Is the NFL/NBA more lucrative than HW boxing?

[space hillbilly]

All that gibberish in your post confirmed to us that you are indeed an idiot.

Also he can't stand the truth.

 

[Frenchnative]

Klitschko is making millions fighting in Germany, the
SAME Germany that is paying guys like David Hasselhoff MILLIONS of
dollars (LMFAO!)

Ward would be a
SUPERSTAR in Europe with his resume

He barely beat Carl Froch who despite his resume struggled for a national recognition in Britain. Ward will lose to Bute if he happens to fight him so enjoy your champ as long as you can. Ward is your new Hopkins and Bute is a more powerful version of Joe Calzaghe.

And about the nfl thing, as pointed out, most of them would fall in the Cruiserweight weight category now.
As if blacks didn't already practice boxing a lot more than whites, statistically speaking.
Some people actually imagine more perspectives than just ball games and boxing.

 

[whiteathlete33]

Negros and DWFs want to believe what the jewish tell them about heavyweight boxing. That it is weak and nobody cares who the champions are. And young Americans (blacks) only want to go into football or basketball. But the jewish media also ignored soccer, the world's most popular sport. Truth is Wladimir said he wanted to fight three times in 2012 because he only fought once last year. So he will make about 45 million this year (if he doesnt lose a fight), thats almost as much as the top earning NFL and NBA player combined...Also, Vitali is looking at two fights this year, Chisroa and Haye. Vitali should earn 25 or 30 million this year (more than any NFL/NBA player) and haye about 15 or the same as Michael Vick. Alexander Povetkin has a 9 million euro (12.4 million US. dollars) fight vs Huck in February, if he wins he'll have another fight this fall. Placing Povetkin (in earning) well ahead of Lebron James and also 95% of the NBA. It's just another transparent excuse made by the jewish media.....

That's not even mentioning what the Klitschko brothers earn through endorsements and through their website where they sell t-shirts and other Klitschko memorabilia. With all that added in I imagine Wladimir will make 60 million or more this year if he fights three times.

 

[space hillbilly]

That's not even mentioning what the Klitschko brothers earn through endorsements and through their website where they sell t-shirts and other Klitschko memorabilia. With all that added in I imagine Wladimir will make 60 million or more this year if he fights three times.

Plus their documentary film still playing in Europe and will be releasted on video in the west soon.

 

[space hillbilly]

That's not even mentioning what the Klitschko brothers earn through endorsements and through their website where they sell t-shirts and other Klitschko memorabilia. With all that added in I imagine Wladimir will make 60 million or more this year if he fights three times.

Wladimir and Vitali do endorsements all over Europe. Here's their newest beer commerical


[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwDPUNJ7Y8s[/video]

 

[space hillbilly]

German TV Sports.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGC1VOKTuCM[/video]

 

[space hillbilly]

Commerical for Telekom, Europe's biggest phone company.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX_19ArOHSI[/video]

 

[JReb1]

I find it odd that blacks suddenly just stopped boxing and going to the NBA and NFL at the same exact time that the former USSR fighters were allowed to compete and then dominate. What are the odds...:icon_rolleyes:

FACT: If the Russians weren't allowed to compete still than fighters like Chambers and Peter etc. would now be considered great and the HW division would still be being hyped by the MSM in America!

 

[werewolf]

The number one argument used by the media against the heavyweight division today is still that all best Americans athletes (blacks) have went into the more popular and financially lucrative NFL/NBA. But is that argument correct?...

The chances of making it in the NFL or NBA are infinitesimal. You have a far better chance of winning the lottery. There's a slightly better chance of becoming a pro in baseball because there are more positions, considering the minor leagues. And even tho there are far fewer boxing clubs and boxing shows in the USA today then there was in the past, there is still a way better chance of becoming a pro in that sport, albeit a poorly paid low level pro with zero benefits, than in any of the above. Anyway, it is obvious where the controlled US jewsmedia, and their *** and wig parrots on the big boxing forums, are coming from when they attempt to disparage today's heavyweight division, which is bigger and stronger and better and far more international in scope than it ever was before.

