By Stephen "Breadman" Edwards
The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling dozens of topics, such as Deontay Wilder vs. Anthony Joshua, fighters deciding to remain free agents, Kevin Cunningham's growing stable of fighters, Abel Sanchez, Canelo Alvarez, and more.
Hey Bread, certain fighters in this era are sure fire HOF’s. In my opinion with their current body of work GGG, Lomo, Chocolatito, Crawford, Nonito, Pac-Man to name a few are definitely in. With upcoming schedules do any of these guys get in with these scenarios.
Garcia with a win over Easter and beating Spence at 147
Russell Jr with a win over Santa Cruz and defeating Lomo at lightweight
Canelo with win over GGG and Billy Joe
Wilder and Joshua winner
Bread’s Response: Good question. I actually love your analysis. I think you’re correct about Mikey Garcia. Beating Easter and Spence at 147 would be absolutely insane. That would make him a 5 division champion. Only 2 men in history have won real titles at 126 and 147 and that’s Henry Armstrong and Manny Pacquiao. Easter is a real threat and that would be a unification win. A unification win is much more sturdy than just moving up and cherry picking a title. Then a win over Errol Spence at 147 would one of the best wins of the last 30 years. Think about how many ex featherweights in history could beat a 147 pounder as good as Errol Spence. If Mikey Garcia pulled that off he walks into the HOF.
Gary Russell doesn’t have a great championship reign. So he needs a few big victories. The win over Santa Cruz would be big but that wouldn’t be enough for Russell in my opinion. Beating Loma at lightweight would be huge. I say that could put Russell over the top. But it all depends on the voters. I read the comments of some of the HOF voters and they really don’t like Russell’s inactivity and outlook on boxing. So let’s see.. I think he’s a terrific fighter but for whatever reason he’s not a favorite of the media. I’ve noticed that “well liked” fighters get in the Hall easier if it’s a borderline argument.
If it weren’t for the positive PED test result Canelo would already be a HOF. I think his legacy depends on the outcome of his next few fights. Beating GGG and Saunders under strict testing would be a step in the right direction. But I think he needs to win under testing consistently. If he stops testing in between fights, I think it hurts him. Let’s see how it plays out.
I’m not sure about Wilder or Joshua. Joshua has a better resume and he unified. A win in a super fight like that would put him around Riddick Bowe as far as accomplishments. Wilder may have to do a little bit more but that would be a big win. Wilder almost has 10 title defenses and he’s almost 40-0. I don’t think there is a heavyweight in history with more than 10 defenses who is not a HOF. So AJ is closer than Wilder in my opinion but both could be on the cusp with the win over the other.
I also agree with you. GGG, Loma, Crawford, Donaire, Pacman and Chocolatito are all in. Crawford and Loma have to be careful though because they can’t fall off like say Donald Curry did. He was just as good as them until his fall off and he’s still not in.
I also think you left out Monster Inoue. He’s already 11-0 in title fights and a 3 division champion. If he wins the Bantamweight tournament with that stacked field. He may not only be a HOF but possibly the best P4P fighter in boxing.
Enjoyed your analysis of the three weight World Champions and their legacy. This brings me to Ricky Burns. I would absolutely agree that Ricky is not HOF but I think he deserves great credit for achieving what he has with his ability. He also seems like one of boxings good guys. My question to you - who are your top 5 boxers who achieved most with less?
Bread’s Response: Burns is definitely an overachiever and I respect him. It’s just that his accomplishments would only fly in this era. Nevertheless he’s a tough fighter and real competitor. Much respect.
When you say achieved the most with less I assume you mean lack of athletic ability, experience, power, size or speed.
I would say Rocky Marciano has to be at or near the top of the list. He was short for heavyweight even in the 50’s. He had a late start to boxing. He wasn’t fast or athletic. I know the critics claim he fought his toughest opponents when they were older and that is true. But only Joe Louis was shot when he fought Marciano. You can’t really count that fight as a great win.
But Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Joe Walcott were not shot fighters. They were just older fighters. They all had more pedigree, athleticism, experience and speed over Marciano. And Marciano overcame the challenges. Revisionist history is not fair to anyone. Marciano was a legitimate great fighter with iron will, an iron punch and fish like lungs.
