Will we ever see another Mike Tyson?

[New England]

Baer, Quarry & Cooney - memorable European talents.



African-American.




Your argument is one that every country can use but does not. That is the gripe with Americans and their 'all the other sports are stealing our boxing starts' tripe, no one cares about ifs and buts. Plus, we've seen nearly a century of American heavyweight boxers and only a decade of European.

the argument cannot be used by other countries. you don't understand it, clearly.

what other country dominated the HW division for a century? keep in mind also that it was the strongest during the tenure of american domination, and sucks now.

[New England]

Comparing upstate New York to Brooklyn N.Y. is functionally the same as comparing Brooklyn to a different state. They're two entirely different worlds. In the 80's in places like Brooklyn, Basketball and Boxing completely overshadowed every other sport for young Black athletes, even Baseball.

good to see that you didn't read the rest of my post.

hell, even something you did read / quote reflects that notion.

[SBleeder]

he almost surely won't be american, because talented guys of that size / shape are led almost exclusively to football.

Disagree.

How many 5'9" guys do you see playing football on Sundays?

http://www.nfl.com/photos/0ap1000000125341

According to that website, there are only about ten guys in the NFL as short or shorter than Tyson.

I agree that far more kids are playing football than are boxing these days, but there comes a point where you're just too limited size-wise. No Div. I program is going to recruit a 5'9" guy unless he's just a freaky phenomenal athlete.

[bklynboy]

Baer, Quarry & Cooney - memorable European talents.

Not for nothing but Cooney was from Long Island.

[D-MiZe]

So why not also look at it as to why other countries didn't dominate?

Soviets were under communist ruling which did not allow them to turn professional. Going back even further, football, rugby, cricket etc clubs were being formed before the 1900s. America is a new country and lacked any sort of sporting identity, thus why boxing took off so well not to mention the large influx of immigrants.

Once basketball, baseball, hand-egg became popular of course it took potential competitors out of the sport of boxing. My point is that these competitors were taken away from boxing straight away in European countries.

I'd be loose on the term 'country' too, as a lot of these great 'American's aren't American at all.


Large influx of immigration > poor economical climate > poverty > boxing. It's obvious that boxing would ****e and fall once immigration/poverty/class divide issues were rectified.

[New England]

Disagree.

How many 5'9" guys do you see playing football on Sundays?

http://www.nfl.com/photos/0ap1000000125341

According to that website, there are only about ten guys in the NFL as short or shorter than Tyson.

I agree that far more kids are playing football than are boxing these days, but there comes a point where you're just too limited size-wise.

quite a few. most runningbacks are in the 5'9" to 6' range, the exact size of mike tyson.


tyson is not too small to be a runningback. he's actually about 5'11" when he stands up straight. if he lifted [and more importantly ate] like an NFL player he'd probably be 235 lbs by his 22nd birthday. i was talking about college sports anyway, if you were actually reading the posts and looking to make a meaningful contribution.

tyson was not too short to play runningback, especially in division 1. that's absurd. that pic you've posted means nothing. all of those men are markedly smaller than mike tyson. they've lifted and ate heavy since they were teenagers. tyson got up in the morning and ran to keep weight off.


there are dozens of running backs under 6' in the league. they are the norm. if you're fast and relatively robust you can play runningback in college as an absolute shrimp. some of those guys are only 180-190 lbs.

[New England]

So why not also look at it as to why other countries didn't dominate?

Soviets were under communist ruling which did not allow them to turn professional. Going back even further, football, rugby, cricket etc clubs were being formed before the 1900s. America is a new country and lacked any sort of sporting identity, thus why boxing took off so well not to mention the large influx of immigrants.

Once basketball, baseball, hand-egg became popular of course it took potential competitors out of the sport of boxing. My point is that these competitors were taken away from boxing straight away in European countries.

I'd be loose on the term 'country' too, as a lot of these great 'American's aren't American at all.


Large influx of immigration > poor economical climate > poverty > boxing. It's obvious that boxing would ****e and fall once immigration/poverty/class divide issues were rectified.

because that is not the same argument, dude.

it's absurd to think that those countries should be credited for something they didn't actaully accomplish, while diminishing a country that actually dominated the division.

that's only the same argument if you're hugely biased.


america is a nation of immigrants, dude. much of the population is no more than third generation, with parents migrating here between the world wars. my grandparents were born in italy and ireland. i am an American, and so are my parents. my grandparents were immigrants.

i don't have time to educate brits any longer today. i gotta get to work,


you guys make the most amusing leaps to discredit america. keep them going.

[D-MiZe]

because that is not the same argument, dude.

it's absurd to think that those countries should be credited for something they didn't actaully accomplish, while diminishing a country that actually dominated the division.

Yet the Americans would still dominate the heavyweight division if it were not for the NBA, NFL etc...

The irony...




The world is full of immigration which is why it makes me laugh when I see people proud of a country or playing country vs country debates.

[New England]

Yet the Americans would still dominate the heavyweight division if it were not for the NBA, NFL etc...

The irony...




The world is full of immigration which is why it makes me laugh when I see people proud of a country or playing country vs country debates.

read my posts, man. i never say that in any of them. i say exactly the opposite. there are no preordained boxing greats. classic british diversionary tactic. complete misrepresentation of my argument. don't expect me to waste time responding to you if you're not going to read what i've got to say.

what you have is a "talent pool" that operates over time. out of that pool you will get more great fighters, if the talent is there. that's a very simple, irrefutable notion.


you take the 12 year old tony thompsons and replace them with 12 year old wilders, and it benefits the pool of talent.

[D-MiZe]

Come on NE, ya gotta try harder than that...

You said the reason for European dominance is because of the lack of American talent, then point to a period 40 years ago. Who says Wilder is better than Thompson anyway?