Has boxing evolved at all?

Hang on, the title was frozen. When the title was up and running again Gus was offered the Freddie Mills fight for twice the money Charles and Moore could have made. Mills was a title claimant, he had won a Euro version of the world title from Len Harvey so this fight was an international unification if you like. Then there was Billy Fox who only looks bad in hindsight. I think Gus made Ring Magazine fighter of the year with his post war championship relaunch.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nobody was thinking Gus was ducking anybody when he was awarded fighter of the year.

 

m, who can say when boxing reached its "apex" ?. But if I can venture a guess, I would pick the beginning of WW1 era. In the first WW1,
deemed the {war to end all wars"] yypes !, in the USA drafted American doughboys were all taught basic boxing moves as a must in basic training, that most likely contributed to become boxers during the
"first Golden Age"... My dad would tell me in NYC for instance every block had a pro fighter who had no other way to make a living but to bring home "the bread" for their family as those harsher days there were no Medicare, Medicade, home relief or food stamps... This led to boxing as a way to feed there family, thus paving the way to thousands of hungry fighters who fought OFTEN to exist. So I think the time from 1915 or so to the 1950s spawned our greatest fighters generally speaking...But as I have posted in any era certain fighters had certain innate talents that transcended any era, such as a Fitz, Joe Gans, Ketchel, Langford etc...

 

Why on earth are you trying so hard to convince me, that there used to be lots and lots of small fight clubs - but that they are now a thing of the past? Isn't that exactly what I said in my post?

When I say:
"Gone are most of the small fight clubs, and overall activity has dwindled to a small fraction of what it once was."

Why do you counter that with:
"How on earth were there tons and tons of top fighters those days who had over 100 bouts and more if there were not so many small boxing clubs operating all over the nation?" And: "B. this is fact not fiction and nostalgia I cite... Just get a hold of some OLD Ring Mags of the 1930s and 1940s and see how many fighters and fights clubs operated in the USA states those days."

Are we not speaking the same language? Ok, English is not my mother tongue... but am I really that hard to understand?

 

Mills had already been battered by a faded Lloyd Marshall.
Lesnevich went for the money which is understandable but the fact remains Charles was the number one contender and both he Moore were ignored.

 

B. then we are on the same page by agreeing that these days there are much, much fewer pro fighters than were in past decades and era's...ciao...

 

No Burt, we are not!

My whole point is, that just because the number of fights and active boxers have been going down in the US - that can not be used as some kind of proof, that the WORLDWIDE trend is the same. That is what I meant, about you looking at things from an American perspective - without considering what goes on in the rest of the World.

 

lookB, you are looking to argue with me, so just let us agree to disagree
as whatever "proof" I submit to you, will fall on deaf ears.. And a final point. In the 1920s to 1950s in the USA, and Canada, France and England there were many times the amount of pro fighters than in all the other countries combined today in the remaining small countries.
So think what you may, and so will I.

 

No, I'm not looking to argue with you! I'm just trying to get you to understand, that the downward trend in the US over the past several decades isn't mirrored by what has been going on in the rest of the world. That's all.

But whatever...

 

imo numbers of participants is semi relevant at best. what matters is the guys with top level potential, and imo the most important issue is the vast number of sports(and unrelated proffesions) that can make you rich today. why get punched in the face for a living when you can be a pro in a hundred different sports that don't involve getting punched in the face? (other sports are obviously hardcore too, but even tho crashing a bike or screwing up a cliff dive could be deadly, getting hit is different and even people who can take it will likely choose something else if given the chance, which they have today but didn't until quite late in the 20th century.) (I can't really claim I could take it but it's true I never quit a fight and true I gave up boxing the day I found you get punched way less in the skatepark)

look at the very top genetic guys in America, should they try to become one of only a small number of fighters who get rich, or play football where hundreds of people make 7 figures a year? not a hard decision.

 

great post !!!

 

I think so.

There's a ton of fighters from the last 30 years that you could put up against fighters from 30-60 years before that (film allowing) and you can see that the modern fighter "looks" better in most, if not all, departments.

Someone like Tyson is much more pleasing - in terms of throwing perfectly thrown punches - than Marciano.

Hard to put it into words, but fighters (modern ones) seem to be better at the basics, have methods available to them today that are cutting edge and can improve them.

Not a lot in the ring has evolved, but a hell of a lot outside it has.

All sports no matter how basic evolve due to humans evolving (in terms of strength, speed etc).

Look at Floyd's compubox numbers: He's been hit the least EVER. Surely that can't be ALL down to cherry-picking?

World Records in Olympic Weightlifting from the 70's probably wouldn't place on a podium now. Why can't that apply to Boxing?

I know multiple-weight champs can be put down a lot of the time to timing, but there has to be someone at least that achieved all that in the modern era due to being THAT GOOD that they've been won legit, and not because it seems easier to do, surely?

 

You're confusing athleticism with skills. Lots of champions today don't have the fundamentals of contenders in the golden ages of boxing. I'd say boxing climbed from a rough point up to the middle decades of the 20th century, probably peaked from the 60's to the 80's, then gradually declined to the point we are now.

Compubox is also a relatively recent statistic. And highly flawed.

Think about this. How many fighters today have a great jab? Cotto (a veteran), Bradley (a veteran), Khan, Brook, Crawford, Kovalev, GGG, Ward, Estrada...that's about it. The #1's #2's might, but the rest?

How many fresh young fighters are beast on the inside? Gonzales, GGG, Canelo, Ward...that's it.

How many fighters show great ring generalship? Meaning great at cutting off the ring and/or controlling the center against an aggressor? The best showings of late have been Cotto under Roach, and Bradley under Atlas. Also Gonzales, Golovkin and Kovalev. I'll tell you all the young fighters that distinctly lack it. Thurman, Canelo, Broner, Garcia, Wilder; like half of the young big names in the sport.

Let's compare how some of boxing's historical divisions compare to today's.

At lightweight you have Linares at the top. Has lightweight ever been weaker? And I like Linares. But lightweight king? In what other era would that possibly happen?

Middleweight. Golovkin has great fundamentals. But look at the rest of the division. Lemieux, Rosado, Geale...not great stuff.

Heavyweight. We had one-dimensional Wlad against chubbies for a decade. I like Fury but the dude is so clumsy and unpolished. Luis Ortiz looks great but we have yet to see him against the best. Then there's Wilder who managed to get a belt despite starting boxing at 20 and being vulnerable to being KO'd by completely unranked guys. Then there's Haye, a former cruiserweight, probably the most conventionally sound of the bunch.

So, yeah. Looking at the missing skills and weakness of the divisions, we can tell boxing has regressed.

 

So boxing peaked in the 60's, 70's and 80's... and from there it somehow all went wrong?

That's a slump that has lasted 25 years now! And it has come at a time when we have seen more and more countries take up professional boxing and activity booming around the world - resulting in more fights and a larger worldwide talent pool than at any other time during the last 50 years.

It has also been a time where more and more information has become available to us. Today trainers can watch just about every big fight, either live on TV or the next day on YouTube...in addition to being able to study thousands of films from yesteryear.

So why is it, that over the past 25 years boxing, unlike other sports, has been unable to build and improve on previous generations experience/accomplishments and move forward - but has instead gone downhill? What can be the explanation for this?

 

I don't think everything's worse, but the diminished status of boxing in the sports landscape could go part of the way to answering for that.

 

Excellent post! I'd also point out you can make lots of money in the entertainment field and not get punched out.