Bernard Hopkins is another guy who comes to mind and he has to be in the top 5 of fighters who did the most with less. It’s not that Hopkins was a shabby athlete, he actually has athleticism, but it’s just not overwhelming. I say it’s a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. But for Hopkins to win the title at 30 years old and compete at the top level until he was over 50 is mouth dropping. For him to win the lightheavyweight title 3 times in his 40s is why you call him an Alien. The greatest part of it is, usually fighters who fight great at late ages are punchers like Archie Moore and George Foreman. But Hopkins has not scored one ko in his 40s. So he’s winning on IQ, fundamentals and will power. All of his fights go the distance. It’s just insane to think about.
Carl Froch is a guy I think of when I think of an over achiever. He’s stiff, he’s not really fast. He doesn’t throw perfect punches. Froch is not close to being a super talent. But not only did he put together a HOF career. He’s one of the top 10 super middleweights ever and he fought killer after killer to get there. He did it all on instincts, stamina and will power. For Froch to be a lock HOF should let every young talented fighter know that, talent lies as much on the inside as it does the outside.
Dwight Qawi. This is a name most young guys won’t know. But this guy was under 5’7 and won a title at lightheavyweight and cruiser weight. He also fought well as a heavyweight. Did I mention he had a late start to boxing. Qawi is an absolute incredible fighter and is a HOF.
Glen Johnson will round out my top 5. Johnson is about 5’9. He’s not fast. Not a huge puncher. Got robbed and loss several times at 160 and 168. Then he moves up to 175 and wins the lightheavyweight title and wins Fighter of the Year by beating Roy Jones and Antonio Tarver. I can’t make this up. Johnson is as tough and determined as a fighter you will ever see. He’s an absolute truth machine.
I read your response about Demetrius Andrade and I agree. I don’t think you overrate him. I think he’s a talented fighter and I think you recognize his obvious talents, as you should. But I have noticed something about him that you haven’t mentioned. Some label him as mismanaged. I have a degree in sports psychology and I will tell you. I don’t think Andrade is mismanaged. I think he’s making it look exactly how he wants it to look. He’s not in the position for big fights because he doesn’t want to be in the position to be big fights. I’ve seen this many times in my practice. I used to work for a professional basketball team that I can’t name but I know the signs. I’ve seen players who are intimidated by challenging themselves and they self sabotage their careers and make it look as if they are the victims of never getting a fair shake.
I believe Andrade is one of those fighters. I also believe Andrade was to retire undefeated and go down as a myth of greatness that never had the opportunity. I’m also well versed in sports law. If Andrade wanted to fight he wouldn’t keep resigning with the same promoters or management who are supposedly screwing him over. A contract does not extend your entire career and his has been 10 years so far. Andrade rinse and repeats his same scheme over and over. Fights and overwhelmed opponent, takes off in between fights. Screams that no one will fight him, without beating the kind of opponent that will garner him his opportunity, then after his layoff he comes back and fights the same level of opponent. If you observe closely Andrade struggles with his best opponents and therefore I believe he can’t deal with losing at the elite level. He would rather claim he’s blackballed or never got a chance. I agree with you he’s talented and he would give any of the top fighters a significant test but his mentality won’t allow him to be on the level many thinks he deserves.
Thank you and oh by the way I see you’re a Lebron James fan. I agree with you he’s the second best basketball player ever. His mental make up is unique and a total contrast to what I see in Andrade. You have what we call the “eye”. James is just as competitive as Michael Jordan his demeanor and make up are just different.
Bread’s Response: Interesting…. Yes I think the world of Lebron James. The scrutiny he’s been under since he was a 15 yr old kid is like nothing no one has ever been under. Pressure is an understatement. But the series is over and my guy lost so let’s get back to boxing.
I don’t know what to say about your evaluation of Demetrius Andrade. I will just stand down because you are the supposed expert. I try not challenge or debate anyone that is more qualified than myself. I have a deep understanding of human psychology but I’m no doctor. You have an intricate take on Andrade that someone in boxing actually stated before. I don’t have an opinion either way because I want to see how things play out for him… Time always tells the truth. Thanks for writing in you gave me a unique perspective.
