Does color matter anymore???

Nearly 30 years since the Holmes v Cooney fight which was huge and based around race......Thing is people are always moaning about Society these days and that people don't have respect like they did for others in the old days and yet I'm not sure Holmes v Cooney could possibly sell like it did thirty years ago...

I think society has changed for the better and the Hagler v Minter days etc are over.....Obviously more white fighters have become champions these days but I don't think people much care about white hopes and whatever color or race a fighter is generally..

Question is Am I wrong or does Color still matter??

No.

Say no more then..a man of few words.

I don't think so with the majority. Their will always be the minorities. With boxing perhaps not being the mainstream sport it used to be it's standing in modern society seems less important than it appeared to be in times gone by.

I think that while some may argue otherwise, they're in a minority. The only time skin colour is of any importance in boxing nowadays is when a Hopkins type character (someone unafraid of controversy) wants to heighten interest in a fight.

I agree to a certain extent Kev....But I honestly think we live in a more tolerant society these days.....

Sure Boxing has less support but I ust don't think the racists are in as greater number..

It dont matter anymore, even guys like Khan get to fight for titles now although there are some racists they are in the minority.

In the early days blacks didnt get the same shots and people were more racist so champs like Dempsey should not be recognised if he wouldnt fight blacks. Look at how many black heavyweight champs there have been since Dempsey. Is it a coincidence he didnt fight them I dont think so. He might have been good but he he didnt face black fighters so he cant call himself the best.

No their not which is great for modern society but maybe not for selling fights.

Look at jack Johnson he made a lot of money beating the great white hopes of the day a few had absolutely no chance against him either. A black fighter in today's world couldn't dream of being fed cannon fodder like that at times and make a lot of money in the process.

*

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nearly 30 years since the Holmes v Cooney fight which was huge and based around race......Thing is people are always moaning about Society these days and that people don't have respect like they did for others in the old days and yet I'm not sure Holmes v Cooney could possibly sell like it did thirty years ago...

I think society has changed for the better and olthe Hagler v Minter days etc are over.....Obviously more white fighters have become champions these days but I don't think people much care about white hopes and whatever color or race a fighter is generally..

Question is Am I wrong or does Color still matter??

No for the majority of intelligent boxing fans it doesn't matter. I generally go for the fighter I prefer mostly on their style, there personality can come into it as well. Have at times gone against a brit. As for the aforementioned fight that would be a massive no no now regardless of the fact we have had & have a white HW champ. We all know at the time there hadn't been a white HW champ in a while & the great white hope came about as a means of building up Cooney & making money. With regards to the Hagler v Minter fight, even though I watched it live, that all went over my head & its only since being on the forum I new anything about the alleged rascist edge to the fight & surrounding Minter & his fans.

Waingro wrote:It dont matter anymore, even guys like Khan get to fight for titles now although there are some racists they are in the minority.

In the early days blacks didnt get the same shots and people were more racist so champs like Dempsey should not be recognised if he wouldnt fight blacks. Look at how many black heavyweight champs there have been since Dempsey. Is it a coincidence he didnt fight them I dont think so. He might have been good but he he didnt face black fighters so he cant call himself the best.

He's not the only one their was a 'Black World Championship' in the early 1900's which Johnson refused to fight for. Many 'regular' champs of the time would refuse to fight black challengers despite in some cases them being more deserving than the opponents they faced.

Thats true I was just using Dempsey as an example as hes one of the most famous ones.

Waingro wrote:Thats true I was just using Dempsey as an example as hes one of the most famous ones.

He's probably the highest rated out of the guys who would be guilty of it. Considering how many of the top 10 heavyweights in history are black it makes you think their may have been a couple more before Johnson and between Johnson and Louis we never heard about. Their was a black heavyweight who Johnson fought in the first all black heavyweight title fight who was 'black champion' for years and who Johnson said would have been the proper champ if someone would have fought him. I can't remember his name.

Kev would think you mean Sam Langford, Johnson fought him before he won the title and beat him but Sam was very much a novice then, there were attempts made to match the two when Johnson was champion but he didn't really want the fight, most think depending when during Jack's title reign it would have happened it would have been a pick em.

Jack did defend against a black fighter but that was Battling Jim Johnson who was not much of a fighter and certainly was nowhere near the ability of some other black fighters he didn't face such as Langford Jeannette and McVea

I read about that in a biography on JJ, rowley. Johnson drew the colour line just as clearly as any other heavy before or since can be accused of. The difference being that instead of being motivated by any racism on his own part, he used financial reasons to veto any challenges from black contenders. Johnson reiterated time and again that he felt there wasn't enough money to be made from pitting two black boxers against each other, as the wealthy white public wouldn't care to pay to see such a fight.

