RANKING EACH COUNTRY BY NUMBER OF WORLD CHAMPIONS It HAS!!

[Born X Raised]

You do get that discounting the 'journeymen' from these countries improves their ratios of fighters to titles held right?... Which is kinda the metric you might use to determine which country has the best fighters per capita/pro boxer..

You quite sure you want to go down that path, man...?


EDIT: But yeah, absolutely there is a very valid point in there, countries like the Ukraine or Russia are very top heavy. Although now more fighters are starting out in the pro Ranks or having relatively short Ammy careers, until quite recently only top level amateurs were turning pro.

I'm just presenting the data, man, I ain't some kinda nationalist trying to push one country as being 'better' than another, nor am I gonna tell you how you need to interpret it. The observation I made is based on the figures I've provided, but you're quite entitled to read into 'em anything that suits your fancy. All I'm pointing out is that it's hardly surprising the US and Mexico appear dominant when they have so many more pro fighters than everywhere else. It's also worth noting that this is just a snapshot and it's changing all the time. A few years ago the UK actually had more titles and titlists that the US or Mexico. Go back a few months Ukraine had Usyk and Gvozdyk which meant they were punching way over their weight for the reasons already mentioned.

But whilst we're here we might want to ask what effect having the most money tied in the sport and being the home of sanctioning bodies plays in the opportunities for getting title shots.

Yes, the bold is exactly my point.

You seem to imply that countries like Ukraine are better because they’re small countries with a good fighter to champion ratio.

Places like Mexico and U.K. are watered down by the “bums” they have that fight for extra money.

The top fighters records don’t have a bunch of bums from Ukraine on there because they don’t really exist.

Historically the best boxing countries are the U.S., Mexico, U.K., Puerto Rico and Japan. I don’t think slicing numbers into technicalities changes that.

[Citizen Koba]

Yes, the bold is exactly my point.

You seem to imply that countries like Ukraine are better because they’re small countries with a good fighter to champion ratio.

Places like Mexico and U.K. are watered down by the “bums” they have that fight for extra money.

The top fighters records don’t have a bunch of bums from Ukraine on there because they don’t really exist.

Historically the best boxing countries are the U.S., Mexico, U.K., Puerto Rico and Japan. I don’t think slicing numbers into technicalities changes that.

No no no, I'm not saying they're better, I'm not sure where you get that idea from. You're absolutely correct that they just have a different profile - the ex-Soviet and Eastern Euro nations had no pro boxing until, what 25 odd years ago and even now the pro sport is still kinda in it's infancy in those countries. Because it's been largely high level and elite amateurs that have turned pro they of course have obtained success beyond their numbers.

And with regards to UK and Mexican 'bums' you're probably mistaken if you imagine the US ranks aren't just as full of guys just there for the paycheck, need is a powerful motivator everywhere, man. However it is fair to say that the UK has a deal more fighters per capita than the US without a concommitant number of per capita titles at this particular moment in time.

And of course the historical record favours the countries where there is a history of professional boxing over those where there hasn't - you do get that there was no professional sport in half the world until only a coupla decades ago right?

Mainly I'm just interested in the stories the numbers have to tell us, but if I'm to take anything from these figures it's that intrinsically humans can and will have roughly equal success regardless of nationality or race given similar opportunities. If people mistake that as nationalism on my part or as somehow a sleight on their own nations, man, that's probably more a reflection on them than on anything I or the numbers have said.

[Citizen Koba]

NICE NICE, ima add it to the OP> thanks for the work.

Tell you what, man. Ima save the spreadsheet i've done for this and if we want to revisit it in 3 months or 6 months give me a shout and we can update it with the New title count. I'm assume the total number of fighters per nation ain't gonna vary vastly over 3 or 6 months, and neither is population in those countries, so it'd just be a matter of plugging in the new title numbers and seeing what comes out... shouldn't take but 10 minutes at my end.

