Straight forward question and truly want your thoughts on the following question: From Sullivan to Braddock there was one heavyweight champion in roughly 55 years that was African American. We all know his name. He was the only AA fighter allowed to fight for the title up to the time and other than his own defense v.s. Jim Johnson, the only one till Joe Louis. In 1937 Joe Louis won the title and became the second AA heavyweight champion. He fought and acted under a code of low key behavior so he would not antagonize white fury as did Johnson. Louis has been viewed through out history as a hinge on race relations, redefining the color line in the sport and sports in general. In the 62 some odd years since Louis gave up the title, under a level playing field, the title has been held by AA fighters 84% (roughly) of the time ... My question is why the huge swing ? Why was a talent pool representing 11% of the population able to dominate to such a degree ? I'm not sure there is any one answer but a combination ... I'm interested in your thoughts.
Boxing history would indeed have been very different if men like Sam Langford and Harry Wills had been given the breaks that they deserved. As form the reasons why Afro-Americans had such a monopoly of success from 1937 onwards,well,a lot of it probably comes down to hunger and a sense of urgency. For a long time blacks in America were screwed by the system,and they had to push themselves that extra mile.
I'm most curious about the American athlete. There is serious credit to a degree about the hunger factor in different cultures and ethnic groups ... if we look at the Eastern Europeans post comminism and how well they have done in the sport a solid argument can be made by a hungrier new group entering the sport. I honestly don't know the answer but the numbers are the numbers.
If you ask me, I think African Americans have a higher chance to live in poverty in America than say White people. And if you look throughout history, most boxers were poor when they entered the sport, most still were when they left it. But I think the correlation between the poverty African Americans have been facing and the fact that boxing is more of a poor mans sport could answer it.
A group of people who live under poor circumstances is a group of people that will likely result in several successful boxers. It is interesting to note that between 1900 and 1950 (roughly), white and black people were living in pretty bad conditions. But from the 50's on (or WWII if you will), white folks generally lived a more wealthy existence, whereas most black people were still working under pretty bad circumstances and making little money. You can see this back in boxing. Between 1900 and 1950, black and white boxers were competitive and although not even in number, there was a decent balance. Of course, black heavyweight were generally not in title fights pre-Louis. But they were there. Then, from the 70's one (the generation born from the 50's), the white heavyweight became extinct pretty fast while the black boxers kept existing and consequently took over, big time. And since the mid-2000's, the same thing is happening in Eastern Europe, which produces a lot of good white Heavyweights.
I think that the reasons are mainly cultural. Boxing has historicaly always been dominated by the nations, races, and cultures with the strongest boxing traditions.
I'm going to use the term Black rather than African American, because Lennox Lewis, for one, was not an African American. I think, in more modern times, there were more Black heavyweight boxers than White heavyweight boxers, therefore there were more Black champions. In the old days I think there were more White heavyweight boxers than Black heavyweight boxers, therefore there were more White champions. I also agree with what Janitor said above.