Langford was the man I was thinking about cheers mate. I knew Johnson had the opportunity to defend against a few other black fighters who were considered to be of title challenger material. Johnson may just have wanted to parade his success and show his dominance over the white challengers and who could blame him.

Johnson is a guy that fascinates me his life outside the ring was a bit crazy. In terms of boxing I struggle to rate him in terms of an ATG top 5 for example. He's always top 3 alongside Ali and Louis sometimes I have him as number 1 due to the fact that no fighter has ever had to deal with the sort of pressure and hatred he suffered. It's hard to judge but I'm not sure Louis would have coped I think Ali might have though.

Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Scottrf wrote:Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Does it though?

If Pac and FMJ fought next year I think Pac would have more support due to his nice guy act compared to FMJ who is flashy and brash and burns $100 bills.

prettyboykev wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Does it though?

If Pac and FMJ fought next year I think Pac would have more support due to his nice guy act compared to FMJ who is flashy and brash and burns $100 bills.

Yeah, there's still a big Mexico vs PR rivalry for example. Brit fighters get good support. Immigrant populations in the US get behind their men, Adamek too over in a Polish area of NJ.

prettyboykev wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Does it though?

If Pac and FMJ fought next year I think Pac would have more support due to his nice guy act compared to FMJ who is flashy and brash and burns $100 bills.

I think it's fair to say that nationality does on the whole hold greater significance than colour. If it wasn't the case we wouldn't have (for example) white Brits supporting black British boxers. How much nationality is of importance probably differs greatly from person to person, and from one extreme to the other. Personally I do like to support a Brit whenever possible, although there are some about whom I'm indifferent, and even in some instances ambivalent. Instances of the latter would be Khan and Calzaghe.

Scottrf wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Does it though?

If Pac and FMJ fought next year I think Pac would have more support due to his nice guy act compared to FMJ who is flashy and brash and burns $100 bills.

Yeah, there's still a big Mexico vs PR rivalry for example. Brit fighters get good support. Immigrant populations in the US get behind their men, Adamek too over in a Polish area of NJ.

You're right I was just being picky for the sake of it. Do you think the K bro's would still be so well supported if they were to fight a German?

BALTIMORA wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Nationality matters, colour not so much.

Does it though?

If Pac and FMJ fought next year I think Pac would have more support due to his nice guy act compared to FMJ who is flashy and brash and burns $100 bills.

I think it's fair to say that nationality does on the whole hold greater significance than colour. If it wasn't the case we wouldn't have (for example) white Brits supporting black British boxers. How much nationality is of importance probably differs greatly from person to person, and from one extreme to the other. Personally I do like to support a Brit whenever possible, although there are some about whom I'm indifferent, and even in some instances ambivalent. Instances of the latter would be Khan and Calzaghe.

I never meant to seem if I thought colour mattered I hope it doesn't to all boxing fans. I was just questioning how important nationality is. Outside of Wales Calzaghe wasn't loved and khan is a hot and cold guy. Some like him a lot of people despise him.

I think in this day and age there is not enough mainstream interest in boxing for it to be an issue. Yes in recent times certain people in boxing have used controversial methods to sell fights but I think race as an angle would not get you very far. I suppose religion has taken over as the current controversial angle that could sell a fight, but these days with the credit crunch nothing but a good old fashioned 50/50 fight is all that punters want.

I wasn't assuming that's what you meant Kev. Just that while nationality isn't unanimously important it is undoubtedly more important for the majority of people than colour is.

However, I do suspect that colour may be a more important factor than nationality in the case of someone like Khan. Not just because racist whites will use colour as a reason to dislike him, but also because Indian and Pakistani Asian fans MAY empathise with him more than perhaps they would a white boxer. Also in Khan's case his religion plays a role, although I personally find that to be a more ridiculous prospect than supporting someone due to either skin colour or nationality.

BALTIMORA wrote:Personally I do like to support a Brit whenever possible, although there are some about whom I'm indifferent, and even in some instances ambivalent. Instances of the latter would be Khan and Calzaghe.

Any particular reason for that with the two boxers mentioned above?

BALTIMORA wrote:I wasn't assuming that's what you meant Kev. Just that while nationality isn't unanimously important it is undoubtedly more important for the majority of people than colour is.

However, I do suspect that colour may be a more important factor than nationality in the case of someone like Khan. Not just because racist whites will use colour as a reason to dislike him, but also because Indian and Pakistani Asian fans MAY empathise with him more than perhaps they would a white boxer. Also in Khan's case his religion plays a role, although I personally find that to be a more ridiculous prospect than supporting someone due to either skin colour or nationality.