Cool Klitschko commercials!



ww

 

[space hillbilly]

The chances of making it in the NFL or NBA are infinitesimal. You have a far better chance of winning the lottery. There's a slightly better chance of becoming a pro in baseball because there are more positions, considering the minor leagues. And even tho there are far fewer boxing clubs and boxing shows in the USA today then there was in the past, there is still a way better chance of becoming a pro in that sport, albeit a poorly paid low level pro with zero benefits, than in any of the above. Anyway, it is obvious where the controlled US jewsmedia, and their *** and wig parrots on the big boxing forums, are coming from when they attempt to disparage today's heavyweight division, which is bigger and stronger and better and far more international in scope than it ever was before.

Cool Klitschko commercials!



ww

I remember reading a few years ago that approximately only 1 in 6500 young black men actually make a living through professional sports in America. There's around 450 negros in the NBA and 900 in the NFL. 1350 out of about 6 million young blacks in America is not a very big talent pool to pick a possible "if not for the NFL/NBA" heavyweight champion from.......

 

[BoxingSpecialist2]

This is a topic I have been thinking about for sometime. Ive been a diehard boxing fan all of my life and I really feel I have an accurate portrayal of this argument. I feel now is the best time to post this:

Many Americans have a hard time believing that today's heavyweight division is run by White Europeans. For the last 10 years, Heavyweight has been entirely controlled by White European champions. Many Americans find that strange, because in USA they are used to most professional sports being dominated by blacks. Before the 2000s, modern heavyweight boxing was also traditionally dominated by black Americans.

In an attempt to ***Justify*** white dominance and black removal in heavyweight boxing, Americans will say things like "white boxers are only controlling heavyweight because all black americans left to the NBA or NFL".

Here's the problem with that!!!

1Blacks have been losing dominance in all weightclasses, not just heavyweight. Blacks have not just been losing and getting knocked out by white heavyweights. Blacks have also been losing and getting knocked out by white middleweights, white welterweights, white light heavyweights, white super middleweights. Understand that, middleweights, lt. heavyweights, and weltwerweights could never make the NFL or NBA because they are too small.

Blacks have simply been losing in boxing, period, irrespective of weightclasses. While the NBA/NFL argument atleast holds logical relevance for the heavyweight division, the argument does not provide an explanation for why blacks have been losing ground in every other weightclass as well, because these boxers are too small to turn to NFL/NBA.

These trends suggest that blacks are losing boxing dominance to whites for a reason OTHER than the NFL/NBA argument.

2Understand that in the 1950s-1990s, Black American boxers were essentially competing only against White Americans, the odd Hispanic, and the odd Western European (ie UK, France, Italy) fighters.

So fighters like Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Joe Louis were not really world champions in the sense that the world was truly competing against them. It would be more correct to call them "Western Champions", "American champions", or "Partial-World Champions".

The simple fact of life is that the competition pool in the 1950s-1990s was simply not as international or deep as it is today.

Black Boxers of the past had it easy in the sense that they faced a very limited opposition pool. Today, that the opposition pool has become more global, blacks are losing everything, surprise surprise.

It is entirely conceivable to suggest that many great Black boxers of the past (ie MUhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Ray Robinson) would have lost many fights had Eastern Europeans been competing at that time.

Soviets did not start entering pro boxing until the late 1990s and what a coincidence that this time corresponds to white takeover of pro boxing. Its entirely reasonable to suggest that many former black champions of the past would have lost fights to Soviets had they been allowed to compete in the 1950s-1990s.

3Although Eastern Europeans did not compete in professional boxing from the 1950s to the 1990s due to communism, they did compete in amateur boxing and experienced a great deal of success. The greatest precursor to success in professional boxing is success in amateur boxing.

Based on that, there exists reasonable grounds to assume that Eastern Europeans would have fared well in pro boxing had they competed. Most likely, many Soviets would have beaten many black champions of the past.