What do you think of Claressa Shields’s comments that she’s the best women’s fighter ever? Were you impressed with her performance? How does she match up with the German girl Hammer? Can you give me your top 10 P4P women’s boxers?
I will be the first to say that I’m turned off by Shields’s behavior. I just don’t like her antics, demeanor and ghetto personality. I can see why she didn’t get one sponsor after her fist Olympic gold. She’s very abrasive and pushy. What are your thoughts on her overall?
Bread’s Response: It’s not politically correct to say ghetto behavior these days. But I guess you can say whatever you want behind the keyboard.
I didn’t hear Shields say she’s the best fighter ever, I’m no disputing what you say I just didn’t watch any interviews etc. However, I did see the fight a few days after it was aired. I don’t know who the best women’s fighter ever is. I’m not qualified to say honestly. From what I have seen I would guess Lucia Rijker or Ann Wolfe but I just don’t know enough about women’s boxing to say for sure.
I was impressed with Shields’s performance. Her opponent looked capable and Shields was knocked down. Shields held it together and went on to win a hotly contested fight. That was not an easy fight.
I think the German girl you speak of is Christina Hammer. I saw about 4 rounds of her fight also. I think it’s a tough match up. I think it’s a distance fight. Hammer can box, she’s tall and she seems well conditioned. Hammer has solid boxing fundamentals and that’s always tough to get by. However, I give Shields a slight edge maybe 55/45 but it won’t be easy. I think Shields is an athletic overwhelming fighter. She has a good jab, she’s physically strong and she’s not afraid to get hit. I think her advantage over Hammer is Hammer is vulnerable because of her stance. Hammer is straight up and down without a fluid defense. Hammer will be vulnerable with a jab to the belly and over hand shots to the head. I expect a close controversial fight actually because I don’t think either has the power to knock the other out, although I view Shields as the better puncher.
I can’t give a top 10 P4P in women’s boxing I don’t watch enough women’s boxing. But I suppose Shields has to be in it. I can’t imagine 10 women being better than her.
Thanks for writing in about the women. It’s good change up. I never get questions about women’s boxing.
I know you have been high on Abel Sanchez as a trainer. Has that thought changed because of his racist comments about black fighters being boring. I read your last mailbag about the exciting black fighters. But I want to know your thoughts specifically on Sanchez as a trainer and his comments.
Bread’s Response: I still think Abel Sanchez is a great trainer. I don’t know if his comments were racist. I think that his views are his subjective preference to a style of fighter. It’s a big difference. Sanchez has always been nice and respectful to me. And I know for a fact he respects black fighters. He hires plenty of black fighters to get GGG ready for camp. If he didn’t respect black fighters he wouldn’t trust them to get GGG ready for big fights. He also compares great black middleweights like Sugar Ray Robinson and Marvin Hagler favorably to GGG.
The way Sanchez feels about black fighters being boring is not his opinion alone. Many say that off the record. I disagree with that because the most exciting fighters I have ever seen were black. Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and Aaron Pryor were among the most “exciting” fighters I have ever seen along with Arturo Gatti and Diego Corrales. So I don’t agree with Sanchez’s opinion. But again I don’t know if that that makes him a racist just because he doesn’t enjoy a certain style of boxing.
In sports we have stereotypes, generalizations and pre judgments. I think Sanchez’s opinion falls under one of those categories. Many people in boxing look at certain races or ethnicities and associate a certain style or label. For a while people would repeat Mexicans are come forward sluggers. But if you generalize you are usually wrong because Salavador Sanchez, Canelo Alvarez and Juan Manuel Marquez dispel that myth. In the matchmaking of fighters generalizations are common.
One last thing. I think Abel Sanchez is a very smart guy. I think he says certain things in the art of SKULLDUGGERY. He likes to say that fighters run from GGG and are boring so they can stand and fight him. He’s predisposing the audience to his influence. He knows GGG is a killer and a huge puncher, so if you stand and trade with him, he has a better chance of knocking you out. I always analyze the perspective in which something comes from. Sanchez knows Canelo fights GGG in more of a so called black style than he does a Mexican style. Canelo fights more like James Toney than he does Ruben Olivares. So therefore Sanchez is smart of enough to attach the label running or boring to Canelo so he can sway opinion in his fighter’s favor. I don’t know for sure but it’s just a hunch of mine. But I suspect my hunch to be true. A good coach will do many things in order to get his fighter the advantage. Sanchez is one of the best coaches in boxing.
