'. Whoever you think is the fastest soccer ever 'would most likely be beaten very easily by country level track and field athlete, I won't even compare them to national level track and field athletes. I have seen semi-professional and professional football players, be annihilated week in and week out on the track. Whatever you want, speed or endurance training sessions'. When it comes to fighting 'we know that boxers, mixed arts fighters, and all the other combats sports. Those are the best athletes in the World at fighting'. And being able to fight, has been a essential skill for mankind 'in order to survive on earth. Playing Soccer, Tennis, and basketball has not been an essential skill. They are modern day leisure activates, entertainment in the similar way to Coronation street, and EastEnders. Those are the facts'. So to say that boxing requires less talent, does not make any sense 'because being able to fight is what has aided mankind's survival'. All of those sports you have brought into this thread, to demean boxing 'what are they actually the best of deathoftheclown? What are we watching here, that has any deep historical relevance? Because as I have just told you? They are not the fastest, strongest, most enduring athletes in the World. They are playing leisure games which takes a great deal of skill and dedication, but I think being a all-time great artist may take even more skill'. Paul Gascoigne was a great football player 'but he was not the best athlete in the world. Do you really think he has the fastest most acute reactions times in sports? No. So was his Spatial Awareness greater than a formula 1, or World Rally Car Driver? No, don't be silly, and sit yourself down with that absolute crap. You have been saying on this thread'. A Formula 1 driver has to make decisions 'in hundredths of a second. And this decision can potentially determine whether they stay on this planet. Because they are moving in a object at over 200 plus miles per hour at times'. And this similar level of jeopardy is also in boxing 'fighters have to make decisions in split seconds. Wrong decision? Or you don't execute a move fast enough? You can be removed from this planet and put into another realm of reality'. To conclude: The point I am trying to make here on this thread deathoftheclown 'you have attempted to put down and demean boxing. By using bunch of modern day leisure activities, that for sure? Are very popularly, but so is Coronation street and EastEnders'. So in my opinion, which is back up by 1000's of years of history. Boxing definitively involves a lot of talent. And the jeopardy involved in the sport, makes it a way more serious sport than many of the sports you are using to demean it'. And I am marginalizing and specifically highlighting Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, and more, the general modern day mainstream leisure activities. Great sports, awesome entertainment, tremendous athletes. But I personally don't put them in the same category as elite level boxers' etc. This is a great post because it highlights something nobody else is talking about. Human males have been physically adapted, by over a million years of evolution, for strike fighting, and especially for delivering powerful strikes with a closed fist, aka boxing. AI Overview: In evolutionary biology and psychology, there is a prominent theory suggesting that male bodies are partially shaped by natural and sexual selection for physical combat. Competition for resources and reproductive success favored males who were physically dominant and adept at fighting. 1, 2] Scientists point to several specific physiological and anatomical features that suggest a historical adaptation for fighting, particularly hand-to-hand combat and punching: 1, 2] Upper-Body Strength: On average, human males have roughly \(75\%\) more upper-body muscle mass than females, which provides a significant advantage in grappling and striking. The Human Fist: Unlike other primates, human hand proportions allow for the formation of a rigid fist, which some researchers argue evolved specifically to deliver blows without breaking the hand. Skull and Facial Structure: Certain features, such as more robust cheekbones, jaws, and brow ridges, correspond to the bones most frequently broken in fights, leading to the theory that early male hominins evolved more "punch-resistant" faces. Shoulder Mechanics: Male shoulder girdles allow for powerful, fast forward-arm motions that are optimized for throwing and striking. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] This is why boxing is known as the oldest competitive sport and "the king of combat sports" it's also the reason why any big, powerful guy will always be in with "a punchers chance" against a boxing champion. Or even a fucking grizzly bear! Because there is at least one documented case of an athletic, 200lb plus guy turning a charging grizzly by catching it coming in with a single huge punch to the head. He broke his hand and wrist doing it, but the grizzly stopped its charge, thought "fuck that .. I'm outa here" and ran away.

Going to argue about an initially wrong statement with nothing solid behind it is falling into a trap - ok, boxing is the sport that barely requires any talent at all. We like it anyway. :):):)