4There exists a natural time bias in any discussion about sports. People have a natural tendency to overestimate things and athletes of the past. Klitschko's today are unfairly criticized, and I believe that is true. However, I also believe 15 years from now, they will receive more praise than they do today. No doubt the Zionist media will still be trying to censor their title-reigns, but Im just saying, I do think they will receive more praise in time from now.

People have a natural tendency to overevaluate athletes from the past. This bias is both erroneous and dangerous in the sense that it leads to skewed findings, overly-biased evaluations etc.

5As dempseyfire stated, there exists a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for a Black American heavyweight at the moment. Quite honestly, if a young Black American heavyweight was to again become heavyweight champion, the media would be all over it. He would be bigger than Floyd Mayweather, he'd be making 50Million+ a fight if he was popular.

HBO is currently pushing American hopeful Seth Mitchell. He's good but not great. He's certainly not the answer, and only started boxing at age 28. I think he gets KO'd early by any top Euro heavyweight.

But the point Im making is there exists a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for a potential successful American Black heavyweight. A popular black american heavyweight champion would be making more money than any NFL or NBA player I assure you. So dont give me that crap that there's more money in NFL or NBA, not true at all. There's more money in boxing actually.

6Understand that, if Soviets were not competing today. You would have basically the same results and situation that you had 20 and 30 years ago. Almost exclusively Black Champions. White Americans and (for the most part) White Western Europeans have not really contributed much to white dominance in boxing (there are exceptions but *generally speaking*).

Quite honestly, if Eastern Euros were not competing today, you'd have the same illusion as you had 20 years ago. Black Americans beating White Americans, the odd foreigner, and calling themselves "World Champions".

Also notice how quickly and badly Americans tend to overrate their black American fighters. Paul Williams and Danny Jacobs instantly come to mind as recent examples.

 

[BoxingSpecialist2]

The whole "whites are only winning in boxing cause more athletic blacks have instead played in the NFL or NBA instead of boxing" is an argument that Jews and brainwashed, guilt ridden white people like to throw around to explain why (much to their disbelief and disapproval) white boxers have been consistently besting black boxers for the past 10-15 years.

This argument is both irrational and erroneous, as well as being largely untrue. I really feel my points counter this argument quite well, and Id be delighted if some of the posters from this site would offer some opinions on my 6 Points posted above.

As a final note, I personally believe the history of boxing would be different if Soviets had been competing all throughout time. Many Black fighters viewed as great from the past (ie Ali, Robinson, Leonard) probably would have lost to better white fighters. The truth is Black boxers of the past had it easy and faced a very limited competitive pool. In fact it is more accurate to call them "American and Western Euro Champs" than "World Champs". Boxing was not a globally competitive sport back then like it is today. Black boxers of the past had it easy.

Thanks!

 

[Frenchnative]

Although Eastern Europeans did not compete in professional boxing from the 1950s to the 1990s due to communism, they did compete in amateur boxing and experienced a great deal of success. The greatest precursor to success in professional boxing is success in amateur boxing."

I can't find the name of that Euro light heavy (who never turned pro) who embarassed Cassius Clay back in the amateurs ?

 

[space hillbilly]

I can't find the name of that Euro light heavy (who never turned pro) who embarassed Cassius Clay back in the amateurs ?

I dont know about a LHW, but it was said Igor Vysotsky mad Ali look foolish when he went to Russia in sparring. Vysotsky also beat lots of negros who went on to do well in the pros...And even Igor said he wasnt the best heavyweight in Russia much less all of the USSR.

 

[whiteathlete33]

I dont know about a LHW, but it was said Igor Vysotsky mad Ali look foolish when he went to Russia in sparring. Vysotsky also beat lots of negros who went on to do well in the pros...And even Igor said he wasnt the best heavyweight in Russia much less all of the USSR.

Yet he will always be known as "The Greatest" and Tyson will always be known as "The Baddest Man on the Planet", but the Klitschko's and others will always be known as fighters who picked on a "weak" heavyweight division. I'd bet the house that at least 20 of the Eastern Euro heavyweights would knock Ali out within six rounds. Ali feasted on maybe the weakest heavyweight division in history.

