How come boxing hasn't progressed naturally over time the way the 100m has??

well.. i donno how much 120 pound guys get paid. it's totally different from heavier weight classes. Also, is he full time or just works between camps?
Even cheap ass Don King gives young fighters bonuses of 30 -40 grand, why would thay would full time for a whole year for the same money?

 

that's what you wrote

or no you didna?

 

Much of the development in Athletics/Track & Field performances can be attributed to factors other than simply the athletes are bigger/faster/stronger.

Using the progression of say the 100m world record and applying that curve to boxing is either disingenuous or moronic. In 2012 both boxing and athletics are professional sports with high top-end rewards, with the fame, exposure and sponsorship that comes with it. Usain Bolt is probably as famous a brand worldwide as any fighter.

Compare to say 1920, there was a massive disparity between Dempsey and Charley Paddock, despite them holding the two iconic positions in global sports (heavyweight champ and fastest man on earth). One was a full-time professional, and the other was a collegiate amateur who as a result never was able to reach his athletic potential. Despite this, Paddock's best ever time would still put him in the top 30 in the world at this year's Olympics.

As late as the 60s, Bob Hayes and Jim Hines both had abbreviated track careers due to switching to pro football. Up until the late 70s athletics was an amateur sport, in comparison to boxing which was "professional" virtually from the point that it became legal. The rapid progression of world records has much to do with athletes in that sport being able to devote their full time to it.

The equipment used also played a big role. Bob Hayes ran 10 flat for the 100m on a ****ing cinder track. If you took Hayes and gave him today's equipment and synthetic tracks, provided sufficient monetary incentives for him to reach his athletic potential, and there is little doubt that he would be running comparable times to the likes of Blake, Gay and Powell at the very least.

The progression of athletic world records has plateaued in the last 20 or so years with the advent of stricter testing, along with the fact that athletes have been able to maximise their potential due to the advent of professionalism. Boxing by contrast developed at a much earlier stage in history, and long ago reached the point at which dramatic improvements could no longer be made.

Boxers are undoubtedly bigger and more athletic than at any other point in history. However, these improvements are probably offset by a gradual erosion in skill levels due to boxers fighting much less frequently against opponents who can test them.

 

Are there really fewer boxers today than at other points in history? Maybe a smaller percentage of Americans box today than in the 1960s, but worldwide boxing has a greater following than ever.

 

there's no maybe, far fewer boxers and far less gyms both in europe and america.

how can you say boxing has a greater following than ever, for 150+ years boxing was one of very few professional sports and offered the most money and fame. where as today hw title fights barely get mentioned in mainstream sports news

 

This content is protected

 

On the other hand, there was no such thing as a Soviet fighter,fighting professionally back in the 60s.

Now they've some of the best fighters in the world.
Theres some top class African fighters nowadays, they were fairly rare back in the 60s too.

 

also modern boxers are not vastly superior athletes, they have more muscle and weigh 10+ lbs more than an equivalent weightclass from same day weigh in's.

if they are so superior how come so many top fighters fight so slow, or look gassed after 5 rounds.

mcgrain posted mcfarland v welsh, great skills and high tempo throughout

 

africans have been boxing since way before the 60's

soviet ams fought to a very high level when amatuer fights were very similar to professional fights.

there are more pros from these areas, but there are also more proffesional sportsmen diluting the talent going into boxing, look at african soccer players, this is the primary sport for an athletic african looking for a proffesion, not boxing(excluing kenya and ethiopia were its running)

 

I would be surprised if there were fewer gyms in Europe as a whole. In Britian there are fewer, but it's bigger than ever in eastern Europe. It may be smaller in America, but it's thriving in the east -- think Japan, Thailand, the Phillipines, amongst others. Boxing is now a global sport, whereas in the 1920s America, Britain and a few European countries produced boxers.

Because things are relative. Sure, other sports may have taken the limelight, and a greater percentage of people might be playing them instead. 1850 there were 1.2 billion people; in 1950, there were 2.5. Now there are 7 billion people on this globe. It might have lost some percentage points, but in terms of sheer numbers, I estimate it's more popular than ever.

 

Yes,but they didnt fight professionally.

Or what about the Cubans, If Stevenson had gone pro,many say he could have beaten the tyop guys in the golden era.

Lots of new fighters have been unleashed on the pro scene in the last few decades

 

Yet boxers are slower, weaker and less skilled. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.

 

Has anybody posted my old thread yet :yep