Be interesting to see how this ish changes over time.

[Marchegiano]

For sure bout the population and #s of pro fighters... you could definitely look for any number of correlations there... I mean I've included a pro boxers / mil population ratio on my table which I'd definitely imagine relates to poverty and reward.

I'm just providing the figures not trying to push one country or another as intrinsically better, I just do that shit... well, cos my mind just works that way. Curiosity, see.

Undoubtedly the US and Mexico are the dominant forces in the sport, but when you adjust for the numbers involved it evens out a great deal, what's more interesting to me though, is the other observations you can make with the numbers.

I feel like it just opens up room for bull**** artistry to be honest.

Let me give you an example of a metric that just happens to shift back toward US exceptionalism.

The US only has 34 people per square kilometer

Mexico has 64 people per square kilometer

Japan has 334 people per square kilometer

The UK has 274 people per square kilometer

Philippines has 362 people per square kilometer


Now, same logic as you all, if there's more people there's higher probabilities isn't there? What's the chances if you and I both filmed trips to the nearest gym to us yours would be close than mine? What's the chances you'd have options for local gyms whereas I'd be lucky to have any in an hour's drive? Once you've begun a career what's the chances of you running into people, serendipitously, that can help your career? Who'd have a harder time selling tickets to their shows? Who'd struggle more with touring their nation?


Now, take you population stats and my pop-den stats and what story do you get? Not only does America have more competition but also it's more difficult to get anything done due to all the open space with no one in it and nothing going on.

Just numbers bud, not in anyway a one sided story.

[Citizen Koba]

I feel like it just opens up room for bull**** artistry to be honest.

Let me give you an example of a metric that just happens to shift back toward US exceptionalism.

The US only has 34 people per square kilometer

Mexico has 64 people per square kilometer

Japan has 334 people per square kilometer

The UK has 274 people per square kilometer

Philippines has 362 people per square kilometer


Now, same logic as you all, if there's more people there's higher probabilities isn't there? What's the chances if you and I both filmed trips to the nearest gym to us yours would be close than mine? What's the chances you'd have options for local gyms whereas I'd be lucky to have any in an hour's drive? Once you've begun a career what's the chances of you running into people, serendipitously, that can help your career? Who'd have a harder time selling tickets to their shows? Who'd struggle more with touring their nation?


Now, take you population stats and my pop-den stats and what story do you get? Not only does America have more competition but also it's more difficult to get anything done due to all the open space with no one in it and nothing going on.

Just numbers bud, not in anyway a one sided story.

Absolutely you can add as many stats as you want, and everyone's free interpret them as they will. People being people they'll mostly use them to find ways to reinforce their pre-exising beliefs, but that is what it is.

All I thought was that it'd be interesting to add in the most obvious ones, titles per population and titles per # pro boxers... to see what you get. That I chose those particular 'ovbvious' stats which happen to produce results that are more in line with my personal beliefs (internationalism, humanism and a belief that talent and ability is spread more or less equally through human populations) probably isn't entirely a coincidence though...

Feel free to ignore 'em or add in more if you want to do a different breakdown, man, they're just numbers.

EDIT: Though I gotta add that your population density model doesn't really make complete sense to my eye... it assumes a relatively ****genous population distribution instead of the actual patterns of urban concentrations which are each large enough to support training facilities and skill sharing, although it is fair to argue that the rural or semi-rural populations in the low density spaces would be less likely to contributre to the boxing talent pool. Anyways... I ain't tryna do your country down, man, the US is still undoubtedly the most dominant nation in the sport, there's just always multiple ways of looking at stuff.

[Curtis Harper]

If an athlete wants to make a name for themselves, they do it in America.

[belerof]

bells mean nothing

[Marchegiano]

Absolutely you can add as many stats as you want, and everyone's free interpret them as they will. People being people they'll mostly use them to find ways to reinforce their pre-exising beliefs, but that is what it is.

