Thomas Sowell is quite probably the most brilliant thinker in America today and boxing is reflecting the decline in morality, maturity and civility of western civilization. Of course the same can be seen in other sports as well. I also believe you're right that it began with Ali.
To be honest, none of this is really relevant anyway. Billy from accounts just isn't a good parallel for public icon Ray Robinson. The comparison makes no sense. 1) I don't think there's anything wrong with being quiet either. He was found to be uncharitable, quiet and weird in the example i gave. 2) I actually never said anything about "being your authentic self" I don't think. I been talking about it a while now and it's possible that I did slip though. If I slipped, what I mean is "more your authentic self". So, I'm discussing the difference between what Josh Taylor is like when is with IFL TV - probably very like Josh Taylor when he is with his friends - and what Joe Louis was like under Roxborough tutelage and how that compares to his true character. Not necessarily Roxborough directly. I accept that it is possible that Joe Louis was exactly who Roxborough wanted him to be before he started tutoring him (maybe indirectly) and I accept that Josh Taylor is maybe pretending. But my point is that Josh Taylor has an opportunity to be his authentic self, unless he wants sex with fish or some such god-awful thing, and that Louis did not, although he might have been. Or Louis had less of a chance at least Jesus Christ. 3) If we continue to use the work analogy, with their being at work their projected self - the one you feel better about being around - and away from work their more authentic self, i've known all sorts. IN general though i've liked people better away from work than when they are at work. They're more relaxed, for a start. So I don't want Billy from accounts to stab Gina from postal to be authentic. But it's nice to hear what he thinks about the world, and as long as it isn't along the lines of "HItler was onto something" I'll probably find that preferable, personally. Because it's real and I find someone pretending to be something other than they are - even if it's for a formal occasion - uncomfortable. 4) Always be yourself to the best degree you can, as long as what you want to do isn't extremely violent or upsetting.
Fair enough. Myself, I see restrictions on authenticity as a continuum, which stretches from rules of politeness on one end to legal sanctions on the other. Forcing Billy not to eat Nana is different in (extreme) degree from forcing Billy not call Nana mean names, but both are doing the same kind of thing. Restraining the id. Usually, politeness rules (and criminal laws) exist to restrain authentic bad behavior. It's not that common to restrict people from wanting to be nicer or more gracious to each other. Take the Joe Louis handshaking example: we commend Joe Louis for being polite because we suspect that his authentic self would prefer to demean or threaten the other guy. It's not because we expect Louis's authentic self to spontaneously hug Tony Galento and wish him great luck. Or to put it another way, I don't think it's common for people to need to "fake" bad behavior. Most fake personas are (perceived as) better than the real ones almost by definition. If they weren't, there would be no need for the masquerade.
No, this part isn't right. I'm not saying that Louis would have done anything other than what he did I'm accepting in fact that it is exactly what he wanted to do. I think the likelihood is he would have behaved a little differently at least, if he didn't have all those rules laid down for him or if he lived 25 years later. And he might have been very different. The point is, that opportunity was less present for him then than it is now. There was a definite code for fighter/sportscaster interactions pre-Ali, which Liston should actually get some credit for busting too. This heavily coded era was short lived and Louis was bang in the middle of it.
I should rephrase: Joe Louis himself -- the actual person -- may very well have wanted to just shake the opponent's hand. We, the audience, find it slightly emotionally difficult to imagine how someone gearing up to punch another person would shake hands with them. So we compliment Louis on his politeness. Factually, I absolutely agree that there was a "code" back then for media interactions. Ethically, I think that at least some of the (non-racist) polite behavior imposed on Louis by that code was actually rather pleasant -- something I would encourage people to do even when the media isn't watching them.
Well we, as seasoned boxing fans, we shouldn't feel that. We see it almost every fight, it's usually the last thing we see before a fight, and weirdly, and uncomfortably enough, fighters are forced to do it even when they don't want to (MMA often have "shake hands if you want to" and they do or they don't). I think, for most of us, it's clear that shaking hands is a part of the ritual and where it doesn't happen that ritual has been broken. I personally like to see it, as I mention above with the specific examples of Hagler and Marciano. I think it's a shame it had to be imposed on him, or that people felt they had to impose it on him. And this was exclusively for race-related reasons, or maybe Jack Johnson-related reasons if you believe that he can be extracted from the race question in America in 1935. In the end, while I don't want to see Ray Robinson beating women in the street, it makes me uncomfortable seeing the good-guy portrait versus what I know about him. But part of this is professionalism in the strictest sense, and I get that. However, if Robinson were alive today, he would make Maywetaher look like a boy-scout. The point I would make is that there are lots of guys on here who absolutely hate Mayweather and the way he conducted himself even though he was far more gentle and loving than Robinson. What's more, they don't want to hear about that awful things Robinson's family say he has done. Rather they want to remember the Pabst Blue-Ribbon sponsored version of Robinson who was "such a nice boy." Tell you what, Leonard is an interesting case. That was pure, sleek, professionalism. A drug-addicted womanising bully who forced his employees to smuggle drugs for him but who was and remains a golden-child of modern boxing. He'd be a good study.
