#3 ATG HW survey?

He has a greater achievement than his brother, apart of the numbers of title-defences (where he has a good amount too).

But different times can be hardly compared, as Joe Louis would most likely getting stopped by Joseph Parker or Kubrat Pullev, even by some levels lower.

 

Not of the lineal title. That title means a lot around here. Nor did he consistently vaporize the same level of opposition as Wlad.

Most on this forum would probably disagree that Louis would lose to fighters "some levels lower" than Kubrat Pulev.

That aside, even if you're discussing greatness, the size and quality of the talent pool you dominate should count for something. Sullivan fought in a sport that wasn't even uniformly legal yet in his own country.

 

But I am not certain if it was deliberaly, it can be also from outside like by the commentary of broadcasts or by what is published in social media, like here, what could have grown the opinion of whom.

Also could this one be not aware of the boxers of the 19. century, as Sullivan, Corbett and Jeffries.
To be called racist, you have to intentional manipulate the people to come to a target what is to verify that one race is greater (this did grandfather McTonto here most likely). But in this case I am not sure, as it can be caused by a lack of knowledge among others.

 

Vitaly Klitschko won the lineal title vs. Corrie Sanders; Wladimir Klitschko possibly never (or vs. Alexander Powetkin, if his brother is regarded as retired by that point). But lineal titles doesn't really exist, it is just a fantasy game.

Well what the majoritys' opinion is doesn't change the truth; as I pointed in the Maske vs. Foster topic, I know in the world would likely favour about 65% Förster, but boxing developed in the years between them a lot. But there is also the styles make fight factor in that case, therefore I favoured the "Gentleman" over Forester.

Boxing is still not everywhere legal, but in the past it seemed to be harder (particular by the scheduled distances and frequenty of fights). At least was not so an inflation of world titles by that time.

 

Or maybe he just disagrees with you? Or, heck, maybe he's just bad at ranking fighters. (Or maybe you are.) Those would all be alternative options to assuming he's unconsciously influenced by racism.

You're German, right? Here in the US, even accusations of unconscious racism are treated very seriously and combatively. They are often used as passive-aggressive threats, insults, or power plays, because there are negative social consequences for being viewed as unconsciously racist. Including potentially losing your job.

It's also just plain not a good idea to assume bias or racism when there might be other factors at play.

For example, I notice that even though you listed Schmeling and a bunch of other fighters as top 3 candidates, you excluded...Max Baer. Even though he pulverized your guy Schmeling. If I wanted to jump to conclusions, I'd start wondering why you didn't rate Max Baer, but did rate a guy who publicly represented Nazi Germany. I could easily accuse you of being sympathetic to Nazism or antisemitism, using the same kind of evidence you used against the thread starter. You excluded the one guy with a Star of David on his trunks.

But I'm not going to do that, because I think most arguments about racism on this forum are overblown, unproductive, and pointless. I don't think they should have a place here.

 

All of the belts are "imaginary" in the sense that they mean something because society recognizes them.

Wlad had a better claim to the lineal title than Vitali, and he actually went through the trouble of beating basically everybody except Vitali.

It isn't a "fact" that low level modern fighters beat Louis. Louis never fought in the modern period at all. He's dead.

It's your opinion, and the forum disagrees with that opinion.

The title split during Sullivan's reign between his title and the Police Gazette belt. It didn't reunite until he beat Kilrain. And even then, not under MQR.

That aside, boxing may not be legal *everywhere* today, but it's an Olympic and professional global sport with a ton of financial backing. By contrast, it was illegal in lots of places in Sullivan's own country during his reign. His fight with Kilrain, for example, was literally a crime. He was almost arrested. That's a much less supportive environment for producing great talent.

 

Or maybe you are reckomanded to read more accurate; as I didn't do that. My text was, it can be interpreted as racistical motivated (or influenced), because it are 2 - 3 white boxers, but 9 - 10 black on the other hand. So this difference let the suggestion be possible, no matter if it is a coincidance or not.