All I thought was that it'd be interesting to add in the most obvious ones, titles per population and titles per # pro boxers... to see what you get. That I chose those particular 'ovbvious' stats which happen to produce results that are more in line with my personal beliefs (internationalism, humanism and a belief that talent and ability is spread more or less equally through human populations) probably isn't entirely a coincidence though...

Feel free to ignore 'em or add in more if you want to do a different breakdown, man, they're just numbers.

EDIT: Though I gotta add that your population density model doesn't really make complete sense to my eye... it assumes a relatively ****genous population distribution instead of the actual patterns of urban concentrations which are each large enough to support training facilities and skill sharing, although it is fair to argue that the rural or semi-rural populations in the low density spaces would be less likely to contributre to the boxing talent pool. Anyways... I ain't tryna do your country down, man, the US is still undoubtedly the most dominant nation in the sport, there's just always multiple ways of looking at stuff.

Exactly bud, can o worms and bull**** artistry. I was going for bull****.

I became a hater of statistics in school. I wasn't really trying to be defensive with the US so much as trying to illustrate a point. Anyone can use supporting stats to allude to just about anything. If the metric you look at first to be propagandist doesn't fit your propaganda just find a new one because something does.


Let me make it something totally non-boxing:

You've heard this news about your polypropylene (water bottle) plastic surviving 450 years in nature, right? You must avoid it for to save momma earth, yeah? Who provides that stat? Eco science right? It gets printed all over and if you argue against it you're as silly as a flat earther.

Funny that isn't it? We don't hide basic chemistry, anyone can look it up. Ask an eco scientist it's 450 yrs, ask a polymer chemist it's closer to 45. That's a huge, massive difference. Bit hard to guilt trip the world into avoiding plastic when they know they'll outlive it. How do we arrive at these two stats? Well, one is math, the Eco boys do maths. As you know, there is no such thing as an actual 450 year old water bottle. They do math to 'prove' how long it lasts in natural conditions. In polymers, we know our shelf life because we've had them on a shelf for that long. 45 years in a vacuum, less if in atmosphere, less if in nature.....now we're a long way from the widely believed 450 aren't we?

****ing stats man, ****ing stats. What is, is. What is not, is not. Math does not change any of it. You cannot prove something lasts X long with your math when we have that thing as rumble by natural forces in a much shorter time. ****in' stats.


I hope that helped build a bridge of understanding. I don't have any beef with your supporting stat posting per se so much as giving my reasoning for avoiding the supporting stat convo.








To answer though, yes I do think actual distribution is the next logical stat, population, population density, infrastructure, international trade, all very much matter, all can very much be used for bull**** though.

I don't honestly understand where ****geneous has anything to do with anything though. There is nothing ****geneous about the US. The US kind of forces a debate around something other than race, imo.

I say trade is important because It's going to be much harder to get on TV being from some place with harsh trade laws because int-TV-distribution deals are a bit set and beyond boxing. I think this is one of the majors for the international community coming to the US to breakout.

There's a toooon of stuff one could add, but that's just a can of worms that does little but provide bull**** artists with ammo to bull**** with. imo.


Y'all do you, I won't bug yas, I just wanted it to be clear I'm not playing stats and if you get me to I'm just doing it to be a little bit of a bitter prick.

[Citizen Koba]

Exactly bud, can o worms and bull**** artistry. I was going for bull****.

I became a hater of statistics in school. I wasn't really trying to be defensive with the US so much as trying to illustrate a point. Anyone can use supporting stats to allude to just about anything. If the metric you look at first to be propagandist doesn't fit your propaganda just find a new one because something does.


Let me make it something totally non-boxing:

You've heard this news about your polypropylene (water bottle) plastic surviving 450 years in nature, right? You must avoid it for to save momma earth, yeah? Who provides that stat? Eco science right? It gets printed all over and if you argue against it you're as silly as a flat earther.