 

[Frenchnative]

I dont know about a LHW, but it was said Igor Vysotsky mad Ali look foolish when he went to Russia in sparring. Vysotsky also beat lots of negros who went on to do well in the pros...And even Igor said he wasnt the best heavyweight in Russia much less all of the USSR.

I found this video of an 1978 Ali exhibition where he gets bullied by three Russians including Vysotsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBOhEKEJpg

 

[space hillbilly]

Yet he will always be known as "The Greatest" and Tyson will always be known as "The Baddest Man on the Planet", but the Klitschko's and others will always be known as fighters who picked on a "weak" heavyweight division. I'd bet the house that at least 20 of the Eastern Euro heavyweights would knock Ali out within six rounds. Ali feasted on maybe the weakest heavyweight division in history.

There is no time machine to bring past fighters from other eras to compete with todays division, so the jewish media feel safe cause the "you're a bum who just beat a bigger bum!" argument used by boxing writers is as old as boxing itself. But that argument really wont hold up!

Clearly there are lots of ways to gauge how fighters from one era would fair vs another.
One is simple observation. Fighters today just dont get hit like past fighters did.
Quarry, Frazier, Ali, Norton and many men (in fact most) from the socalled greatest era would take big shots, and not only just from other top boxers, but also from low level club fighters as well.

All the top 30 fighters today have at least a good jab, and many have a very good/great jab.
While top guys like Frazier and Shavers in the 70's didnt even use a jab at all.

Most every fighter today seem to be more an "all arounder" type, they can box, they can punch, fight on the outside and inside. While boxers in the past were much more one dimensional.

Any old time trainer will tell you most every fighter is at his prime between 27 and 36 years old and the more outside that in the top ten is a sign of a weak division.
There isnt five true contenders In the top fifty outside that age range today.

So, 22yo Ali winning the world title from 37yo Liston was clearly done in a weak era.
21yo Tyson becoming heavyweight champion and cleaning out the division was also done in a weak era.
The 90's had two 40+ heavyweights upseting some of the young contenders and one winning a world title at 45. Clearly not a strong division. Now some may say Vitali at 39yo is a sign this era is weak, but 39 as a boxer is a long way from 45 or even 42. Plus, Vitali is highly skilled (unlike Foreman or Holmes), and has an unusual style.

 

[werewolf]

I dont know about a LHW, but it was said Igor Vysotsky mad Ali look foolish when he went to Russia in sparring. Vysotsky also beat lots of negros who went on to do well in the pros...And even Igor said he wasnt the best heavyweight in Russia much less all of the USSR.

Vysovsky also beat Cuba's famous heavyweight champion Teofilo Stevenson both times they met. They are close friends today. I used to work with - and sparred with him too when I was doing my boxing thing - an eastern european guy who fought Stevenson. Hype jobs like Clay never fought a single Russian or eastern European or Cuban or black African.

 

[whiteathlete33]

There is no time machine to bring past fighters from other eras to compete with todays division, so the jewish media feel safe cause the "you're a bum who just beat a bigger bum!" argument used by boxing writers is as old as boxing itself. But that argument really wont hold up!

Clearly there are lots of ways to gauge how fighters from one era would fair vs another.
One is simple observation. Fighters today just dont get hit like past fighters did.
Quarry, Frazier, Ali, Norton and many men (in fact most) from the socalled greatest era would take big shots, and not only just from other top boxers, but also from low level club fighters as well.

All the top 30 fighters today have at least a good jab, and many have a very good/great jab.
While top guys like Frazier and Shavers in the 70's didnt even use a jab at all.

Most every fighter today seem to be more an "all arounder" type, they can box, they can punch, fight on the outside and inside. While boxers in the past were much more one dimensional.

Any old time trainer will tell you most every fighter is at his prime between 27 and 36 years old and the more outside that in the top ten is a sign of a weak division.
There isnt five true contenders In the top fifty outside that age range today.