Going to argue about an initially wrong statement with nothing solid behind it is falling into a trap - ok, boxing is the sport that barely requires any talent at all. We like it anyway. I'm hoping to make the OP realise that by comparing boxing to tennis, he is illustrating exactly why the point he's been trying to prove in this thread is wrong.. If tennis is all about talent, then why couldn't somebody with a natural talent for tennis take it up age 21 and compete with Nadal? Truth is, tennis isn't primarily about talent, it's about taking up a very basic, simple sport at a young age, then spending years and years repetitively practising the same basic moves, in the same situations, over and over again, until they become second nature and you can respond instinctively and instantly without having to think about it, to whatever your opponent does. Obviously,there is an element of natural ability, aka talent, involved, but years of repetitive practice, from childhood on, under the supervision of an experienced professional coach, is the most important factor. And if boxing is all about physical attributes, then how could somebody like Fabio Wardley take up boxing at age 21 and become a world champion in a division full of guys with the same physical attributes as him? Answer: The same reason why Usyk could first set foot in a boxing gym at the of 15 and become world amateur champ and Olympic gold medalist 6 years later. And 6 years after that, he wins his first world title as a pro. Obviously, repetitive training to build up fitness, muscle memory and instinctive reactions is also important in boxing, but talent matters more in boxing than in tennis, which is why naturally talented guys like Fabio and Usyk can progress so much faster in boxing than in tennis.

Going to argue about an initially wrong statement with nothing solid behind it is falling into a trap - ok, boxing is the sport that barely requires any talent at all. We like it anyway.

But nobody could start tennis at 21, put in 10 years of hardwork and start competing with Nadal :lol1: in boxing you can because it takes less talent to get to the top. You are out of your mind. What special talent do you think is required to knock a ball over a net with a bat?

According to that logic the pinnacle of talent and sports are found in snooker, table tennis and tennis.

What you are saying here is not true. There are late bloomers in any sport you care to mention and I don't know a single example of a guy who took up boxing as an adult and became a world champion without years of hard work and dedication, working his way up through the levels. Fabio Wardley is rightly revered for his freakishly fast progress after taking up boxing at age 21, but even he took 10 years to become a world champion after first lacing on the gloves. On average, even elite amateurs take around 5 years to become elite level pros after turning over, which is probably about the same amount of time it takes a gifted footballer to go from Sunday League to international level. But nobody could start tennis at 21, put in 10 years of hardwork and start competing with Nadal :lol1: in boxing you can because it takes less talent to get to the top.

Boxing or fighting is an innate ability for most people 'tennis, football, basketball are not innate abilities or activities. They have to be taught from the bottom up. They are modern day leisure activities, with in reality very little history within mankind's time on earth'. I think you are way off if you claim 'boxing involves less talent. Because? Fighting is one attribute which as aided in our survival for 1000's of years. In nature being able to play Soccer, Tennis and basketball will not really aid in your survival. Those activities have merely only risen up in society, since humans have become more comfortable and society a lot more civilized'. There is no need to be hysterical about this deathoftheclown 'surely you are not one of those men who get all hysterical watching other men run around a field kicking a ball? Come on. Do you really think men were behaving like this 1000's of years ago? No they were not. Men were ether fighting or being forced to be great athletes. And when I say great athletes, I am not talking about kicking a football, or throwing a ball into a basket'. And the fact of the matter is? The best athletes in the world 'are not in the sports you have mentioned on this thread. To attempt to put down boxing'. The fastest, strongest and most enduring athletes in the world are not soccer, tennis, basketball players. We know this because? Sport such as Track and Field, Cycling, Swimming, Olympic, Power lifting and strong man events. The fundamental basis of all those sports is to measure mankind's pure ability when it comes to speed, endurance, power and strength'. Note: You are obviously most likely a hysterical fan of soccer 'whoever you think if hard man in soccer, is getting absolute pulverized in a boxing ring or street by a top level boxer. Players like Roy Keane, and whoever they are all getting smashed up badly'. Whoever you think is the fastest soccer ever 'would most likely be beaten very easily by country level track and field athlete, I won't even compare them to national level track and field athletes. I have seen semi-professional and professional football players, be annihilated week in and week out on the track. Whatever you want, speed or endurance training sessions'. When it comes to fighting 'we know that boxers, mixed arts fighters, and all the other combats sports. Those are the best athletes in the World at fighting'. And being able to fight, has been a essential skill for mankind 'in order to survive on earth. Playing Soccer, Tennis, and basketball has not been an essential skill. They are modern day leisure activates, entertainment in the similar way to Coronation street, and EastEnders. Those are the facts'. So to say that boxing requires less talent, does not make any sense 'because being able to fight is what has aided mankind's survival'. All of those sports you have brought into this thread, to demean boxing 'what are they actually the best of deathoftheclown? What are we watching here, that has any deep historical relevance? Because as I have just told you? They are not the fastest, strongest, most enduring athletes in the World. They are playing leisure games which takes a great deal of skill and dedication, but I think being a all-time great artist may take even more skill'. Paul Gascoigne was a great football player 'but he was not the best athlete in the world. Do you really think he has the fastest most acute reactions times in sports? No. So was his Spatial Awareness greater than a formula 1, or World Rally Car Driver? No, don't be silly, and sit yourself down with that absolute crap. You have been saying on this thread'. A Formula 1 driver has to make decisions 'in hundredths of a second. And this decision can potentially determine whether they stay on this planet. Because they are moving in a object at over 200 plus miles per hour at times'. And this similar level of jeopardy is also in boxing 'fighters have to make decisions in split seconds. Wrong decision? Or you don't execute a move fast enough? You can be removed from this planet and put into another realm of reality'. To conclude: The point I am trying to make here on this thread deathoftheclown 'you have attempted to put down and demean boxing. By using bunch of modern day leisure activities, that for sure? Are very popularly, but so is Coronation street and EastEnders'. So in my opinion, which is back up by 1000's of years of history. Boxing definitively involves a lot of talent. And the jeopardy involved in the sport, makes it a way more serious sport than many of the sports you are using to demean it'. And I am marginalizing and specifically highlighting Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, and more, the general modern day mainstream leisure activities. Great sports, awesome entertainment, tremendous athletes. But I personally don't put them in the same category as elite level boxers' etc.

