HOLYFIELD beats Usyk at Cruiser or HW.

[MalevolentBite]

Makes no sense how?

Holyfield was younger when he fought Byrd than he was when he fought Toney. What part of that are you not understanding?

Holyfield wasnt in his prime vs Byrd. I dont hold that lost against holyfields legacy. Neither do I hold his lost against toney. Holyfield agreed to both fights and he was ranked and he looked bad in both.

[TheProudLunatic]

You can be fan. I like usyk too but he nevef faced an elite American heavyweight in their prime. Even the Klitschkos didn't. They came when America didn't produce any more elite Heavyweight champions and thats the truth. Our last prime elite heavyweight champion was rid**** bowe. After 1997 all ofthe big athletic American athletes went to the NFL and thats a fact.

This is exactly why I hate so many so called fight fans
They ignore facts to glorify their dude.
Yes, Usyk is a quality fighter.
Trapped in the worst HW era the sport has ever seen.
Still, I think he'd be a difficult opp for some notable HWs
Would catch a lot of L's, though.

[ONOFF]

However. Wilder become WBC champion after playing basketball and football. Once again. It goes back to my objective opinion. As someone who was raised in American culture and the urban culture. I am telling you from a personal experience boxing will never have abother great black American heavyweight because culturally we dont support boxing anymore and big kids are pushed to play American football. Even know theres a push to stop having young boys playing football due to CTE. ***** him self went on TV and said if I had a son I wouldnt let him play football. Now if they said about football you think anyone is pushing kids to do boxing at 12, 13 , 14 and etc ? Floyd Mayweather, Crawford, Haney are all too small for baseball and football. They probably didn't have access to golf and soccer. Boxing is the only sport their good do professionally and make money.

Mike tyson was born in 1966. The first Super Bowl, officially known as the AFL-NFL World Championship Game, was played on January 15, 1967.

Now ask your self what great american heavyweight have we had who was born 20 years after 1967? That would be 1987 thats around my generation. We have none. Between that generation gap when the NFL became a sporting god in America we haven't produced one legit American heavyweight great. Thats a fact.

It’s not that America stopped producing talent....it’s that the playing field finally leveled out, and the U.S. is no longer the only game in town.

You brought up Tyson being born in 1966, and the first Super Bowl being in 1967...as if that marks the beginning of the end. But Tyson came up in the 80s. The NFL had already exploded by then. And still, you then had Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, and others. So the timeline doesn’t fully hold up.

So, if i follow this type of reasoning...You’re saying there's been no great American heavyweight born after 1987 because of football’s rise in the U.S. But boxing’s decline in American heavyweight dominance doesn’t line up that cleanly with the NFL’s growth. That’s kind of like saying, “Once smartphones got popular, we stopped getting great rock bands.” Sure, both happened, but that doesn’t mean one caused the other. In other words, that timeline skips over too many other forces at play, especially one massive change: the world showed up.

Outside competition...

Your reasoning sounds like coping imo.

It’s like saying, “There haven’t been any dominant American sprinters since Michael Johnson because basketball became more popular.”

But then you look and see that Usain Bolt, from Jamaica, literally redefined the sport. It’s not that Americans suddenly got slower, it’s that someone else got better. The competition evolved.

Same thing in boxing.

In the past, the U.S. had a near-monopoly on heavyweight boxing simply because half the planet wasn’t allowed to compete professionally.
(Soviet Union, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc had world-class fighters who couldn’t go pro. They had to stay in the amateurs or defect.)

So when you look back and see American dominance in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it’s not just about talent. It’s about who was allowed to compete.

Yeah, culture shifted. Football is king in the U.S. But to say that’s the sole reason america hasn't produced a “great” heavyweight in a while...that’s like blaming the weather for a bad harvest when you never looked at the soil, the seeds, or who else planted in the same field.

America dominated when the competition was locked out. Now the world is in. That’s not decline, that’s globalization.

P.S.
You mentioned “my objective opinion.” Just to clarify... an opinion can be well-informed but if it’s an opinion, by definition, it’s not objective. That’s like saying “my personal fact.” Either it’s a fact that stands on its own, or it’s an opinion that reflects your perspective but it can’t be both.

[ONOFF]

How can you say the NFL doesn't count when the NFL pulls in the most talent in the entire country. Theres entire regions that are dedicated to producing football players. Its like soccer in the rest of the world. The American football is basically a reilgion with their own day of the week. Entire counties in the south shut down for HIGH School games. Thats a big factor why other sports don't pull in athletics. High school football is a milestone in alot of American boys lives.