I have seen many fighters recently go to Kevin Cunningham. Broner, Davis, Easter and now Lubin. What do you think of Cunningham as a coach. I think he’s solid but nothing spectacular. He’s never produced the best fighter in the world or a fighter of the year or anything close. I’m not disparaging him as a coach but I don’t understand the trend of top fighters going to be with him all at once like he is Ray Arcel or Eddie Futch.
Bread’s Response: I really respect Kevin Cunningham. Obviously fighters do too because they go to him for discipline and structure. That says a lot about his character. He’s obviously a no nonsense guy. Each fighter that has went to him recently claims to have had structure trouble with their camps or discipline problems. Cunningham is a figure of discipline.
I personally don’t rate coaches like you do. Here are the things I look for. Does the coach underachieve or overachieve with fighters? If you have a coach who has or acquires the best amateur in the world and that fighter turns out to be 17-3 as a pro and never wins a title then he most likely underachieved. If a coach is always losing fights with a fighter that is a big favorite or opponents visibly less talented, then he underachieved. I have never seen Cunningham underachieve with a fighter.
Cory Spinks went on the win some big fights and became a two division champion. He also unified at 147 and many thought he beat Jermaine Taylor at 160. Watch that fight with the sound off.
Devon Alexander also won two titles in two weight classes and he’s been a solid performer his whole career. Cunningham also got the most he could out of Sakio Bika. My point is Cunningham does not underachieve with fighters.
I then look to see if he’s overachieved with fighters. I look to see if a fighter has outperformed expectations. Cory Spinks certainly did and almost beat the lineal middleweight champion which is a big deal. That victory would have put Spinks in the HOF….
I then check to see if a fighter leaves the coach after a loss. I once heard Buddy McGirt say this and I agree 100%. Fighters always look to blame everyone after they lose and they can’t leave themselves, so they leave the coach. Cunningham must be a high character guy because Spinks lost on his way to the title. And he stayed with Cunningham. Spinks took some tough losses after being a champ and he still stayed. Alexander struggled badly in plenty of fights vs Bradley, Kotelnik, Khan and Matthysse and he stayed with Cunningham and still is with him until this day. I’m not saying a good coach has never been left by a fighter. Obviously that wouldn’t be true. I’m sure fighters have left Cunningham.
But it tells me something that his fighters have stuck with him after losses or bad performances. It tells me that he gives it his all in gym and his fighters respect him for doing the best job he can. It tells me that the fighters who have lost know themselves that they didn’t do certain things right and it wasn’t always Cunningham’s fault.
This is a huge point in boxing. Think about this. How many fighters in boxing take a loss and immediately change teams. Fighters will blame everyone under the sun except themselves. But for whatever reason Cunningham has not been left too often in those cases which tells me he’s a man of honor. It tells me he’s in the gym on time. It tells me he works his guys hard. It tells me he’s not lazy. It tells me he comes up with good gameplans. It doesn’t always mean he wins but it means he gives 100% effort.
As far as Cunningham not having the best fighter P4P. That is often a birth right. It’s a god given talent that needs to be cultivated by a great coach. There has only been about 30 best fighter P4P in the history of boxing. So to get that fighter you have to be very blessed along with being a good coach. In honestly Cunningham has never had a fighter good enough to be the very best in the world. It’s such a special honor to coach a fighter so good that no one in history has ever had two while they were #1 except Angelo Dundee in Ali and Leonard and both will tell you Dundee was more manager than trainer.
So don’t hold that against Cunningham. Look at the fighters he has had an opportunity to train, assess their ability and tell me if he has gotten the most out of them. I think he has. That’s all you can ask for out of a coach. He can only play with the cards he’s been dealt.
