When you are talking about a potential p4p GOAT, the depth of the competition is absolutely insane. As soon as you start avoiding the other top fighters of your era, you pretty much knock yourself out of contention!
Well yes, a deeper talent pool means the average fighter was better But that also means that he best of them could pile up a better résumé then someone with a weaker talent pool era, eg Ali to The Klitschkos
Yes I agree… in an era with a deep talent pool, we should expect the average fighter to be better, than in an era with a shallower talent pool. However, so far I haven't seen any proof, that we have had this shrinking talent pool over the past decades, that some posters are talking about. It's as if people just take for granted, that there are far fewer pro boxers today, than 40-50 years ago. But where are the numbers, that back up this idea… or is it simply something people say, because they have seen "historians" repeat this over and over again?
I have a feeling we are in a similar generation, the 69 stands for the year I was born rather than my preferred proclivities. And in this regard I do agree with you. During the 80’s I was a big Tyson appreciator....but during the late 90’s mid 2000’s I began to become a detractor....largely based upon some personal biases. So I get that....now that I have aged I no longer have the passion for a particular fighter (or against) that drove me back then. I would say I am a huge fan of boxing but not really any boxers in particular? I guess 5-10 years time may give a better indicator of Floyd’s rightful placement....just part of the reason I wait till 5 years retired in most cases to rate fighters.
I am interested in these same numbers, that I keep hearing get bandied about. I only spent about an hour searching multiple terms into multiple search engines to try and uncover some of these demographics. So far no luck although my efforts have not yet been vast. But generally when searching numbers based upon statistics surveys in other fields I can generally locate what I am looking for fairly quickly and successfully. These numbers may be fact, but I am not ready to believe them outside of some verified source(s). I find it stranger that my searches have yield not poor results but rather no results or evidence of these numbers. I don’t care what side they fall on I just want to know
Well in this era the example doesn't really hold up, but in say the 00s HW where the talent pool was very low, Nobody had the opportunity to pile up a good résumé, but there is a bias to old school fighters (in high talent pool eras) because they had WAY more fights meaning better and deeper Achievement. And to your other point about the shallower talent pool today imo is a myth Look at say Lomachenko, a great fighter who has a really good skills, he is today's equivalent to SRL or someone else in the past
At welterweight, I am not sure. I don't see him beating de la Hoya and Quartey in their primes, for instance, and perhaps not even Tito. And I consider none of these three top 10 all-time material at welterweight.
Deeper talent pool, so likely more quality ighters per class. The very top guy may not necessarily be so, as there are always the possibility of one freak who stands apart from his era. For instance, Wilt Chamberlain could likely come back today and still be the best - even though basketball is one area where contemporary players are superior.
As I've said several times already, look at the numbers that Silver cites in his Arc of Boxing book. He cites even stuff like annual commission reports. I am not sure what more authoritative reference can be made. If you think Silver is making up those numbers, then go to the sources he cite. But stuff like boxing commission reports that are more than half a century old may be difficult to obtain. Still, there are large research libraries - as well as contacting the said commissions themselves, if you really cannot trust Silver. But as far as I can tell, no one has really challenged the facts he cite; instead, the controversy regarding his book has more to do with his opinions (not all of which I share for the record).
I don’t dispute his numbers arbitrarily but if they exist for him they exist elsewhere...once again I do a fair bit of dabbling in numbers for reasons outside of boxing. If I am researching the disparity of deaths by shooting contrasted to driving while intoxivated, I can find multiple sources...if looking up the divorce rate among couples who co-habituate prior to marriage contrasted to couples who wait, again I can find multiple sources....if I am looking up statistics in regards to eating disorders anxiety depression campus **** ratios, I can find multiple sources....I am seldom told to go buy a book. I don’t say these numbers are fake or false or embellished rather that I would like to see them for myself...and if they exist they generally exist in a widespread easy to locate manner. I am just curious if these numbers are accurate and if so why they are hard to find...now I have only looked for an hour so that does not mean they don’t exist...it may just mean I have not looked hard/deep enough or used the right magic combinations of words.
Like you, I'm interested in the number of active boxers at different times/eras, since gloved boxing began. For the past several years, I have been begging (as "Bundana") BoxRec to release these numbers, as can be seen in this thread, but to no avail: http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=101907&start=75 They are, however, willing to reveal how many fights they have in their database, for each year… and here we can see (latest update Dec. 17 last year), that the number has been steadily increasing over the past 40 years. The annual number of fights, recorded by BoxRec, these days is approx. 2½ times what it was back in the 70s (in round numbers about 27,000 to 11,000). Though this doesn't give us the number of active boxers... I strongly doubt, that a "shrinking" talent pool would produce these numbers!
Hey fellas, my problem with trying to rate Floyd is the fact that he didnt really fight any prime, great fighters and he didnt hang around that long at his best weight which in my opinion would have to be around lightweight. I actually reckon Floyd's two best wins were against Alvarez at the catch weight and with the rematch victory against Castillo at lightweight. As a welterweight Floyd fought names more than actual fighters. The biggest names he faced were guys who had already absorbed bad beatings. Mosely was an older guy who had already been badly knocked around against Forrest and Wright as well as having two really hard fights with De La Hoya. No fighter is prime after having that happen to them. Cotto had already been smashed by Margarito and Pacquiao, he was really beaten up in both fights. Marquez was basically dudded at the weigh in and was also four years older than Floyd. Hardly a great welterweight. Judah had lost his previous fight to Baldomir and had previously lost to Corey Spinks and stopped by Tzyu. De La Hoya fought Floyd a full four years after Oscar's last good fight ( the Mosely rematch ). Oscar looked like crap against Sturm and the weight drained Hopkins. Pacquiao and Floyd should have fought 5 years before they did from a boxing perspective ( not from a financial one though, they nailed it in that regard ) so I can't get too excited about that win either You can pick apart any fighters resume to an extent but for mine Floyd is around 40-50 for me. He is a pro's pro, always in great nick and an extremely gifted fighter both from a technical perspective and as far as being very talented physically but he just didnt fight enough prime guys who really threatened him to make me rate him higher. I rate him highest at a H2H perspective around lightweight. At that weight he would be a handful for anyone. Cheers All.
This is only because BoxRec's record is incomplete the longer we go back - and the further we go from the U.S.
Appreciate the link! I have a hard time seeing it shrinking as well since modern fighters typically fight less times per year per boxer, it would seem to have to point towards more fighters. I don’t have a dog in this debate, but I am genuinely interested in numbers in all fields but especially boxing