Is it true that the heavyweight division is cyclical and has periods of slumps/booms?

To be honest, I think for the forseeable future the US is going to play second fiddle to eastern european countries and countries like England.
England alone has some promising talent coming through and I think countries like the Ukraine, Russia and Poland will produce several quality heavyweights over the next 10 years or so.
I think the ball sports like basketball and football will continue to take the cream of the athletic crop in the US, and a few of the leftovers may pick up boxing when they realise there is not much else on the table.

The thing is, is that the US always had a strong amateur presence in the heavyweight divsion. Now look at it.

 

I'm pretty sure Bowe and Mercer came after Biggs.

 

I think the euros have better amateur programs now than the States does. There are posters much more clued up on the amateur scene than I am though. Hopefully they can contribute here.
Wilder has done pretty well to get where he is at considering his limited amateur experience, but I think it's clear he is still learning the finer nuances of the pro game.
Boxing takes a lifetime to learn. Look at Usyk, Lomachenko, Beterbiev, Kovalev, Golovkin etc. They have massive amateur experience and it shows, even if some like Lomachenko and Beterbiev have limited pro experience.
The amatuers is the bedrock of the sport. If a country's program is lacking, athletes will suffer.

 

I think every division has its slumps and booms. Welterweight is about the only class that has been fairly consistently stocked with talent for most of its existence. As for this discussion about the future of American heavyweights, I think it will be a long time before the United States sees another boom like the 70's or the 90's. As already mentioned, Europe seems to have constructed a better amateur system and this is key in breading good stock for tomorrow. There just aren't many boxing gyms in the US anymore or at least not by comparison to what there used to be. As spectator interest has dropped off in this country so has participant numbers.

 

Wlad started when he was 12.

 

This is a horrible argument.

By this logic, the great heavies of the 1970-80's, when the US dominated the division, would have deprived Basketball and Football of talent. However, with the possible exception of George Foreman, we see a collection of athletes at the highest ranks of the division who were likely to FAIL MISERABLY at those two sports, guys who were undersized, slow of foot and generally lacking in strength. Fighters are not ballplayers!

We could likely as state that the greatest loss of talent for the division exists in the mines of Kazakhstan, the herders of China or in the farms of Nigeria.

 

I doubt the the top men in basketball and football would be great boxers, but there might be many potentially great boxers who never tried the sport because its not that popular any more.

 

Yeah I know you've always thought that particular argument as flimsy and ****. Honestly I don't know why though.

I see all these 6'8" basketballers who can run, jump, pivot and move like real athletes and think that among them, there surely would make some decent heavies.
That is, if they started young and at anateur level.
I'm not talking about converting failed footballers and basketballers and making them boxers.
I'm talking about taking raw athletic talent from young and pointing them in the direction of a boxing gym. Many would not make it, but some would.

Let's not forget that Marciano would not even have been a boxer if he was better at baseball.

 

Yeah and Magoo said a similar thing earlier. You need talent to find that outlet.

How many guys in the past got into boxing because they followed a friend or brother to a gym, or were sent to a gym by their father or mother because they were getting into fights on the street or at school?
Or maybe they were just curious and checked the gym out.

These kids had access to a gym but without that access, what do they do?