Originally Posted by cross_trainer
#1: Sports improve when the talent pool improves
This is an obvious one. If there are more talented athletes participating in a sport, chances are greatly enhanced that the sport as a whole is stronger. "Modern is better" pundits claim that the talent pool has definitely improved over the past few years--with globalization and the opening of Eastern Europe, more boxers are available than ever, and therefore the talent pool is bigger.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Boxing may have improved in some areas, but it has definitely declined in its former home-base of the United States. In the past, the immense popularity of boxing in this region was reinforced by frequent televised fights, a larger number of boxing gyms than today, and a large reservoir of experienced trainers. The trainers are still there--Steward, Roach, McGirt are still the best in the world--but the old gyms like Kronk are closing down, and the native talent that once fuelled them is dwindling.
It may seem that this shortfall will be easily made up for by the growing presence of boxing in Europe. Perhaps, but it will take a long time. During the 50's, 60's, and 70's, America faced the same international challenges that it faces today. Western Europe, South America, and Central America were all heavily involved in the global boxing business...in fact, the only change has been the addition of the former Soviet states, which haven't made a huge impact on non-heavyweight boxing yet. So how could America be so dominant?
Because America was specialized for boxing. A combination of greater poverty, more gyms, and the considerable popularity of boxing compared to other sports produced a constant flow of tough, hungry prospects into the gyms. They were then developed by a cadre of coaches who were more numerous and more experienced in professional rules than those of today. Similar effects can still be seen in regions like Puerto Rico, where a tiny population has produced a huge talent pool.
Perhaps you want more proof? Take a look at top fighters' boxrec records from forty years ago. You'll see more losses--which is almost always a sign of a larger talent pool. In sports with large participation rates, top performers do not hold onto their titles for long--they are quickly swept out because the competition for the top positions is so intense. It's even true of non-sports talent pools in everything from business to politics. It's true in track and field, in general. Yet somehow, it's not true of our supposedly more competitive modern era in boxing....Perhaps it's the critics who believe that boxing is a world unto itself.
No. It just meants there were excessive number of bad American fighters around back then. All training in a foolish manner. It was a world where the would be amatures had somehow ended up pro. Your arguments are as long winded and irrelevant as ever.
You could have gone out with an apology for your years of pro-1940s posting, but posted even more of this poison instead.
You point out the rest of the world boxes more, but then come in with your ****ty weighting. "But in America a few more people were boxing....this obviously outweighs the rest of the world." Garbage.
As for the greater number of defeats, this a result of inconstant performers, largely because they fought too much and could not peak for each fight. You have a lot of wins and losses amonst the top domsstic level fighters. They are all competetive too, at a poor level. You would perhaps have had a point had the entire shape of boxing not changed. You also forget the streaks of Pep, Greb and Robinson. That simply could not happen today, not on that scale, becaue there are too many competetant opponents out there. They were all awful back then, so it could be done by the few standouts.
Pacman KOs Pep, Barrera schools him.
However, goodbye and goodluck with your other pursuits.