Does extreme poverty really produce world champions the majority of the time or is this a myth?

[ilovemesomeboxing]

Anyone know?

[-Kev-]

I’m sure if rich people got their kids into boxing at an early age and gave them the best training possible, rich kids would become champions.

Imagine a rich dad sending his 6 year old son to the Wild Card gym or to Robert Garcia’s gym and pay them extra to give his son extra attention?

The thing is that boxing is linked to “street cats”, it’s a sport that is generally beneath rich people in terms of participating in it. Street people are linked to poverty, which leads to trying to make it out of the ****** doing the only thing you know, which is fighting.

Edit: They censor getto with an H now.

[Smash]

people are people at the end of the day, its usually a numbers game no matter what

[MusoMeanderings]

Poverty gives you hunger, but you can't train at 100% hungry. You need to feed your body.

[GhostofDempsey]

Traditionally, boxing has always been a poor man's out. Just about anyone can go into boxing and become a pro, there isn't a rigorous or competitive selection process like football, baseball, and other big league sports. Pass a physical and get a license.

[billeau2]

Anyone know?

KNOW!!!??? . If you consider opinions the final word I suppose... Some more informed than others.

What do we know about poverty and what do we know about fighting....

Poverty can destroy a person. It can also create a stronger person and stronger bonds in a clan structure. Sociologists in the 60's came to the conclusion that the very rich and very poor, in America had a similar demgraphic of social ills: Both groups were early to use drugs, engage in sex at an early age, and both groups were neglected family wise (for totally different reasons). The rich were "socialized," boarding schools, nannies, little contact with mom and dad. The poor were latch keyed, so the parents could work.

The middle class meanwhile had enough flexability so (at the time) one parent was home, and the communities, while rough, were supportive. I believe this type environment is ideal for fighters. In this way one deals with violence, danger, but also has some support. This makes one stronger for dealing with it. Many of the great American fighters were not dirt poor, but lower middle class. So, a kid was raised violently, but was loved, and had resources for gaming the violence (gangs, etc). The great Iran Barkley told people how he was in the toughest gang in the Bronx, and the one person who could kick his duff, was tougher, was his sister. You see the dynamic here?

So doses of poverty, ultra violence, judicially mixed with the support of siblings, the clan... whether that be Irish cohorts for Corbett, or Tunney... Or a gang for Iran B, structures that welcome violence and conflict and are strengthened by it, I believe do help fighters quite a bit. It is socialization. The same social cues that make it hard for most women to throw a punch. They are taught not to do so, but, if at an early age, they are treated the same as boys this way, this will help a female fighter down the road immensely,. at least I think it does/will.

[billeau2]

I’m sure if rich people got their kids into boxing at an early age and gave them the best training possible, rich kids would become champions.

Imagine a rich dad sending his 6 year old son to the Wild Card gym or to Robert Garcia’s gym and pay them extra to give his son extra attention?

The thing is that boxing is linked to “street cats”, it’s a sport that is generally beneath rich people in terms of participating in it. Street people are linked to poverty, which leads to trying to make it out of the ****** doing the only thing you know, which is fighting.

Edit: They censor getto with an H now.

So if it is true that the best training produces the best fighters... A statement easy to prove BTW. The real question is: does it negate, contradict the statement that being raised in a type of poverty where one is accustomed to violence, gets the right dose of poverty that makes them hungry, but where they still have support, will produce the best fighters?

Which one is better? and if one is better than the other, can they both be true? I believe this last statement (bolded).

[niceyboo3]

It has to do with
What you grow up doing. A group of blacks around a rim, a group of Mexicans around a goal, a group of whites with a baseball or ice skates, you get it. I always wondered how Mexico can't win a world cup and they practice daily. I think they beat Germany and celebrated like no tomorrow. Then Argentina taxed dat azz

[Pac=Duran]

I’m sure if rich people got their kids into boxing at an early age and gave them the best training possible, rich kids would become champions.

Imagine a rich dad sending his 6 year old son to the Wild Card gym or to Robert Garcia’s gym and pay them extra to give his son extra attention?

The thing is that boxing is linked to “street cats”, it’s a sport that is generally beneath rich people in terms of participating in it. Street people are linked to poverty, which leads to trying to make it out of the ****** doing the only thing you know, which is fighting.

Edit: They censor getto with an H now.

I wouldn't say "beneath", it's just that as you climb up the social ladder you see more people making smarter decisions for their kids. And let's be honest getting your kid into boxing or NFL or proximith flight is not smart in the long run.

You want what's best for your kids and getting punched in the head for a pass time ain't that

[HeadShots]

I’ll destroy this argument easy


hw top 10 should be all Africans

yet none.


all the Africans are from wealthy western euro countries.

western euros are weak. Period.