Thats not objective it's a fact. You must not be american. That's like saying another sport can rival soccer in Brazil or Italy or Spain. Its not happening.

Jokić is younger than me. Thats not my generation. I grew up with Kobe and Shaq. I can only speak on my generation. This current generation is ruined by AAU programs that funnels bad fundamentals and shooting long distances. NBA popularity among older Americans is down. Ratings are down. While NFL is growing. The NBA is pushing to become more global but the basketball American program isnt what it used to be. The Euro Step, lack of physical defense and physical play hurt it among older Americans who grew up with the Pistons and physical guards like Magic. The NBA as it now is geared more towards European play. They don't even do low post play anymore. Everyone is a mid range shooter. They dont even rule plays anyone.

Also, If the absence of Black players explains a cultural or qualitative decline in baseball, then it implies they were innately responsible for its excellence right ? So that's a subtle nod to racial essentialism. In other words, it suggests Black athletes are culturally or biologically exceptional.

What's wrong with that^ even Turki stated boxing was better when their was a black American heavyweight. Baseball was better when they had black Americans playing more. The lack of Black Americans does hampers baseball appeal to the urban demographics and media appeal in AMERICA which does directly influence culture. I am speaking from an American perspective.

But you're fooling yourself if you think it's equally true for any athletic disciplines. Some races will be better suited for running ( (fast-twitch muscle fibers, leg morphology, etc..) , others for swimming, ( longer torsos, broader shoulders, higher average body fat %) .. Or Strength Sports (e.g. powerlifting, Olympic lifting , Compact builds, limb leverage advantage.)

Each race has their best attributes. Nobody is saying blacks will dominate every single sport. However for sports Americans care about that brings in money Boxing, Baseball, Basketball , Track etc Black Americans do dominate. You take blacks off the table America loses alot of all time great athletes and gold medals. Now if you take Africans off the table France wouldnt have a world cup and most other countries too that have black players or players with African blood. But let's not get it twisted when blacks try they can excel in Golf, Tennis and etc. I am actually a very great swimmer. I won a swimming competition. Its not that blacks cant swim blacks are not exposed to water and some who are not from the island have a fear of drowning. Now skiing and winter Olympics thats all Europeans/whites.

I am fine with Europeans playing great in the nba but I gotta be objective these new blacks that play in the nba are like Deontay Wilder. Raw talent, bad fundamentals, un coach able and no gym strength. Look at Wilder and Kevin Durant then look at Ken Norton and Karl Malon. You will never seen those type of athletes again in American sports unless its on the NFL football field.

If American football dominates because it attracts the most talent, then how do you explain why American athletes still dominate track and field—despite those same athletes supposedly being pulled away? Why doesn’t that talent drain affect Olympic sprinting? And If football is America’s soccer, then wouldn’t that make American boxing today like Brazil’s volleyball...popular but no longer dominant globally? And wouldn’t that say more about the globalization of talent than the ‘failure’ of Americans?

The NBA is Europeanized ?

If the NBA's shift toward fundamentals, shooting, and spacing reflects ‘Europeanization,’ doesn’t that suggest foreign players are bringing a skillset that the American system has deprioritized? Isn’t that exactly what competition is supposed to do..evolve the game? I've noticed there's tons more of three point attempts, but we can blame that on Steph Curry, not Euro players.

Your line of thinking in a nutshell: Americans no longer dominate. Therefore, the game must be broken.

So you also said: “Baseball was better when they had black Americans playing more.”

Ok but if a sport is only great when a specific race dominates it, then what does that say about the sport? Shouldn’t greatness come from competition instead of racial ****geneity? If, as you argue, the decline of Black American presence in baseball directly correlates with a loss of cultural relevance or “quality” in the sport, how do you explain Shohei Ohtani?

I mean here is a Japanese player, born and raised far outside the American or Black American sports culture you’re focused on and yet by 2025:

The guy reached 250 HRs and 150 stolen bases in fewer games than anyone in history.
He also was the first player ever to post 50 HRs and 50 stolen bases in a single season.

He's basically a dominant pitcher and elite slugger, something we haven’t seen since Babe Ruth (and even Ruth wasn’t this fast).

He’s a unanimous MVP, a global icon, and here’s the kicker!.. Ohtani’s dominance hasn’t hurt the sport’s image. It’s elevated it—both domestically and globally.
So if baseball was only “great” when Black Americans were more involved, what does it say about its current state when a Japanese player is literally rewriting the record books and captivating the entire sports world?

