Farewell, ESB!

[PowerPuncher]

CT don't leave us for trivial pursuits like work. I really enjoyed the debates mate. Maybe you'll be able to make the odd 30miniutes to debate on ESB. I and the rest hope so

[redrooster]

strangely enough, we never crossed paths. What kind of project is he pursuing?

[Dekkers]

You'll be missed mate, hope you find some time off to post once in a while.

[China_hand_Joe]

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 shitty 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.

[Smokin'Joe100]

fitting you leave with probably the best 15th round ever of heavyweight boxing. Thanks cross_trainer

[Butch Coolidge]

Best wishes in your endeavours C_T.


BTW, I don't remember reading about the relevance of global population increase over time and the fact that there are more men of a heavyweight's stature around today than back in the days of old. I just will not let go of the notion that old timers are more mythical than magical.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Butch Coolidge

Best wishes in your endeavours C_T.


BTW, I don't remember reading about the relevance of global population increase over time and the fact that there are more men of a heavyweight's stature around today than back in the days of old. I just will not let go of the notion that old timers are more mythical than magical.

Population statistics might be not be quite what they seem at first glance. Much of it is in countries with little or no boxing tradition, such as China and India.
Also the population is larger, but also much older. What is the raw totals of young men in their twenties now as compared to sixty years ago? I don't think the modern edge would be nearly as wide as you assume.

[Drew101]

Sorry to see you go. This does mean that I might have a chance to win the ESB's Best Writer Award, though...

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

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 shitty 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.

"outweighs the rest of the world"

If I read Cross-Trainer correctly, he pointed out that boxing was also an very international sport as long ago as the twenties with champions and challengers from several continents. The fact that Americans did a better job of competing back then might be due to boxing slipping in America, for reasons that are not hard to pinpoint, rather than an increase in competition from other countries. Only Eastern Europe has really come on board in the couple of decades, and it has certainly given competition a real shot in the arm.

How international was competition long ago:

In the 1930's Marcel Thil of France was recognized as middleweight champion. Top challengers included Len Harvey and Jock McAvoy of Britain, Ignacio Ara of Spain, Erich Seelig of Germany, Kid Tunero of Cuba, Lou Brouillard of Canada, plus the Americans Teddy Yarosz and Gorilla Jones.

In 1952, Sugar Ray Robinson was champion. Top challengers included Randy Turpin of Britain, Charles Humez and Pierre Langlois (among others) of France, Tibero Mitri of Italy, Luc Van Dam of Holland, Dave Sands of Australia, George Angelo of South Africa, Claude Milazzo of Morocco, plus the promising youngsters Gustav Scholz of Germany and Eduardo Lausse of Argentina. Welterweight king Kid Gavilan of Cuba also frequently moved up and would eventually challenge Bobo Olson for the middleweight crown.

I don't know what "excessive number of bad Americans" means, but boxing was obviously very international those many years ago.

[The Whaler]

[Butch Coolidge]

I cannot remember his name but supposedly there was an extremely talented Russian heavyweight during Joe Louis' reign as heavyweight champion that many Russians feel would have defeated the Brown Bomber.

[Senya13]

Originally Posted by Butch Coolidge

I cannot remember his name but supposedly there was an extremely talented Russian heavyweight during Joe Louis' reign as heavyweight champion that many Russians feel would have defeated the Brown Bomber.

Nikolai Korolyov

[Alo2006]

Nice post

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Butch Coolidge

I cannot remember his name but supposedly there was an extremely talented Russian heavyweight during Joe Louis' reign as heavyweight champion that many Russians feel would have defeated the Brown Bomber.

On what basis is this opinion held, though. Louis was a world champion who defeated World and European champions Schmeling and Carnera, European champion Uzcudun, South American champion Godoy, British Empire champion Farr, as well as several other international opponents.

I have no doubt Korolyov was a great national amateur champion and perhaps a top prospect, but it is just unsubstantiated speculation what he would do against Louis. Did he in fact defeat an Olympic champion, a European professional champion, or any top level world rated fighter at all?

[Senya13]

[url]***********.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=3976&more=1[/url]