Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

[max baer]

Ali also new that his childhood friend would need Angie more than he would; so Dundee did the right thing.
Jimmy Ellis, (and I tell people this alot), was a genuinely marvelous fighter. He had his ups and downs in a stacked era, but he was really gifted.
So good, but Ali made him look so bad. It was like Ali had magnets in his gloves and Jimmy's face was made of metal. Nobody was that good since.
And that song was appropriate for the time.

Great video. Ali never threw body shots did he? He just kept hitting the target.

[QueensburyRules]

For US History, the focus ends up being on debating the justification of using nuclear force. Was it justified, is attacking citizens of an enemy nation justified, did we do this more for an impending conflict with Russia, etc.

In World History we get more into the perspective of the Japanese, but not to the degree you are asking.

- - One nuke guarantees considerably less Japanese fatalities and zero American fatalities.

Sadly the Japanese still refused to surrender, so a few days later the 2nd nuke. Both communities were part of the war industry production facilities who had conscripted Japanese women and children to work those industries.

The Japanese had 6 mil soldiers stationed in China, and well over a million entrenched on the plains that the Americans were going to storm, so do the casualty math.

I'd condense that for HSchoolers to talk about lives saved and the new Constitution MacArthur drew up guaranteeing rights to women while keeping the Emperor intact and working with Americans to become an incredible economic force and positive dynamic in world politics.

I don't have an answer to the Rawlings Washington memoirs, but needs addressing at the HS level with more investigation at college level.

[Willie Pep 229]

For US History, the focus ends up being on debating the justification of using nuclear force. Was it justified, is attacking citizens of an enemy nation justified, did we do this more for an impending conflict with Russia, etc.

In World History we get more into the perspective of the Japanese, but not to the degree you are asking.

Most history does point to pending Cold War concerns, but the immediate concern was keeping Stalin out of Japan.

At Yalta, FDR made a deal with the devil (Stalin.) FDR was willing to accept Stalin's assertion that there would be a free Poland (wink-wink) with the understanding that Stalin would enter the war agsinst Japan 90 days after the defeat of Germany.

The first bomb was dropped just days before the 90 day period. We waited for a Japanese response but they insisted that their emperor should not be executed. We refused based on our demand for unconditional surrender.

Between the two bombs Stalin made good on his 90 day promise and invaded Manchuria. Positioning himself to invade Japan.

Realizing that Stalin intended to keep every piece of territory he 'liberated' as a 'war trophy' we dropped the second bomb quickly to force the Japanese to surrender. They still wouldn't surrender without a guarantee that we wouldn't charge the emperor with war crimes.

We were so frightened of Stalin getting into Japan, we took the deal and then covered up the emperor's war crimes, blaming the entire war on the Japanese War Lords (Tojo).

P.S. We were so obsessed with keeping Stalin out of Japan that we forbade the British from occupying Japan along with us. The Brits understood and didn't complain.

So unlike the division of Germany with the four Allies occupying separate spheres, we alone occupied Japan.

Stalin got as far as putting his guy in Northen Korea, but surprisingly withdrew from Manchuria.

[DeeMoney]

- - One nuke guarantees considerably less Japanese fatalities and zero American fatalities.

Sadly the Japanese still refused to surrender, so a few days later the 2nd nuke. Both communities were part of the war industry production facilities who had conscripted Japanese women and children to work those industries.

The Japanese had 6 mil soldiers stationed in China, and well over a million entrenched on the plains that the Americans were going to storm, so do the casualty math.

I'd condense that for HSchoolers to talk about lives saved and the new Constitution MacArthur drew up guaranteeing rights to women while keeping the Emperor intact and working with Americans to become an incredible economic force and positive dynamic in world politics.

I don't have an answer to the Rawlings Washington memoirs, but needs addressing at the HS level with more investigation at college level.

You basically hit on all the topics we get to. I especially like bringing up Mac Arthurs work in writing the constitution, the subsequent economic miracle, and to what extent does that further justify Americans actions.

[DeeMoney]

Most history does point to pending Cold War concerns, but the immediate concern was keeping Stalin out of Japan.

At Yalta, FDR made a deal with the devil (Stalin.) FDR was willing to accept Stalin's assertion that there would be a free Poland (wink-wink) with the understanding that Stalin would enter the war agsinst Japan 90 days after the defeat of Germany.

The first bomb was dropped just days before the 90 day period. We waited for a Japanese response but they insisted that their emperor should not be executed. We refused based on our demand for unconditional surrender.

