HOLYFIELD beats Usyk at Cruiser or HW.

[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..

[MalevolentBite]

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.

Most track and field athletes in high school are or dual sport athletes. I played football in the fall and track in the spring. Thats always been the case theres alot of track and field players that play other sports. The ones who go to the olympics aren't big enough and strong enough to compete at the higher levels in the present day NFL. Back in the day their were people like Bob Hays that did both.

Dude I am not in responding to you anymore.
because you are not American and trying to tell American about American culture. You sound nuts

the fact is blacks are some of the most dominant athletes in sports. The best boxer is black, the best basketball player is black, the best baseball player is black. Golf tiger woods is probably top 3. Soccer its also black Pele ( has African blood), track and field is black.

Its all black. Black and black. The Klitschkos dominanted when there was no black American elite heavyweights. Usyk dominated when there was no elite black heavyweights.

Listen do you know how big America is ? I can go to Philadelphia right now and ask 10 random people who Shohei Ohtani they wouldn't know. I could go to any major city and ask them again and nobody would know. I dont even really know who he is but I follow the Yankess. I bet more people know Derek Jeter ( who's half black) or Judge ( who is half black) than Shohei Ohtani.

Baseball is no longer Americans popular sport it hasnt been since the 50s, 60s and 70s thats also when black Americans played baseball the most. America no matter how racist views black athletes superior and they are marketed the most. They are in commercials and movies. Shohei Ohtani will never be in a major tv commercial or be in Hollywood movies. Americans like their sports played by Americans!! Alot of older white people stopped watching baseball due to all the Hispanics and thats a fact.

baseball and basketball are becoming more global and are also becoming less popular than before.

The Asian player is dominating a league without Black Americans just like Usyk and Klitschkos thats no different than Babe Ruth who played behind the color line or those old white heavyweight champions. Once Black's came in it was different lol.

When Jesse owens went to Germany, what happened? Even Hitler knew whites couldn't beat no negro. Thats why Racist America brought Jesse they knew aint nobody beating no black man in a 100m. Damn sure no European lol.

Basketball talent wise for Americans are on the decline. I actually sit and watch American high school games. You dont because you are not American! I watch college basketball. You probably dont. I am from CT. We have one of the best women's and men's college basketball program in the COUNTRY. You not talking to me about no damn basketball. America is not putting out a good product. It has nothing to do with it being rigged. They changed the rules to allow a more offensive style of play and indirectly it ruin the game for people in my generation. Once again getting rid of the hand check and low post play and adding the euro step ruined basketball imo and the numbers show it.

I have no issues with people from the former Yugoslavia. They can play basketball but let's keep it buck in the 90s they couldn't go in the paint they were to weak! They made their careers doing mid range jumpers. Now basketball is nothing but up tempo 3 pointers.

We can agree to disagree since you are not American eve. Roy took a dig at Mayweather saying he isnt great because he didn't face any black boxers. Why would Roy say this ? Because he views blacks as the best boxers. Usyk and Klitschkos never went against an elite black heavyweight.

Imo the last great American was Ridd1ck bowe some will say tyson but i think hes a fraud.

No need to reply if you cant answer this. 20 years after the creation of the first superbowl Did America produce an elite heavyweight regardless of race ?

Yes or No ?

[MalevolentBite]

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.

Thank you. They are mostly British people who dont know the lasting cultural impact the NFL had on boxings talent pool. They really believe America produced their best product for boxing in Deontay Wilder lol. In the 90s and 80s, Deontay Wilder wouldn't even make it to the olympics lol.

They want to try to downplay Americans thinking we are now not good at boxing. We are not good at boxing because nobody above 175lbs boxes anymore lol. They all play in the NFL. Plus if you had a son who was 6ft tall and 200lb would you rather him get a free college tuition and play in the NFL versus joining a corrupt sport like boxing to get hit in the head for a living?

Do these britsh people realize how much high schools make from their football programs in the south? Millions. Go to Texas and see their high school facilities. Then college the NCAA makes billions each year in college football. Why would anyone tell their kid to do boxing over football ?

[IronDanHamza]

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.

I get the sense that you have the brain capacity of a child. Were you held back in school? You make statements, they get addressed or challenged and you go off on a irrelevant tangent.

No Holyfield wasn’t prime when he fought Byrd. He was old, like YOU said.

Meaning, being old vs Byrd, a year later he was even older. And thus, by default, NOT a top fighter at that time.

It’s an extremely fucking simple concept. The moment you admitted that Holyfield was old vs Byrd, your entire previous argument imploded.