Funny that isn't it? We don't hide basic chemistry, anyone can look it up. Ask an eco scientist it's 450 yrs, ask a polymer chemist it's closer to 45. That's a huge, massive difference. Bit hard to guilt trip the world into avoiding plastic when they know they'll outlive it. How do we arrive at these two stats? Well, one is math, the Eco boys do maths. As you know, there is no such thing as an actual 450 year old water bottle. They do math to 'prove' how long it lasts in natural conditions. In polymers, we know our shelf life because we've had them on a shelf for that long. 45 years in a vacuum, less if in atmosphere, less if in nature.....now we're a long way from the widely believed 450 aren't we?

****ing stats man, ****ing stats. What is, is. What is not, is not. Math does not change any of it. You cannot prove something lasts X long with your math when we have that thing as rumble by natural forces in a much shorter time. ****in' stats.


I hope that helped build a bridge of understanding. I don't have any beef with your supporting stat posting per se so much as giving my reasoning for avoiding the supporting stat convo.








To answer though, yes I do think actual distribution is the next logical stat, population, population density, infrastructure, international trade, all very much matter, all can very much be used for bull**** though.

I don't honestly understand where ****geneous has anything to do with anything though. There is nothing ****geneous about the US. The US kind of forces a debate around something other than race, imo.

I say trade is important because It's going to be much harder to get on TV being from some place with harsh trade laws because int-TV-distribution deals are a bit set and beyond boxing. I think this is one of the majors for the international community coming to the US to breakout.

There's a toooon of stuff one could add, but that's just a can of worms that does little but provide bull**** artists with ammo to bull**** with. imo.


Y'all do you, I won't bug yas, I just wanted it to be clear I'm not playing stats and if you get me to I'm just doing it to be a little bit of a bitter prick.

Well, absolutely I'm with you on the use and abuse of statistics, it is possible to use them to butress or attck virtually any position, similarly it's always possible to find an expert to expound on any position you might care to take. In fact debunking the bullchit use of stats is a hobby of sorts and in fact something I've occasionally managed to wangle payment for.

Nonetheless using per capita stats ain't really controversial in any way, man. It's about the only way you can compare metrics between populations of vastly differing sizes... what's curious to me is why these stats should be problematic to anyone. Naturally stats are never more than one part of the story but they can be a useful starting point for further discussion or inquiry and lead to a deeper understanding of a topic.

Listen, I just thought it'd be interesting and fun to post the stats, man, but if it'll put your mind at ease I'll freely acknowledge the numbers involved for basically every nation there (apart from maybe the US itself) are too small to glean any significant statistical information from.

When you only got 1 or 2 or 3 titles per nation simply winning one off another 1 or 2 title nation would completely change the balance of the statistics for both of 'em but clearly wouldn't imply any concommitant collapse or dominance of boxing in the respective nations in the real world.


Anyways... Ima keep posting such stats as I feel might be useful or that other folk might find useful, man. If that ain't your thing then fair enough, but I hope that most people will at least find 'em interesting or thought provoking.


EDIT. Oh yeah. When I was speaking about h0mogenity I was referring to population density not the US ethnic or racial distribution. ie whether the whole population is distributed across the US territory in a uniform manner in the way that the fat is evenly distributed throughout your quart of homogenised milk.

Like.. your calculations about how hard it would be for people to get to gyms and training buddies and so forth were based on an average population density for the whole country, when we know that populations are absolutely not distributed that way but in pockets of high density (which are big enough to support gyms and skill sharing) and low density. Furthermore I'd have to guess that boxers in most parts of the world come overwhelmingly from urban areas (Mexico, the US and UK all have urban populations hovering around 80% in line with most of the developed world)
In the US you got huge urban agglomerations with high density but massive spaces between 'em with next to nothing. You really trying to use Alaska as an argument why US boxing is less dominant than it could be?

Oh, and btw you better hope that the Russia fanboys don't get ahold of your population density argument... that wouldn't be pretty.