Between the two bombs Stalin made good on his 90 day promise and invaded Manchuria. Positioning himself to invade Japan.

Realizing that Stalin intended to keep every piece of territory he 'liberated' as a 'war trophy' we dropped the second bomb quickly to force the Japanese to surrender. They still wouldn't surrender without a guarantee that we wouldn't charge the emperor with war crimes.

We were so frightened of Stalin getting into Japan, we took the deal and then covered up the emperor's war crimes, blaming the entire war on the Japanese War Lords (Tojo).

P.S. We were so obsessed with keeping Stalin out of Japan that we forbade the British from occupying Japan along with us. The Brits understood and didn't complain.

So unlike the division of Germany with the four Allies occupying separate spheres, we alone occupied Japan.

Stalin got as far as putting his guy in Northen Korea, but surprisingly withdrew from Manchuria.

Thats an accepted argument for using nuclear force we mention. I like to ask the students if keeping Stalin out of Japan justifies the use of nuclear force; then revisit the question after they learn about Korea, the Berlin Airlift, etc

I love the idea of using history as a tool of teaching students to develop decision making skills and higher order thinking skills. Too often kids just parrot speaking points- I want them to justify their lines of thinking

[Willie Pep 229]

Thats an accepted argument for using nuclear force we mention. I like to ask the students if keeping Stalin out of Japan justifies the use of nuclear force; then revisit the question after they learn about Korea, the Berlin Airlift, etc

I love the idea of using history as a tool of teaching students to develop decision making skills and higher order thinking skills. Too often kids just parrot speaking points- I want them to justify their lines of thinking

Are you familiar with the 1988 AP DBQ?

It addressed the question we are discussing.

It turned out not to be a very good DBQ according to the readers at the time. Most of the students missed the premise and spent too much time justifying the use of, missing the pending Cold War issue.

But I often found that getting the kids to properly interpret the question to be a full half of the battle.

[BattlingNelson]

Boxing is an outlier compared to a lot of other sports as it used to be significantly bigger than it is. In the 30s there were more gyms in New York alone than the whole of the us now. Also life was tougher years ago and toughness is a key part of the sport. Boxers had more fights years ago. In terms of the art of it, it hasn’t improved since the 50s. Floyd was using techniques used by Archie Moore etc.

I guess if there was a real life example of one boxer who stepped out of one era and into another and succeeded then it would have to be proven that older eras weren’t inferior. Of course there is an example. Foreman.

Much more competition these days, than back in day. More competion always makes better products. That's standard economics. Surely that holds for boxing as well.

[DeeMoney]

Are you familiar with the 1988 AP DBQ?

It addressed the question we are discussing.

It turned out not to be a very good DBQ according to the readers at the time. Most of the students missed the premise and spent too much time justifying the use of, missing the pending Cold War issue.

But I often found that getting the kids to properly interpret the question to be a full half of the battle.

Yeah, I have all the old DBQs on a doc, and am familiar with the one you are referring to. They probably would have gotten a response more tied into the Cold War if they would have extended their time period. As written it was limited to events between 1939-1947, adjust that time frame to 1948 (start of the Berlin Airlift) or sometime in early 1950s (Korea) and it would have lent more to Cold War justifications.

That being written, ever since AP did its revamp about a decade ago the DBQ is less of an argumentative essay and more of a check off the tasks writing assignment.

[Bundana]

Boxing is an outlier compared to a lot of other sports as it used to be significantly bigger than it is. In the 30s there were more gyms in New York alone than the whole of the us now. Also life was tougher years ago and toughness is a key part of the sport. Boxers had more fights years ago. In terms of the art of it, it hasn't improved since the 50s. Floyd was using techniques used by Archie Moore etc.

I guess if there was a real life example of one boxer who stepped out of one era and into another and succeeded then it would have to be proven that older eras weren't inferior. Of course there is an example. Foreman.

I don't think the era of Foreman's first reign was inferior to the era of his second reign. But not because he was able to be world champ in both. You can't pick an isolated case like that to prove anything.

[Slugfester]

Much more competition these days, than back in day. More competion always makes better products. That's standard economics. Surely that holds for boxing as well.

So then it is not better competition a boxer should seek, it is more competition we are after? But I am not interested in more competition, I am interested in better competition. If you mean to say there is better competition now than formerly, I can understand that, though I may not believe it. I would definitely like to know why you think the competition these days is better than in Robinson's day.