Fighters look at a trainer’s work. They look and see what kind of job a trainer has done with a fighter. Then they compare themselves to those fighters and they imagine what the trainer can do with them. I assume that the new fighters that have went to Cunningham will say to themselves, that Cunningham did a great job with Spinks and Alexander. But if you notice neither Spinks or Alexander are big punchers or what you call freak talents. So this new group of kids probably feel like they can go further. It’s just how fighters think. Let’s see how they perform with him. It’s not always the wins and losses but it’s the performances. We shall see….
Hey Stephen. One quick question here hoping you can shed a little light maybe break this down. Fighters like Micky Garcia and Errol Spence It choose not to have a big-time promoter like Top Tank or Golden Boy, trying to market their own brands out. Does it simply things for them? More money in their pockets type of deal. Is it good or bad for the sport that fighters are starting to go this route. Why don't more men try and do this?
Stephen in Canada
Bread’s Response: Another great question. Every fighter does not need a promoter but every fighter needs to be PROMOTED. Errol Spence and Mikey Garcia get promoted they just don’t have a promoter by label doing it. Showtime, PBC, Publicist and their core group of team members promote them. Just because something or someone does not have a label it doesn’t mean a job is not being done.
It’s really no right or wrong way to do it. Some fighters like Floyd Mayweather broke away from the standard Promoter practice and he turned out to be the biggest money maker ever. Ray Leonard also did it this way. It didn’t start with Spence and Garcia. When you do it this way a promoter gets a flat fee to promote the event you are in. I think the star fighters who do it this way go home with more of the available monies. But it doesn’t mean promoters are useless.
The reason being is because of the standard form of pay. The network pays a certain amount for a fight. This is called the Rights Fee. The Promoters or representatives of each fighter decide how the Rights Fee will get broken down. For example lets say John Doe vs Ron Doe is set to fight. The network agrees to pay 1 million for the fight. Let’s say the reps agree on a 50/50 split. Ok here is the thing. You would assume that each fighters gets 500k. Well that’s not the case with fighters with promoters. The Promoter usually takes 20% before the money gets tot the fighter. In the case where the fighter does not have a “promoter” that fee is much less. So there lies that benefit.
Now let’s go to the promoter’s side. Tom Loeffler has done remarkable job with GGG. Just as Golden Boy has done with Canelo and Top Rank did with Manny Pacquiao. But here is the thing in all of these cases, the fighter is a rare talent that has an appeal to the public. When you have a promoter who has invested in you, you usually don’t make as much money early, but if you can break through and be a star it usually benefits you later. You can become more mainstream because of the promoter’s vested interest. Fighters with active promoters usually get promoted more in between fights which is a BIG benefit. The fighters who don’t have promoters, need,publicist and core members of their teams to keep their name afloat.
Activity is also a benefit. Promoted fighters usually stay more active, especially after losses. The reason being is a good promoter can put you in off tv fights without losing money because they can generate money from gate sales and sponsors that has nothing to do with the network Rights Fees. A promoter who just works with you on a fight by fight basis will not make that investment.
There are many things to consider. Talent level, chemistry with the promoter, logistics, track record etc. I have seen promoters do a better job with certain races. I’ve seen promoters take much bigger chunks of the Rights Fees than usual and they never really invest in the fighters. I’ve seen promoters do a great job and reinvest like K2 did with GGG. GGG was not making huge money early but he stuck the course and now he’s bringing in huge money.
I don’t know if there will be a specific trend because I’ve seen it work both ways. The trend will be fighters becoming more aware of how the money is generated. Most still don’t know. I also believe this. The better the fighter the more leverage you have. Great fighters break the trend. The thing we must all realize is that great fighters are not the norm. So the key is producing a great fighter and winning a huge fight. When you do that, it doesn’t matter if you have a promoter or advisor or whatever you want to call it, you will have much more leverage and get treated better than otherwise. Your offers will be bigger, regardless of where the money comes from because the people in power understand they need to pay you correctly for your services. It’s all about leverage. B fighters don’t have the options A fighters do.
Gassiev vs Usyk is the best fight of the summer but we haven’t heard much about it. Who do you like and why?
