Oddsbodskin beats me to the obvious question. My guess is the only answer you can possibly have is no. exactly who would compile accurate statistical data on this, and why? My guess is that this is exactly like every otehr aspect of celebrity, we get to hear about the spectacular stuff that the media correctly guesses will tweak our curiosity (losing bags of money, being 'dumb', sex with - well insert whatever here, drugs, etc). The vast majority of celebreties, sporting or otherwise, who just get on with their life get ignored because it is boring. But hey, if you have some big pool of census/ income data I've never heard of I am all ears. paul
You and I know the question was rhetorical, but sometimes you just need to ask. Sometimes you go bang your head on a wall. I usually toss a coin.
@Vamp - So you admit you have no evidence or figures to back up your position - which is what I said all along Thanks
I HATE the Big Issue as a mag, but did buy it regularly when i was in the UK because I found the supporting ethos admirable An unusual dichotomy
But we're the naive ones? Right, lets see. If assume normal, need no more proof, is normal. If think NOT normal, need proof, 'cos not normal different. Is we assume normality, we'll assume that boxers behave much like any other group of people who became suddenly wealthy. Some will make money, some will spend it, most will sit somewhere in the middle.
hey, odds, do you want to come and work as a tutor for my dissertation class? That was one of the coolest descriptions of the concept of normalcy that I have read. Sweet.
Since champions are the most well known let me give you a few names. Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Iran Barkley, Larry Holmes, James Toney, JC Chavez, Rocky Lockridge, John Tate and thats a short list from the modern era. I could go on and on. Ever hear of Sugar Ray Robinson, Sam Langford, Joe Louis, John L Sullivan, Beau Jack, Carlos Ortiz. I could name a lot more names but i think you get the point now. BTW what statistics do you have to offer here?
Fail. I am not making the claim - YOU are. Burden of proof lies with the claimant and so far all you have done is list 16 which as a percentage of boxers overall is minute. As has been identified you need to look at the cult of celebrity, not the genesis of that celebrity. But hey, don't let facts get in the way
stuff like poor Hannibal is trying to get across, you know, about things like developing a representative sample, or even about how you frame a question so that it is actually a question rather than a re-stated (and generally baseless) assumption. The pay is pretty good, but the commute may be an issue for you... paul
@Vampyregirl - You're being willfully difficult about this. It's you who said have essentially said that the number of boxers who make millions and then in short order end up in the poorhouse is disproportionately high. Below are your exact words: *emphasis mine So your own use of the word disproportionately high puts the onus on you to back that up. You can't have ascertained whether it is or isn't disproportionately high either within the sport of boxing, within sports in general or within the sports/celebrity crossover.... if you haven't looked at the actual numbers and done the calculations. Those figures would be difficult to come by because they aren't public information. In fact the only reason we even know about them is because of the celebrity factor and the gloating of tabloid media or such misfortune. Again in your own words (below)... you refer to 'an unusually high number'... but is it? If it is then it's up to you to prove it. Just making a reference based on what makes mainstream media doesn't in any way support your assertion. It's like debate 101. You really wan't to get your head wrapped around why it's up to you to back up your assertion rather than call other people clueless and keep posting the same baseless assertions. *emphasis mine Anything else is going off of pop-culture stereotypes and makes your position completely untenable. If you don't have the stats... don't want to or can't find them - then it's best to keep well off making statements that refer to contrasts and comparisons and purporting them to be fact. It not only drags the thread down into an obnoxious war that you're on no footing to win.
I'm pretty good with numbers Vamp so I'll help you out here: First you need to determine the total number of boxers who have made a fortune through the sport. Then you need to, from this list, determine the percentages of these boxers that have blown all their cash, and do the same thing for the boxers who haven't. Subsequently, you should compare these percentages, and see, out of the entire number of boxers who have made a fortune, whether more boxers have blown their money or not. Of course, you then need to compare this against other groups of celebrity to determine if the number of boxers who blow their money is disproporionally small compared to lets say an actor, tv presenter, singer, etc. What you are saying may in fact be true. However, you cannot make empty statements like you have without doing your research.
Well, I think after that flight my language should be about on par with the normalcy explanation anyway so we'll be off to a flyer!
Gee... ya think? My guess is you won't even have the time, the inclination nor the access to such data. A far better use of time would have been to agree that you may have haphazardly worded your original assertion instead of digging your heels in. I'd go back and get a firmer grip on boxing history and culture. It's far more interesting and far more fruitful than trying to prove that boxers go broke in a disproportionately high number than either A) other celebrities B) other sports. It opens up a whole socio-cultural can of worms that is better suited for academia in many respects. Not only will the socio-economic status of the boxers come into play so will the issues of racial and political clout and the class issue will most certainly factor in. From there it wouldn't be much of a drift at all if you start to consider all the entourages, the hangers-on, the tax man, the absolute zero education in money management and the ever present paw of the mob and other forms of organized crime in professional boxing. It's a masters thesis all on it's own. Trust me on this.
People tend to stereotype off assumption and then cite a few things-names to back up these assumptions and misguided stereotyping. Mike Tyson, is NOT in the POOR HOUSE Evander Holyfield is NOT in the POOR HOUSE Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Iran Barkley, Larry Holmes, James Toney, JC Chavez, Rocky Lockridge, John Tate...ARE not IN THE POOR HOUSE... They may have burned through millions,, BUT AT LEAST they had UNLIKE others who have not. Also, they have their names etch into celeb status.....