Yes, this is probably true as well. Someone who is outright lying is uncomfortable to be around as well. And corrupting to the person lying, IMO. What I think people in Louis's time were more about is the idea of self-restraint, rather than obsequieous deception. Sticking with the handshake example, if my opponent maintains a carefully neutral tone and wishes us both a good, clean fight despite wanting to kill me, he can consider his obligations handily met.
That's kind of what I'm getting at. The ritual exists because, in the general course of normal human behavior, two guys who want to beat each other up don't politely shake hands. The entire handshaking ritual is a good example of enforced politeness. I see it as the same kind of thing as expecting Louis to be polite to reporters (even when the reporters are rude idiots.) Yeah, it was imposed for racist reasons. Although most of the white guys boxing back then were also expected to be somewhat polite. But since I'm discussing what ought to have happened, I think I would prefer the fighters of both races acting more like Louis. I agree that it's a shame that rules have to be imposed, formal or otherwise. I think it's just a cost of being people, though. I personally accept having laws and customs imposed on me, because I recognize that I'm far from morally perfect, and might need rules to prevent me from getting tempted to step out of line now and again. (Not that I'm planning to run around murdering people or anything, mind you.) I agree with this. I think the solution -- to the extent that there is one -- is to extend one's mentality of "professionalism in the strictest sense" to one's private life as well.
It exists for me in order to illustrate a difference between fighting and ritualised fighting so yes, agree probably and it is the same kind of thing as expecting Louis to call reporters Sir, or thanking an opponent for the opportunity, or smiling and waving to his mother, or not cursing at the weigh in, or whatever. It's ok to want fighters to do that, as I said to Unforgiven on either page one or two, it's no problem for me if people feel that way. Yes, that is true. Yes, and I agree that if fighters try to sexual molest each other, steal each others belongings, burn each other's home down, use weapons against each other etc., they should be censored and removed from competition. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for a fighter to shout "You! I'm going to jolly well get you!" rather loudly at the weigh-in. Or say "You are going to get a bunch of fives you bad man!" Or whatever. I wouldn't encourage it, and I disagree that it is culturally encouraged (though it definitely is economically, in the case of Pretty Boy Floyd Mayweather for example, who absolutely nobody cared about). In fact, far form "pretending to be psychos" as @Unforgiven stated, boxing has resisted the generally tumble into "bad behaviour" rather manfully and admirably IMO. The amount of cursing and swearin and nonsense after MMA shows is far, far in excess of that seen in boxing. Fighters at weigh ins bristle and menace one-another and I love that. When they throw chairs an punches, that's where I get off, but again, they have broken the law, whatever their profession might be. Very interesting.
This is an interesting thread premise. I'll have a read through everything first before I respond as I can see some good opposing points being made that deserve more than a cursory glance.
I am not as knowledgeable as you about Britt and Corbett and there's no footage of them going ****ing nuts in front of the press, or whatever you alluded to. That's basically what I meant. Wilder. Although, of course he only pretends to be a psycho. He is very much an authentic moron. Most of the culprits just act like children, but they are grown men. We all have pressure exerted upon us by ourselves or others to act "inauthentically". Usually in a good or logical way. It is called self-control or socialisation. We don't just act on our animal impulses and blurt out every thought that comes to mind. There's a good reason for that. It's no big deal if they refuse to shake hands. My point is, most of them should just turn up to the press conference or whatever, shakes hands (or not), say a little bit about the fight, and go home, or whatever. Because that's sufficient. Instead of acting like morons, throwing insults and objects around, thinking it's entertaining. Just my opinion. Most these fighters have at some point come through the amateur ranks, obscurity and anonymity, and you can be sure the vast majority didn't act like that until they got a bit of attention. Well, I took the comment that you made about Joe Louis being "trained not to upset white people" as linked to "Yes sir, no sir" comment. And the sentence was: ""Yes sir no sir" might have ben the right thing for Louis because he might not have got his title shot without it, that's how awful his America was in comparison to today's" I took that as him saying "Yes sir, No sir" to be nice to white reporters, as part of his behaviour to not upset white people, and so he can get his title shot, because America was racist. Yeah, that's definitely how I read it. But anyway, you are talking about stuff that has nothing to do with what I think is "good behaviour". I think good behaviour is basically anything that isn't acting like a complete ****. I have not implied that calling people "sir" is necessary or preferable, or anything of the sort. Just acting like a sober adult will suffice. Not acting in a way that will get security guards and police called or scare civilians in any normal environment. Whether Joe Louis was "forced" to call people "sir", and whether or not he actually always did so, is not relevant to my point. I haven't seen it. You moved the conversation over to that. I don't care whether he called a man "sir" or not. I don't care whether he was media trained or not. I'm not saying everyone needs to be media trained or given rules on what they can or cannot say. I'm saying boxers can act normal outside of the ring at public appearances, it's not a bad thing. Just acting normal, not demented. That's all, that's my standard.