Bread’s Response: The winner of this fight will put himself in the top 10 P4P. It’s certainly a big fight. And I agree the biggest of the summer. When I analyze a fight the first thing I think about is who has the stylistic advantage. Now that doesn’t always predetermine a winner but it is a good indicator. In this fight I believe Usyk has a stylistic advantage. Uber active southpaws usually give methodical pressure fighters fits. See Billy Joe Saunders vs David Lemiuex. Don’t get me wrong, Saunders is a terrific boxer but that fight was also a style win. Pacquiao vs Margarito is another example. James Toney defeated Michael Nunn but he had all kinds of trouble getting to him.
Now I have seen fighters who had to employ Gassive’s style beat active bouncy southpaws. JC Chavez was able to beat Camacho and JM Marquez was able to defeat Derrick Gainer. So it can be done. But stylistically the fight favors Usyk.
Gassiev has become one of my favorite fighters to watch. He has improved in each fight I have seen him in which is impressive. His demeanor is also impressive. He’s never in a rush which shows me he has real confidence. For as good as Usyk is, he’s actually been treading a little water lately. He hasn’t been setting the world on fire although he hasn’t lost. I’ve also seen Usyk dropped by a body shot as an amateur by Artur Beterbiev. I think Gassiev will have to get to Usyk’s body. Gaasive’s patience will lose him some rounds but it will also allow him to run Usyk into vicious traps.
As I’m typing I still don’t have a winner. Logic tells me Usyk wins a close decision with Gassiev coming on late. But my gut tells me Gassive plays coy, actually backs away early and he slowly but surely steps up the pressure and he clips Usyk late, just like Toney did Nunn. I just can’t call it at this point. Let me watch some more film.
I am just looking to offer some clarification regarding your mailbag from Saturday June 23rd. I think some of your statements, one in particular, requires some more information in order to round it out. I feel that you may not have included as much as you could have, but I don't blame you because you have an undoubtedly busy schedule and mailbags probably take time. So thank you for writing back to all of us, your fans. I know you are wise because you yourself are keen to discourage people from making boxing into a "race thing," and I appreciate that you include such an important stipulation, because we know skin colour doesn't make one's punches any harder, or make them feel any better. Anyway, in one particular part you said the following: "black fighters oftentimes have a speed and athleticism advantage". I'd like to invoke some history to fill out your assertion.
You said this but i feel the brevity of your answer leaves out some important facts that most readers will not invariably be able to consider on their own (no disrespect to the readers here). Please bear with me, but there are fighters of every race that have strength and/or speed advantages based on their individuality. When you made that statement I truly didn't think it could be a race thing entirely, or even directly.
Here is what I think.
No, here is what I know, because I have forgotten more history than most people will ever learn, so when I say this, know that it's coming from a caring and informed heart and mind.
Firstly, let's begin by accepting that more people from poverty represent their socio-economic status by going into sports. This means that since, historically, African-Americans represented lower economic brackets; sports become inevitable options for them. As a reverse to this, look how few participants we see coming from the established wealthy elites. There are remarkably few, and not because they are genetic pansies - it's because there are fewer available participants to draw from and fewer that are willing to take part. If people don't believe that wealth makes us lazy (as far as becoming a pro ahlete that hunkers down into a multi-month training camp of suffering and denial), look no further than Iron Mike who proves both of my above points about poverty and largesse correct.
Now, if we rewind the clock 100 years, what we have are three distinct groups that we don't have anymore competing on a large scale in sports like they used to: Jews, Irish, and Italians. All three distinct groups, along with African Americans, made up a large portion of the boxing community in the early 20th Century. If you start to draft a list of names from each group, you end up with a myriad of skills that apply to a myriad of races, for instance: speed, strength, power, athleticism, skills, and style. These cannot be linked to any nation's flag or any person's ethnic background. Let's try it, with the arbitrary order of Italians, African-Americans, Irish, and Jewish:
Speed - Pep, Leonard, McLarnin, Rosenbloom
Strength - LaMotta, Lewis, Sharkey, Dempsey
Power - Rocky, Sadler, Sullivan, Baer
Athleticism - Calzaghe, Whitaker, Collins, Ross,
Skills - Pastrano, Robinson, Tunney, Mendoza
You'll notice a bunch of these names are old, and few are new(er), and this is meant to help show that changing population demographics affect the sample size that becomes apparent in certain fields, while simultaneously acknowleding that blacks are not faster or more athletic; rather, a particular athlete who coincidentally have a different flag on his back has x and y as an uncanny skill set.