So I didn't do any accusation. Although I think accusations of racism or sexuality are not treated the same against white people or hetero men, as against coloured people, women or divers sexualities. The first is often overlooked; neither Joshua nor Hopkins got any consequences for their behaviour and even the commentators doesn't mention it, as them are afraid to get blamed by people with African descent.

No I'm Romulutner.

 

No it is the opposite; all the official belts exist, as you can wear them and keep these at one place. There are also ranking of the sanctioning bodies and you are obligated to do mandatory defences of these titles.

What are you calling Wlad fought in Bantamweigth and Vitali in Super-Featherweight...

Boxing was already in 1896 Olympical and beforehands in the antique (even when only Helens/ Greeks were allowed to participate). Sullivan fought also Mitchel and few other high rated contenders (stopped them much earlier than Corbett did).
Cuban boxers were allowed to participate, just as these from the Russian Empire. That was not the case in the time of Ali, he was only champion of the western world, not the whole earth.

 

Again, this is a distinction without a difference.

If I say, "It's possible you're an antisemite because you irrationally excluded Baer from your list, but included a representative of Nazi Germany," the implication is clear enough. You would be justified in being annoyed at my implication.

Could be, but for all you know, the thread starter is himself a heterosexual white male. If you're right, then telling him he's subconsciously racist is just kicking a man when he's down.

 

No, as I didn't formulate it that way: again my words were the selection can be interpreted a racistical motivated or influenced. What just means somone might do that, as it appears for other people so.

 

There are dozens of belts today. Even more belts in the past that died out. Which ones count? The ones the public cares about.

I don't know what you're saying here.

Ancient Greek boxing has no historical connection to early modern boxing. Boxing lineage begins with Figg. It's a British sport.

Sullivan won his title from Paddy Ryan under an old bareknuckled punching and wrestling set of rules. There was no professional gloved belt at that time. Sullivan invented it by refusing to defend his title under London Prize Ring Rules for most of his defenses.

Amateur boxing did exist, yes. Incidentally, Athens 1896 wasn't as big an event at the time as it became viewed in retrospect. The Olympic movement hadn't fully taken off at that point. And Sullivan won his title years before, in the 1880s.

 

Okay:

"Your exclusion of the Jewish Max Baer, and inclusion of the champion of Nazi Germany, can be interpreted as racially motivated or influenced. It appears so to other people."

There. I have used your words. I still consider the above to be (1) an accusation, and (2) unfair.


Look, I can see what you are saying, and the distinction you are trying to draw. But I'm telling you that there isn't a way to phrase your statement innocuously, at least in the American context. You are throwing the gauntlet down. That's the implication when it's written in English. Perhaps the implication is different when it's in Romulan, but this is an English language forum.

 

Wladimir Sidorenko was WBA champion in Bantamweight; Vitali Tajbert WBC world champion in Super-Featherweight (would have linked it, if Boxrec would works sometime), but you might means Vitali Tsypko or Wladimir Powetkin.
These are possible two of the 5 most used Slavic Christian names (it is like you write Michael has rather a case than John)...

It is not original British it comes from Egypt, Mesopotamian or Greece, with narrowly the same rules. The rules of chess have more changed, but it still comes from India (or China), not from France of Germany.

When Sullivan was active were no Olympic Games, so nobody could take part in boxing during it.

 

Well still not, it is a primitive try: I just pointed it by the numbers of choices, not by specific names...
And by the way I have no Nazi champion included, not even a German one (would I, just pointed one should be higher than Burns).

 

The sport that became modern boxing originated in Britain. It was developed from the application of fencing principles to fist fighting.

Other countries had their own fist fighting sports at different points in history, but none of them have a historical link to the sport that became boxing. Look at all of the lineal champions up to Heenan (the first American to hold a piece of the title). They're British.

Like I said: the lineage starts with Figg.

Correct. That's my point. Boxing -- modern, gloved, professional, global boxing -- was in its infancy.