So, 22yo Ali winning the world title from 37yo Liston was clearly done in a weak era.
21yo Tyson becoming heavyweight champion and cleaning out the division was also done in a weak era.
The 90's had two 40+ heavyweights upseting some of the young contenders and one winning a world title at 45. Clearly not a strong division. Now some may say Vitali at 39yo is a sign this era is weak, but 39 as a boxer is a long way from 45 or even 42. Plus, Vitali is highly skilled (unlike Foreman or Holmes), and has an unusual style.

Black boxers from the 90's and earlier got hit too much. Look at what Golota did to the "magic" Riddick Bowe. In two fights with him, he left Bowe with permanent brain damage and trouble speaking. Tyson has pretty bad brain damage. Ali is completely shot. That doensn't speak very highly of "The Greatest." James Toney need no explananation. Many of these black fighters have very poor defense and took too many heavy shots in their careers. Yet the K brothers are degraded for having great defense and avoiding punches. Who wants brain damage in old age?

 

[white is right]

There is no time machine to bring past fighters from other eras to compete with todays division, so the jewish media feel safe cause the "you're a bum who just beat a bigger bum!" argument used by boxing writers is as old as boxing itself. But that argument really wont hold up!

Clearly there are lots of ways to gauge how fighters from one era would fair vs another.
One is simple observation. Fighters today just dont get hit like past fighters did.
Quarry, Frazier, Ali, Norton and many men (in fact most) from the socalled greatest era would take big shots, and not only just from other top boxers, but also from low level club fighters as well.

All the top 30 fighters today have at least a good jab, and many have a very good/great jab.
While top guys like Frazier and Shavers in the 70's didnt even use a jab at all.

Most every fighter today seem to be more an "all arounder" type, they can box, they can punch, fight on the outside and inside. While boxers in the past were much more one dimensional.

Any old time trainer will tell you most every fighter is at his prime between 27 and 36 years old and the more outside that in the top ten is a sign of a weak division.
There isnt five true contenders In the top fifty outside that age range today.

So, 22yo Ali winning the world title from 37yo Liston was clearly done in a weak era.
21yo Tyson becoming heavyweight champion and cleaning out the division was also done in a weak era.
The 90's had two 40+ heavyweights upseting some of the young contenders and one winning a world title at 45. Clearly not a strong division. Now some may say Vitali at 39yo is a sign this era is weak, but 39 as a boxer is a long way from 45 or even 42. Plus, Vitali is highly skilled (unlike Foreman or Holmes), and has an unusual style.

That Ali that looked flatter than a Pabst can left out in the summer sun would have stumbled around and lost to any competent contender. It's not a coincidence that he signed to fight the novice Spinks who had about 8 pro fights. At that point Ali couldn't beat any top contenders anymore. Even in the Spinks rematch Ali had no legs and was very robotic. Spinks lost the fight because of the chaos in his life due to his sudden celebrity. Billy Crystal gained fame from imitating Spinks as a drunk womanizer...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqSoRaNicw

 

[Arerequired]

This is a topic I have been thinking about for sometime. Ive been a diehard boxing fan all of my life and I really feel I have an accurate portrayal of this argument. I feel now is the best time to post this:

Many Americans have a hard time believing that today's heavyweight division is run by White Europeans. For the last 10 years, Heavyweight has been entirely controlled by White European champions. Many Americans find that strange, because in USA they are used to most professional sports being dominated by blacks. Before the 2000s, modern heavyweight boxing was also traditionally dominated by black Americans.

In an attempt to ***Justify*** white dominance and black removal in heavyweight boxing, Americans will say things like "white boxers are only controlling heavyweight because all black americans left to the NBA or NFL".

Here's the problem with that!!!

1Blacks have been losing dominance in all weightclasses, not just heavyweight. Blacks have not just been losing and getting knocked out by white heavyweights. Blacks have also been losing and getting knocked out by white middleweights, white welterweights, white light heavyweights, white super middleweights. Understand that, middleweights, lt. heavyweights, and weltwerweights could never make the NFL or NBA because they are too small.