So, what happened?
In a word: war. World War II was destructive in unprecedented ways but, typically, to the winning parties, at least, there becomes a tidal wave of post-war "boom." A massive middle class emerged, but, regrettably it's presence was least noticeable in the African American population in the U.S.A. The Irish though, mixed, mingled, and settled into a comfortable working class lifestyle. Can we blame them? Hell, no. Anyone would do the same if given the chance. The Jews and Italians did it, too. So, where'd all the "white" boxers go? We have an answer. You'd be surprised how much war helps people in their own borders get along more. Sometimes it doesn't. The Reconstruction Period from 1865-1867, actually hurt ALL of the south and left it in massive poverty (though it was clearly terrible, it was not equally terrible). If you want to know why the South is still behind in terms of quality of life and standard of living, remember what I said about good things happening to winners and bad hings happening to losers in war. The North persevered; the North prospered. But the North punished whites and blacks intentionally and unitentionally. They kciked out the shorings of an outdated economic system that the whole south relied on and put nothing in its place. Then the North expected the southern whites and blacks to figure it out. Ha! You know what happened in Germany after WW1 when the Germans were punished and left in poverty? The country sucked for years. The south isn't necessarily reelit, but it still has that lste day hangover from that Reconstruction Period.
Sometimes war does help, though. Boxing became more socially acceptable, and its stigma wore off during the four years of the Civil War (I can elaborate but I'm afraid I'm boring the living hell out of some poeple when I talk). War can help colour, too, for the record. African Americans found themselves in positions in the Vietnam War that they never previously held, and this was due to merit. War has a way of sifting through the sh*t; sometimes. But good change always seems like slow change, and bad change is always the quick kind, isn't it. As a seemingly unrelated parallel, look at the weight cutting you mentioned: slow, smart cuts, instead of rapid sauna-suit-sweating is the preference, correct?
But I feel I have digressed, so allow me to revert back to my original point: size of the sample is the most important consideration when understanding the amount of talent available (it's why a public school with 2,500 kids will always have better teams than a school with 300 kids). Let's not forget the numerous other nationalities that can contribute competitive numbers to stregth, ahleticism, speed, and the like if you simply appreciate the number in the sample size being applied. Mexicans with and without "Mexican styles, Eastern bloc fighters that back or front foot, with or without power, and plain old White English (Corbett) or White Americans (Greb). And the half-breeds like Ward and Dempsey, who have skills and I don't think the speed or ahleticism is because they are half of one thing and half of another. And if we go to Russia there are no great black boxers (to my knowledge), but look at the sample available. They are underrepresented.
The one demographic that hasn't tapered off as noticeably in the years following post-war America were the African-Americans. Due to the unfortunate nature of the poverty, history and inequality that still lingers in the African-American population in the U.S.A. you are bound to see an uptick in certain skills by virtue of representation by population in sports because they can't afford typical middle class options.
This is not an attack, because I feel you are one that operates in a clear, considered, and thoughtful manner. I am just looking to offer clarification because I feel any region can offer up anything, if enough people from that background turn up, you'll see greater numbers of whatever you are looking for, it is simply proportional.
In summation, sample size affects the variables you see in the ring. The sample size is affected by historical, political, and socio-economic factors that most people are immune to understanding, let alone synthesizing into a quantity they can connect to what they see. Why? Because it is easier to see what is right in FRONT of us, than it is to tnink about what is AROUND us, and most poeple, sadly, only look at the surface (i.e. skin).
Thanks for your time, Bread! I'm worried some readers might make this into a race thing, but I got your back *thumbs up* By the way, sorry if I bored you, you can block me from here on out :-(
North of the border
Bread’s Response: I usually don’t post comments that are so long. But yours was so well written and thought out that I had to give you the platform and post it. I won’t comment too much but I actually do agree that the pool we pick from has a big determination on who rises to the top. I loved the analogy about the population of the schools. Other than that it’s your floor big fella. Thanks for the comment.
Send Questions to [email protected]