Should we say baseball is less American now? Or just... more global?

Because that’s the part your framework keeps skipping..In other words, sports aren't in decline just because they’re no longer defined by one culture or race. They're evolving, just like basketball, just like boxing.

You're holding onto a model of dominance that depends on exclusivity..on one group at the center. When that changes, you interpret it as decline. But that's not decline. That's competition.

greatness is still happening. Just not always where you're used to seeing it.

(The most dominant player in baseball is Asian.The most dominant players in basketball (MVPs) since 2018 have been non-American. The top heavyweights in boxing are etc..etc...)

And if your worldview can't process that without seeing it as a loss instead of a shift, then maybe the problem isn’t the athletes or the sports.

Maybe it's the lens.

[IronDanHamza]

Holyfield wasnt in his prime vs Byrd. I dont hold that lost against holyfields legacy. Neither do I hold his lost against toney. Holyfield agreed to both fights and he was ranked and he looked bad in both.

That has WHAT to do with the post you just quoted? Why do you just go off on random tangents?

You just asked how what I said made sense.

Makes no sense how?

Holyfield was younger when he fought Byrd than he was when he fought Toney. What part of that are you not understanding?

[JakeTheBoxer]

Sure, everybody from the past beats Usyk.

But usyk has 0 losses, while almost all of them have losses, even against very average fighters.

[MalevolentBite]

It’s not that America stopped producing talent....it’s that the playing field finally leveled out, and the U.S. is no longer the only game in town.

You brought up Tyson being born in 1966, and the first Super Bowl being in 1967...as if that marks the beginning of the end. But Tyson came up in the 80s. The NFL had already exploded by then. And still, you then had Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, and others. So the timeline doesn’t fully hold up.

So, if i follow this type of reasoning...You’re saying there's been no great American heavyweight born after 1987 because of football’s rise in the U.S. But boxing’s decline in American heavyweight dominance doesn’t line up that cleanly with the NFL’s growth. That’s kind of like saying, “Once smartphones got popular, we stopped getting great rock bands.” Sure, both happened, but that doesn’t mean one caused the other. In other words, that timeline skips over too many other forces at play, especially one massive change: the world showed up.

Outside competition...

Your reasoning sounds like coping imo.

It’s like saying, “There haven’t been any dominant American sprinters since Michael Johnson because basketball became more popular.”

But then you look and see that Usain Bolt, from Jamaica, literally redefined the sport. It’s not that Americans suddenly got slower, it’s that someone else got better. The competition evolved.

Same thing in boxing.

In the past, the U.S. had a near-monopoly on heavyweight boxing simply because half the planet wasn’t allowed to compete professionally.
(Soviet Union, Cuba, and the Eastern Bloc had world-class fighters who couldn’t go pro. They had to stay in the amateurs or defect.)

So when you look back and see American dominance in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it’s not just about talent. It’s about who was allowed to compete.

Yeah, culture shifted. Football is king in the U.S. But to say that’s the sole reason america hasn't produced a “great” heavyweight in a while...that’s like blaming the weather for a bad harvest when you never looked at the soil, the seeds, or who else planted in the same field.

America dominated when the competition was locked out. Now the world is in. That’s not decline, that’s globalization.

P.S.
You mentioned “my objective opinion.” Just to clarify... an opinion can be well-informed but if it’s an opinion, by definition, it’s not objective. That’s like saying “my personal fact.” Either it’s a fact that stands on its own, or it’s an opinion that reflects your perspective but it can’t be both.

Ok. Let's do it like this. Did America produce another boxing heavyweight prodigy who was born after 1985.

Yes or No ? Thats it.

[MalevolentBite]

That has WHAT to do with the post you just quoted? Why do you just go off on random tangents?

You just asked how what I said made sense.

Makes no sense how?

Holyfield was younger when he fought Byrd than he was when he fought Toney. What part of that are you not understanding?

Dude you are trolling lol. So holyfield was in his prime now for Byrd? Lol.

I clearly said holyfield wasnt in his prime in either fight but he was ranked. Dude get a wife. You dont get no play and you probably dont even work. I stated my statement the same way. Log off and get some play lol.

[BKM-]

Holyfield beats almost anybody at CW or HW. He is one of the most physically and mentally versatile fighters who ever lived, and with manny cornering him there aren't many who would beat him.

[JakeTheBoxer]

Holyfield beats almost anybody at CW or HW. He is one of the most physically and mentally versatile fighters who ever lived, and with manny cornering him there aren't many who would beat him.

Holy has 10 losses..