I knew you weren't mate it was just when I read my post back I didn't want it coming across that way before I got lambasted for it. I remember Nas when Khan turned pro saying he was so happy to see a young Muslim brother going to the top. I found it strange. I'm a catholic but wouldn't support a fighter because he was a catholic.

Steffan wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Personally I do like to support a Brit whenever possible, although there are some about whom I'm indifferent, and even in some instances ambivalent. Instances of the latter would be Khan and Calzaghe.

Any particular reason for that with the two boxers mentioned above?

Yeah. Khan seems intent on putting his foot in his mouth on a regular basis, and his management team have led me to believe he's being handled poorly, to the detriment of his public image. Calzaghe was a fantastic boxer who never pushed himself to achieve to his full potential, and who made the most of a cushty situation under Warren. He also gives the impression of being an arrogant Tinkywinky at times. As Brits, and for their talent, I've supported both. The fact Calzaghe is Welsh didn't matter.

prettyboykev wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:I wasn't assuming that's what you meant Kev. Just that while nationality isn't unanimously important it is undoubtedly more important for the majority of people than colour is.

However, I do suspect that colour may be a more important factor than nationality in the case of someone like Khan. Not just because racist whites will use colour as a reason to dislike him, but also because Indian and Pakistani Asian fans MAY empathise with him more than perhaps they would a white boxer. Also in Khan's case his religion plays a role, although I personally find that to be a more ridiculous prospect than supporting someone due to either skin colour or nationality.

I knew you weren't mate it was just when I read my post back I didn't want it coming across that way before I got lambasted for it. I remember Nas when Khan turned pro saying he was so happy to see a young Muslim brother going to the top. I found it strange. I'm a catholic but wouldn't support a fighter because he was a catholic.

Yeah, I'm not a religious person but I do think McGuigan was a great role model for unity among fractured elements of Northern Ireland. I think the reason I'll support a fighter for being British is because we're told how big a deal the Olympics is, and I don't see why national pride of that kind should abruptly stop just because a boxer turns pro.

I used to have a manager who was Muslim and I found his allegiance to his 'brothers' just a little cult-like.

I never liked Calzaghe because he was quite happy to keep his zero and make easy money off the tripe Warren fed him. If he went to America earlier in his career he would still be a Welsh hero but he wouldn't have that zero.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Steffan wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Personally I do like to support a Brit whenever possible, although there are some about whom I'm indifferent, and even in some instances ambivalent. Instances of the latter would be Khan and Calzaghe.

Any particular reason for that with the two boxers mentioned above?

Yeah. Khan seems intent on putting his foot in his mouth on a regular basis, and his management team have led me to believe he's being handled poorly, to the detriment of his public image. Calzaghe was a fantastic boxer who never pushed himself to achieve to his full potential, and who made the most of a cushty situation under Warren. He also gives the impression of being an arrogant Tinkywinky at times. As Brits, and for their talent, I've supported both. The fact Calzaghe is Welsh didn't matter.

Now that is simular to me see. I get accused of disliking fighters becuse they are English but infact the only 2 I hate are Haye and Froch. That is because they both come over as dislikable distasteful people. I used to like Bruno, Benn, Eubank. Never keen on Naz mind. Of the current bunch Mitchell is ok but I am a big Amir Khan fan. Yes he is a bit silly at times but I find him a lot more likable than Haye and Froch

Its a controversial thing to say but il say it anyway. If Kevin Mitchell was in Amir Khans position right now people in England would love him

Steffan - Mitchell I don't really care for until he shows more consistent commitment. His excuses after his loss and his legal troubles make me feel he's not a particularly mature or honourable person. Personal opinion, mind.

Your dislike of Froch I really cannot understand because other than calling out Calzaghe I've not seen him say or do anything to give me reason to dislike him. He's usually modest and refreshingly frank. He's certainly nothing like the brash self-publicising Haye.

Even with Haye, I find his arrogance less irritating than Khan's because Haye seems to be arrogant in a measured way, regardless of how stupid or offensive he may come across. Khan just seems to say things without engaging his brain, which is annoying because he's shown he can be a decent kid.

BALTIMORA wrote:I read about that in a biography on JJ, rowley. Johnson drew the colour line just as clearly as any other heavy before or since can be accused of. The difference being that instead of being motivated by any racism on his own part, he used financial reasons to veto any challenges from black contenders. Johnson reiterated time and again that he felt there wasn't enough money to be made from pitting two black boxers against each other, as the wealthy white public wouldn't care to pay to see such a fight.