Blacks have simply been losing in boxing, period, irrespective of weightclasses. While the NBA/NFL argument atleast holds logical relevance for the heavyweight division, the argument does not provide an explanation for why blacks have been losing ground in every other weightclass as well, because these boxers are too small to turn to NFL/NBA.

These trends suggest that blacks are losing boxing dominance to whites for a reason OTHER than the NFL/NBA argument.

2Understand that in the 1950s-1990s, Black American boxers were essentially competing only against White Americans, the odd Hispanic, and the odd Western European (ie UK, France, Italy) fighters.

So fighters like Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, Joe Louis were not really world champions in the sense that the world was truly competing against them. It would be more correct to call them "Western Champions", "American champions", or "Partial-World Champions".

The simple fact of life is that the competition pool in the 1950s-1990s was simply not as international or deep as it is today.

Black Boxers of the past had it easy in the sense that they faced a very limited opposition pool. Today, that the opposition pool has become more global, blacks are losing everything, surprise surprise.

It is entirely conceivable to suggest that many great Black boxers of the past (ie MUhammad Ali, Ray Leonard, Ray Robinson) would have lost many fights had Eastern Europeans been competing at that time.

Soviets did not start entering pro boxing until the late 1990s and what a coincidence that this time corresponds to white takeover of pro boxing. Its entirely reasonable to suggest that many former black champions of the past would have lost fights to Soviets had they been allowed to compete in the 1950s-1990s.

3Although Eastern Europeans did not compete in professional boxing from the 1950s to the 1990s due to communism, they did compete in amateur boxing and experienced a great deal of success. The greatest precursor to success in professional boxing is success in amateur boxing.

Based on that, there exists reasonable grounds to assume that Eastern Europeans would have fared well in pro boxing had they competed. Most likely, many Soviets would have beaten many black champions of the past.

4There exists a natural time bias in any discussion about sports. People have a natural tendency to overestimate things and athletes of the past. Klitschko's today are unfairly criticized, and I believe that is true. However, I also believe 15 years from now, they will receive more praise than they do today. No doubt the Zionist media will still be trying to censor their title-reigns, but Im just saying, I do think they will receive more praise in time from now.

People have a natural tendency to overevaluate athletes from the past. This bias is both erroneous and dangerous in the sense that it leads to skewed findings, overly-biased evaluations etc.

5As dempseyfire stated, there exists a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for a Black American heavyweight at the moment. Quite honestly, if a young Black American heavyweight was to again become heavyweight champion, the media would be all over it. He would be bigger than Floyd Mayweather, he'd be making 50Million+ a fight if he was popular.

HBO is currently pushing American hopeful Seth Mitchell. He's good but not great. He's certainly not the answer, and only started boxing at age 28. I think he gets KO'd early by any top Euro heavyweight.

But the point Im making is there exists a HUGE OPPORTUNITY for a potential successful American Black heavyweight. A popular black american heavyweight champion would be making more money than any NFL or NBA player I assure you. So dont give me that crap that there's more money in NFL or NBA, not true at all. There's more money in boxing actually.

6Understand that, if Soviets were not competing today. You would have basically the same results and situation that you had 20 and 30 years ago. Almost exclusively Black Champions. White Americans and (for the most part) White Western Europeans have not really contributed much to white dominance in boxing (there are exceptions but *generally speaking*).

Quite honestly, if Eastern Euros were not competing today, you'd have the same illusion as you had 20 years ago. Black Americans beating White Americans, the odd foreigner, and calling themselves "World Champions".

Also notice how quickly and badly Americans tend to overrate their black American fighters. Paul Williams and Danny Jacobs instantly come to mind as recent examples.

There exists gems when sifting through old posts, this is good counter reasoning towards much of the Caste/DWF reasoning on to why whites are competitive and often dominant, and much of it can apply to more sports than just boxing.