Originally Posted by edward morbius
You are in your seventies?
I wouldn't have guessed that.
*I am just not interested in head-to-head matchups because they have become meaningless not only in boxing but in most sports because of the clearly observable explosion is size.
Why should I value a criteria which elevates the 2012 Jets over the 1950's Browns or the 1960's Packers?
That sort of fantasy strikes me now as worthless.
It made some sense up to the sixties or so and perhaps a bit longer, as you were comparing apples to apples in a sense. A tournament between Tom Cribb, John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, and Rocky Marciano, while covering 150 years, was still between men of similar size. We could consider them in the same weight class.
Now the whole argument boils down to size differentials dependent on outside the ring factors which are changing the very physical nature of men.
**on the more interesting point of the shift in top fighters from the US to the eastern bloc countries. There are two ways of looking at this--is something gone that was there before--sort of like the leopard becoming the top predator because the tiger was exterminated (eastern bloc fighters taking over because America is abandoning boxing)
or is it something being added--the leopard was the top predator but has been replaced by tigers expanding range (American heavyweights have lost their dominance because of new breed of super-fighter from eastern Europe)
It can be argued either way, or that both are partially true.
Very valid points in regards to comparisons.
As for where the talent is coming from, as is the case with most sports, i just think that there is more interest and a better structure in place for boxing in certain countries at this moment in time.