Balit according to Clay Moyle's biography of Langford Australian promoter Hugh Macintosh made more than a few attempts to match Sam with Johnson and is quoted in the book as saying Jack could have made $50,000 for fighting Sam at some stages, which for the time is no small amount, think on the Dempsey thread Clay provides details of how much Jack cleared for fighting Battling Jim Johnson and can't remember the exact figure but it is a damned sight less than that. There are also quotes in the book from the likes of Harry Wills and Jeannette I believe basically saying Jack was a little spooked by Sam who lets not forget for much of Jack's reign was in the form of his life regularly facing and beating heavies of the quality of Jeannette and McVea, am always loath to accuse a fighter of ducking but do think Jack's financial excuse does not stand up to too much scrutiny.

Always bet on black.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Always bet on black.

Even Fraudley?

Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

Strongback wrote:Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

What has a white middle class man trying to sell a hoover to a man of Indian descent have to do with boxing?

I think you can see with the biggest financial fight a big play was made on race. No doubt it was a fight that captured casual viewers, but mainly the hispanic crowd turned up in there droves to see here main man take out Floyd and the same goes for Ortiz. Race is still a selling point on a fight, but I don't feel that ever again shall we get situations where race comes into judging who won a fight, hopefully. More of a home crowd or nationality type of thing, as seen in places like Germany where Ottke gets to walk free.

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

What has a white middle class man trying to sell a hoover to a man of Indian descent have to do with boxing?

Don't tax your brain with that one. It's not worth you making the effort dum dum.

Strongback wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

What has a white middle class man trying to sell a hoover to a man of Indian descent have to do with boxing?

Don't tax your brain with that one. It's not worth you making the effort dum dum.

Learn how to spell son. DUMB!

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

What has a white middle class man trying to sell a hoover to a man of Indian descent have to do with boxing?

Don't tax your brain with that one. It's not worth you making the effort dum dum.

Learn how to spell son. DUMB!

You really are a waste of time aren't you.

Strongback wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Strongback wrote:Promoters and TV producers since the first days of boxing have pitted white fighters against black fighters because it adds anther dimension to the event.

People subconsciously will support a person or athlete in their own image. It's just human nature and goes beyond conscious racism.

It happens in the world of work. White employers from middle class backgrounds when interviewing will subconsciously employ people like themselves who have similar backgrounds and skin colour.

This has happen to such an extent in big corporate companies that they have had to internally decide to employ a more diverse range of races. It is harder for a white middle class kid to sell something to an Indian for instance as there are cultural differences. Companies need to relate to all the potential customers in society so that means employing a cross section of people.

What has a white middle class man trying to sell a hoover to a man of Indian descent have to do with boxing?

Don't tax your brain with that one. It's not worth you making the effort dum dum.

Learn how to spell son. DUMB!

You really are a waste of time aren't you.

Why did you bother replying then? I didn't get your point and didn't agree with it. I'm a white male from a decent upbringing who's favourite fighters are Pernell Whitaker, Floyd Mayweather Jnr and Roy Jones Jnr they don't go with my image so you were wrong.

And you're from Glasgow.... Thats a slightly different surrounding than the American ghetto where those boxers were brought up

Exactly.

Take Ricky Burns we are a similar age grew up about an hours drive away from me in a similar surrounding. We are the same religion support the same football team yet I'm not a fan.

Do you also share the same ridiculous amount of tattoos?

I've got no tatooes I'm terrified of needles and find them a bit tacky when their is that many of them.

Colour will matter to some, it always does, but as a whole society has moved on.

But am I wrong to be hoping for a great black hope to come along and shake up the heavyweight division?

I don't care if he's black just hope someone comes along soon who can challenge the K Bro's.

unfortunately i think colour does matter.
i've personally heard and read abuse for khan because he's a muslim. youtube is full of it, although most people who post on youtube are morons.

luckily, this thing is getting less and less.

arguably, bruno is the most popular british boxer. no one cared he was black in that magical night in wembley, just that he finally won the world title for himself and britain.

OasisBFC wrote:unfortunately i think colour does matter.
i've personally heard and read abuse for khan because he's a muslim. youtube is full of it, although most people who post on youtube are morons.

luckily, this thing is getting less and less.

arguably, bruno is the most popular british boxer. no one cared he was black in that magical night in wembley, just that he finally won the world title for himself and britain.

It's true, Bruno's skin colour was irrelevant. People just hoped that he'd be able to assist Aladdin in defeating the bad guy.