Asterisk in Boxing History number 2?

Question

The great member Sean G and his "fair" questions and non biased in the least opinions, inspired me to ask something too!
Here is the question that he made, which inspired me
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An6JvBSE2pbQ3J7MkzZ8G93sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090820060842AAb4if7&show=7#profile-info-pR0pJNJkaa

so now i ask as well, should there be an asterisk in all the champions of modern History from 1885 until 1996,that finally the ex Eastern Euro communist block, allowed for first time professional boxing? Today we have 14 belts carried by Eastern Europeans by the way......
Why do i say this??
Simply Because 99% of Cubans (even today) and Eastern Euros made 80% in total, of the Olympic and World Amateur championships medals, but communism stopped them from turning professionals!
Cubans and Eastern European countries make 419 out of the total 842 medals given in history of Olympic Boxing !(Eastern European countries participated in Olympics at 1952 for first time,imagine if they could start from 1896)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_boxing
You can make the count as well!
356 medals coming from Eastern Europe region,1952 and later,IMPRESSIVE! From 1996 until 2009 that finally compete as Professional boxers,they have produce a total 49 world champions (or belt holders ,whatever you like) in a short period of 13 years!
Sean G i want to see your answer on this one:)

(Sean G's question was not considered racist by none i notice,my question though will be considered racist 100% we all know why of course:)

Ps
In Sean g's question ,DAVE you had the best answer by far,thumbs up mate!

Answer 1

hey mate,guess who is back lol

You and i are supposed to be the same man i guess huh??lol

Ok i won't ask you to post anything iwanna ask again, cause i see you became hated for nothing in this so peaceful and non biased forum of peacemakers and wonderful members lol!

I won't have much time but is ok i made this account so i can ask whateva i want and i will get the heat lol

Poor you and frankieClutch

Nice quesion i wonder who motivated you or who gave you all these infos!

Who you were talking to this morning on skype??lol

Answer 2

There should be no "asterisks" next to anyone or any group of people when it comes to boxing history, or the history of any sport for that matter. If we were to do this for every group of people who were prevented from competing on a professional level for whatever reason it could actually tarnish the achievements of the fighters who could compete. In other words it might imply that the omitted fighters are actually in some way superior.



Real boxing fans know their sport's history, they understand how and why many potential participants were denied an opportunity as a consequence of an imbalance in their own respective societies or governments.



Like I said with Sean G's answer, if we put an asterisk next to the Eastern Euros, Chinese and Cubans who couldn't compete then we have to do the same for the Black fighters during modern boxing's infancy.



An asterisk is not needed anywhere. All it would do is confirm what we already know and at the same time throws a shadow of doubt over the achievements of the ones who could/can compete.

Answer 3

This is a grey area really. The problem is that if any special attention is payed to black fighters that couldn't compete you open the floodgates for so many others who were/are unable to compete due to the society they are a part of. If you put an asterisk next to the Black fighters who were prevented from competing then you probably have to do the same for the Cubans who are unable to turn pro. If you want to talk about the modern times you could throw in the ex-Soviet states and the Chinese due to communism. If you do this you suddenly have a load of "What ifs". Deliberate omissions are acknowledged by us fans, I don't think they need any "official" mark to signify it. People will always ask themselves these "what if" questions and will draw their own conclusions, people can only speculate about alternate history. It's a shame that we have/had such situations but if you can find a positive it is that it provides us fans something to discuss. Also, speculating allows us to imagine an alternate history that may be better than the reality itself could have been, not that that is any comfort or consolation to the fighters that have been affected, and will continue to be.

Answer 4

You have a point. I dont know but maybe you can educate me...why were Eastern Europeans not fighting for titles til recently? Eastern European fighters are definately dominating the heavyweight ranks...but I dont agree with your using the Olympics as a lithmus test. Olympic boxing and professional boxing are 2 completely different sports...with different scoring and goals to win. Yet, good rebuttal question.



I see you and I are going to have a long good relationship on this forum.

Answer 5

aragon no one is calling you racist mate ! and anyway you must look at the amateur careers of the pro champions while the soviet union was still alive ! max schmeling once defeated the father of igor vystotsky who was a great amateur ! muhammad ali defeated a top polish amateur in the olympics ! george foreman defeated the top soviet heavyweight in the olympics who was lithuanian ! these are just a few examples ! i think these pro champions of those days should get respect for their accomplishments as long as they did well internationally in the amateurs, that will tell you how they would do against them in a pro fight against cubans and soviets and their allies ! peace !

Answer 6

Take a chill pill Aragon. But I must say you know your boxing stuff! Props to you!

Answer 7

IT would only be fair to do the same for both.

Answer 8

yawn..



knight de la barre, i thought you'd be tired of asking stupid *** questions by now