pre 1990's boxing...was alot of american success due to always playing on home turf.

I agree that it was hardly 'foreign soil' for Duran.

What I meant was that Leonard would have been more likely to get a close decision say if the fight was in Vegas rather than in Canada.

 

All of the European titlist are 160 up. With most European males being taller and heavier, that is where they have the deepest talent pool. How many 5'6'' 135 pound white guys are there? My ancestors are from Germany and not a male in my family could box below 175,

Russia's population is less than 1/2 of the United States and I lump in the Eastern Bloc becuase I assumed they pushed more boys into boxing than the soccer loving Western European nations. (Really just an assumption based on the perceived sporting successes/preferences of the regions.)

Still, with a larger poplulation and, at least pre-1990, fewer diversions, the US had a deeper talent pool.

 

Add to that that second world fighters weren't even allowed to compete professionally and you realize that the "Golden Age" of boxing is a myth. Easy to claim that black US fighters were the best when they weren't fighting any slavs or cubans. No **** all the champs were US blacks.

 

I like the fact that the term "World Champion" actually means "World Champion" nowadays.

 

I don't think USA is no longer dominating because of fighting away from home more like the OP suggested, its more to do with the increased participation from eastern bloc countries.
Even going back to the 70s Usa only really dominated from welterweight and above. Eastern bloc countries have now come into pro boxing a lot more and make up a lot of the titile holders and top contenders from middleweight and up. USA still has a lot of success from 140-160.
Usa no longer dominating is due to the increased competition and boxing becoming much more global

 

atsch @ this thread. Class always shines through. That's the bottom line. It's true of Americans going overseas just as it is of foreigners traveling to America or wherever else.

 

If you look at amateur boxing in the 70s and 80s the countries winning the most medals were often countries where the boxers didnt go pro some olympic games the top 5 countries in the boxing medal table were all communist.
So I think if these countries boxers were going pro back then, they may well have dominated the pro ranks in the 70s and 80s like they are today.

 

Ofcourse it played a huge role.

Who would have lost and who would still have won... we will never k ow. Because even some of the clear winners would have lost and some of the narrow winner might still have won.

 

I wonder if Lennox Lewis success had anything to do with most of his fights being in the US :think ? This thread is ******ed!

 

Yeah... if they are any good they win regardless... just like Dirrell in England, Roy Jones Jr in Korea, Sturm in the US and so on.

And these are just the blatant robberies (perhaps the dirrell one) - then there are all the ones where the fighter just didn't do as well away as he would have at home and the other guy vice versa.

We know it from sports too.... Even great teams lose much more away than at home.

 

Not for long.Brazil footie that is.

 

Outside of the Klits, which one of these Eastern Euros Heavies would be major contenders in the 70's, 80s's or 90's? When I look at this list all I see is two dominant fighters and a bunch of gatekeepers.

This myth of about Eastern Europe dominance doesn't really hold any weight.

 

What do you mean this myth of eastern european dominance? Most of the top HWs are eastern european.

Joe Frazier, Champion
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Oscar Bonavena
Jerry Quarry
Mac Foster
Henry Cooper
George Chuvalo
Sonny Liston
Jose Ibar Urtain
Jose Luis Garcia

Here's a top ten list of 1971 without all the eastern euros, is this list stronger than a 2011, because I just see 3 boxers who would have a chance of making the top 10 today and a load of boxers who wouldnt stand much chance