BOXING and the Deterioration of Society...

Joe Louis lived in a virulently racist society where he couldn't even join the navy as an active seaman. He also thrashed women who had much less recourse to support in their communities. Children were far more likely to die.

Joe Louis "allows an opponent to regain his balance. How many fighters today? blah blah blah."

Very clearly this man does not watch modern combat sports. It is obvious.

This content is protected

This was last week:

This content is protected

So disagree. People might be louder and ruder on tv but in Joe Louis's era black people in many states were prevented from voting. Spousal **** was not a recognised crime. Children were more than five time was likely to die. Things are way, way, way, way better now.

 

Man, fighters just got robbed in that era. Absolutely robbed. Wearing their regulation issue trunks and boots but robbed blind. "Here's the hand that will count the money, boys." They didn't even hide it these promoters. Fighters were just meat to them, and meat that often didn't get paid and never - ever - got the lion's share. That went to the promoter.

They weren't showing off by wearing coloured gloves though. Magic.

 

Modern fighters are all mostly "from poverty" and are trying to better themselves, though I'm not sure what difference that makes.

I agree with you that modern fighters present themselves in a more embarrassing light but that is because, for much of the time, they are presenting themselves as something at least related to their authentic selves. It's hard to imagine Teo Lopez being even more obnoxious than he is on tv It's almost impossible, meanwhile, to see Billy Conn interview and then learn that he enjoyed throwing stones at tethered dogs. It's weird to see an interview with Sugar Ray Robinson and later learn that he's a probable psychopath.

Let me put it this way: Floyd Mayweather is way more annoying on television than Robinson. But Mayweather, a spousal abusing megalomaniac is far more "the gentleman" by any standards i can think of.

 

Nah, you are wrong. Even the top-ten ranked fighters who DO get ripped off now bank millions. Millions of pounds.

Probably Carl Frampton is the best example of a fighter who has been ripped off badly in recent times, and even as a little man who enjoyed limited success, he is a mllionaire.

So actually you might be right, technically, that "everyone gets ripped off, then and now" and if that is all you meant by your remark, that's fine.

But if you're implying it's the same now as it was then, you are way off.

 

I don't think that you can make that generalisation at all, no. Off the top of my head, Tony Galento seemed to have very little difference in bettering himself in any way other than "just materially". Bernard Hopkins meanwhile comes from a criminal background to work with teens who are suffering from depression. You surely don't think he's doing that for money? Meanwhile Manny Pacquiao, who grew up literally eating garbage and earned $500m in his career; you think he's working in Filipino politics for the cash?

No, this is a sweeping generalisation that no sensible person could agree with.

In the sense that there is less poverty in the world this is probably true and that's my point in this thread. The "downfall of society charted through boxing" is somehow covered by boxers becoming independent of their promoters, earning more money, being ripped off less, having better medical care and eduction Uh, no.

But you are technically right and probably wrong again in the sense that Usyk, Alvarez, Crawford, Golovkin and Estrada all fought their way out of terrible poverty to reach the very top. In some cases, such surviving vicious gang violence to make it. I know you're keen to frame it as "in the west" but the whole point is that the focus of boxing has moved away from the west specifically because poverty breeds good fighters. I think yo'uve got this pretty wrong to be frank.

But again, you are technically correct. There is less poverty because there is less poverty.

And that's probably the difference that matters, and that I don't criticise for you at all. Everyone is different. I'm am interested in a boxer's authentic self primarily. I don't like fakes. I don't like pretence. You don't like to be annoyed by what's happening on your television. I think there is absolutely no difference between these two outlooks in terms of their value.

Standards of behaviour in the sport are definitely, inarguably better now. That's partly because rapists are more likely to be jailed/destroyed, because outright racism is illegal, because spousal abuse is harder to get away with, because many other things.

But on tv they are better behaved in the forties, that much is true

Carl Frampton is not a "spoilt little ****", that is nonsense. Of the pound for pound top ten now (TBRB), nor is Usyk, Inoue, Josh Taylor, Estrada, Golovkin, Spence or Ioka.

Again, I think you're just misinterpreting or misrepresenting the reality. Which is that a tiny minority of public assholes exist now that didn't exist then. Because they had to pretend.

 

Some of it can be hard on the ear, that is for sure.

 

Yeah, I still think you can have good generalisations and bad generalisations even in a conversation that deals with generalisations. I think that's generally true