How would Henry Hank do today?

Again, I'll repeat myself: the notion that the best way to improve as a boxer is to take on more professional fights sounds sensible but is actually baseless and imo completely misguided. As far as I can tell, there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that men with extensive amateur careers, 20-30 pro fights under their belts, and thousands of hours in the gym (including sparring) in which they engage in deliberate practice to hone their abilities, would be better pro fighters with less gym and rest time, and 4-5 more professional fights per year.

Maybe I'm wrong but the "they'd be better with more fights" arguments that always get regurgitated on this site don't convince me in the least.

 

I'm not sure that I understand your comment. Are you suggesting that only a Great Boxing Trainer like Kevin Rooney or Teddy Atlas could have taught Tyson how to use his speed and power to devastating effect? Taught him how get inside on bigger opponents and make them pay? I bet there are plenty of trainers who could have done that. As a matter of fact, I'll bet there are tons of trainers who aren't known as Great Boxing Trainers who also would have developed Tyson into a more effective inside fighter, who didn't let his opponents clinch their way out of harm's way so easily or escape him after he'd cut off the ring on them.

And if they're so much Greater than their counterparts, why didn't the Great Boxing Trainers like Kevin Rooney or Teddy Atlas create any more Mike Tysons? Lord knows Atlas had access to plenty of high quality talent.

 

No, I think you're confusing earlier comments of mine with the strawmen you've been using in their place. Whenever we have something critical to say about an old school heavyweight's footwork or head movement, you pretend that we're specifically comparing them to Ali or Tyson, as a way to avoid the substance of our critiques and to make them seem unfair. I've never once suggested that the way Mike Tyson worked his way inside or the way that Ali used lateral movement were the only ways to do so.

 

Good lord, the fact that boxing is watered down today and has nowhere near the depth of talent isnt even up for debate. Anyone trying to pretend boxing today is as relevent or has the same level or depth of talent it did 50 years ago is living in a fantasy world.

 

Russ has more or less answered (brilliantly) for me, probably better than I would've although Bukkake makes some relevant points too. I don't have time to go into massive depth at the mo, but I think you could take the top ten of each division and the p4p best fighters from any year going back tens of decades and those rankings would contain better fighters than any list from around the turn of the millennium onward, regardless of how many more active fighters there are outide the US. Like klompton said I didn't even think it was up for debate tbh though some people clearly disagree. If I get time I'll dig out some old Ring ranking lists and compare them to todays. When I mentioned honing skills, I meant that fighters today are bound by weight draining and fighting at weights that aren't natural to them, which means that they spend more time training to make weight in the gym which takes away from actually practicing and sharpening their skills. As does not fighting as often, though there are exceptions to the rule of course.

 

The thing with the old boxing clubs in the US in particular is that there were hundreds of the feckers, far more than today. In close proximity with to each other with shared cultures and providing the opportunity for more people to learn how to fight. Before the rise of tv, people went to all the small venues to watch fights live; they had to if they wanted to watch the sport. When tv became popular, people started staying at home, the clubs lost revenue and subsequently began to vanish over time.

 

It's true that boxing has spread globally. It doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of the fighter being superior though, because there are other factors at play which have already been mentioned on here countless times in the past by knowledgeable people. Good post though nonetheless.

 

Thanks, Tin... nice to see, that there are posters who can acknowledge other points of view, without feeling the need to ridicule such opinions, and the posters who express them!

You're right, the fact that boxing today is more "international" than back in the "good old days", doesn't necessarily mean better boxers... though I don't think it's unreasonable to say, that more competition probably will lead to overall improvement in the long run.

Today we see excellent fighters from countries, that didn't even allow pro boxing 30 years ago. Kovalev, GGG, Usyk, Lomachenko, Gassiev, Beterbiev, Bivol to name a few. And not only from former Eastern Blok countries... other countries as well produce fine boxers from time to time. At 37 Rigondeaux is probably nearing the end of the road, but is/was an incredible talent. Same with Roman Gonzalez. And how about that Japanese fellow, Inoue? Looks quite amazing to me!

What I'm getting at is this: I'm not claiming, that boxing today is better than decades ago... all I'm saying, is that just because American interest isn't what it used to be, doesn't necessarily mean that boxing is at an all-time low worldwide. And that today's boxers would be in big trouble, if we reverted back to the old 15 rounds distance in title fights... because they are all sissies, who probably wouldn't be able to hack it under those conditions. That's just silly, imo.

 

I'll only add that it's hard to tell how good the current crop of lightheavies are. I believe 6 of the top 10 are undefeated and relative newbies. Part of this is the Eastern Euro tendency to turn pro late after a lengthy amateur career, part is modern matchmaking. We will see how good guys like Bivol and Beterbiev are. They look pretty damn good on tape... but so does Hank.

 

If that's all you got from my post, or the others for that matter, than I don't think you really grasp what we were trying to say. The problem is a lot more nuanced and constitutes plenty more than just an additional three rounds of boxing in championship fights. You're focusing on a singular part of the narrative.

 

No problem brother, you're a poster I've long had respect for on here. I used to really like your trivia threads back in the day on ESB, though hascup used to answer them before anyone else had even gotten off the sofa.

 

Rigo was an excellent/great talent or thereabouts no doubt, if possibly not the most durable. His career has been a let down though for me, post-Donaire, because of inactivity even if it wasn't all his fault.

I'm a longstanding fan of Golovkin but find him to be overrated from an objective standpoint. He took too long to get going as a pro in terms of getting the fights (again not all his fault) and has stepped up the competition having entered his decline some time ago, subsequently not distinguishing himself from Jacobs and Alvarez. I even thought he looked ordinary against the likes of Brook and Martin Murray despite never really being threatened and his level of opposition has been dire.

I love Roman Gonzalez, great fighter Imo despite the Rungvisai disaster. It's a shame though that he wasted so much time at minimum and light-fly when he should've been mixing it at flyweight.

Kovalev looked pretty impressive for a time, brutal power with other considerable tools at his disposal. His durability, lack of infighting skill and adaptabiity worried me though and people typically went over the top when he dominated old man Hops who was a long long way from being a great fighter by that point.

I need to watch more of Usyk, Gassiev, Beterbiev etc to be honest, haven't seen enough to form a fair opinion.

Lomachenko is awesome of course, it's impossible not to be highly impressed by him thus far and I like that he's plunged straight into knocking off rated opposition and other belt holders in his first few fights in dominant fashion. Hopefully he establishes himself as the great fighter of his era before time catches up with him and his long amateur background takes it's toll.