Indeed.. but the point is one of those kids could go onto be world champ and then end up losing to guys that had never put on gloves until they were an adult That could never happen in pretty much any other sport because the talent required to get to the top is simply unattainable for someone picking it up as an adult I'm not saying boxing requires NO talent to be a topguy, just much less than many other sports What you are saying here is not true. There are late bloomers in any sport you care to mention and I don't know a single example of a guy who took up boxing as an adult and became a world champion without years of hard work and dedication, working his way up through the levels. Fabio Wardley is rightly revered for his freakishly fast progress after taking up boxing at age 21, but even he took 10 years to become a world champion after first lacing on the gloves. On average, even elite amateurs take around 5 years to become elite level pros after turning over, which is probably about the same amount of time it takes a gifted footballer to go from Sunday League to international level.

It's just as possible for 2 kids to go to the same boxing coach and end up on different levels. It happens all the time. Indeed.. but the point is one of those kids could go onto be world champ and then end up losing to guys that had never put on gloves until they were an adult That could never happen in pretty much any other sport because the talent required to get to the top is simply unattainable for someone picking it up as an adult I'm not saying boxing requires NO talent to be a topguy, just much less than many other sports

Yeah I didn't know that until they were talking about it in the fight Usyk should have had a real camp and came in shape, I never seen him that lazy before. If Tyson fury was using him as a REPEAT sparring partner then you know the guy is good and seen as a real boxer to them In fact the fight had that kind of vibe of a ln embarrassing sparring session we should t be seeing, the stories you hear of the champ staying out late, losing focus, getting roughed up in sparring but it's been aired in public Rico was moving like a lightweight that is why Usyk couldn't figure him out.

Tennis requires all those things except punching power and chin. That's why two kids can go to the same tennis coach and be completely different levels. I.e Andy Murray and his brother. It's just as possible for 2 kids to go to the same boxing coach and end up on different levels. It happens all the time.

So we can both agree that contact sports take way less talent to compete at the top than contact sports Proves my point We can agree that you need a talent for playing tennis to become an elite level tennis player. Exactly the same thing applies to boxing. But boxing being a full contact sport means that boxing talent can take different forms, while tennis is a more tightly structured, formulaic game. In other words, there are more ways to skin a cat in boxing than there are in tennis.

Typical deathofabum thread People confuse ‘you can start late’ with ‘it doesn’t require talent’ Boxing actually relies heavily on innate traits you can’t teach ie chin, punching power, speed, reflexes, timing, composure under pressure, killer instinct. You can improve technique and conditioning, but you can’t manufacture those attributes. That’s why two fighters can train the same way and end up on completely different levels. Tennis requires all those things except punching power and chin. That's why two kids can go to the same tennis coach and be completely different levels. I.e Andy Murray and his brother.

That's a real apples to oranges comparison. Tennis, unlike boxing, is a non-contact sport. I reckon I would have a decent chance of beating Federer if the rules of tennis allowed me to jump over the net and tackle him to the ground or punch him in the mouth when he was getting ready to serve. So we can both agree that contact sports take way less talent to compete at the top than contact sports Proves my point

He has also been training with Peter Fury and sparring world class boxers for over 10 years. Yeah I didn't know that until they were talking about it in the fight Usyk should have had a real camp and came in shape, I never seen him that lazy before. If Tyson fury was using him as a REPEAT sparring partner then you know the guy is good and seen as a real boxer to them In fact the fight had that kind of vibe of a ln embarrassing sparring session we should t be seeing, the stories you hear of the champ staying out late, losing focus, getting roughed up in sparring but it's been aired in public

Well a lot of things have been shattered. I think it's been shown how heavy boxing relies on athleticism and stamina. A lot of formerly elite guys in their 50s and 60 will get rag dolled by guys in their 20s. Logan Paul can knock out Mike tyson or evander holyfield just based on their age and his youth but I am not convinced he could do a 6 month basketball camp and beat a 63 year old MJ in 1 on 1