Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-30-2010, 02:59 AM   #1
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,073
vCash: 1000
Default WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a...

thanks to the poster Bodhi, he has made a real consideration of this "inaccuracy" - WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a given for American fighters??? Pre-1960, (media exposure world wide would get better from the 60s onward!).

most boxing people, historians and researchers and many serious fans know that the Yanks ruled especially among the Big Lads, BUT why is it a perpetuated "given" that the rest of the Boxing Nations Top Men weren't as good or near as good?

Many ranked Top fighters suffered improper exposure proplems in their own country never mind Internationally, i.e. Burley in the States, and Gilroy in Britain, and I'm sure there where many more.

this is a fair judgement Bodhi has raised, so lets look at it.

Pre, better exposure and easier travelling around the globe, the TOP fighters from Britain, Europe, Australia & NZ, South Africa, Mexico and South America, again the TOP DOGS, are transported to America for 2-3 years, mixing and fighting regularily the Ring's Top 10 (mostly Yanks) you don't think the history would be different, at least a bit(???) among the bigger men?

The Lengendary Charlie Rose, as early as the late 40s was a bit peturbed by the sole focus on the Big men, that he headed to Mexico and places south to find and return to the States these tough top men among the little guys there (previously Britain basically ruled), and history proves he was right in doing so!!!

so fair point, let these TOP Big Men from boxings leading Nations fight in America for a few years running and I believe some knew names would be Historical names, and some Historical names might never have made it!

Last edited by thistle1; 03-12-2012 at 04:22 PM.
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-17-2010, 09:45 AM   #2
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,073
vCash: 1000
Default Re: WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a...

Bump!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 03:47 PM   #3
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,073
vCash: 1000
Default Re: WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
thanks to the poster Bodhi, he has made a real consideration of this "inaccuracy" - WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a given for American fighters??? Pre-1960, (media exposure world wide would get better from the 60s onward!).

most boxing people, historians and researchers and many serious fans know that the Yanks ruled especially among the Big Lads, BUT why is it a perpetuated "given" that the rest of the Boxing Nations Top Men weren't as good or near as good?

Many ranked Top fighters suffered improper exposure proplems in their own country never mind Internationally, i.e. Burley in the States, and Gilroy in Britain, and I'm sure there where many more.

this is a fair judgement Bodhi has raised, so lets look at it.

Pre, better exposure and easier travelling around the globe, the TOP fighters from Britain, Europe, Australia & NZ, South Africa, Mexico and South America, again the TOP DOGS, are transported to America for 2-3 years, mixing and fighting regularily the Ring's Top 10 (mostly Yanks) you don't think the history would be different, at least a bit(???) among the bigger men?

The Lengendary Charlie Rose, as early as the late 40s was a bit peturbed by the sole focus on the Big men, that he headed to Mexico and places south to find and return to the States these tough top men among the little guys there (previously Britain basically ruled), and history proves he was right in doing so!!!

so fair point, let these TOP Big Men from boxings leading Nations fight in America for a few years running and I believe some knew names would be Historical names, and some Historical names might never have made it!
I'll try this again, this is a good question!!!

Last edited by thistle1; 03-12-2012 at 04:23 PM.
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 04:50 PM   #4
Surf-Bat
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Default Re: WHY should the Ring's Top 10 be a...

I'll take a stab. In many cases--perhaps even most--the best fighters in other countries eventually made their way to America back in the day to compete. Some did well, others not so much. Simply put, when they competed and did well, they got ranked by The Ring. When they didn't do so well, they didn't. If you look at The Ring throughout the decades you will see a large number of foreign fighters in their rankings.

"the TOP fighters from Britain, Europe, Australia & NZ, South Africa, Mexico and South America, again the TOP DOGS, are transported to America for 2-3 years, mixing and fighting regularily the Ring's Top 10 (mostly Yanks) you don't think the history would be different"

They did in most cases. The best of the best from other countries eventually gravitated here. Some won, some lost. History shows it clearly.
Surf-Bat is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013