That may be true but that doesn't mean the best guys themselves were better. It just means there were fewer places to hide.
You're right - the number of world champions does not say anything about the quality of the boxers. Whether there's a single title holder in each division or 5 that we call "world" champion… it's still the same boxers. Also 17 divisions today vs 8 in the old days… how does this lower the quality of modern boxers?
If you fought a consensus top 10 fighter in 1920, he was a consensus top 10 fighter across over DOUBLE the pool of professional boxers than is the case with fighting a consensus top 10 fighter in 2020. It's a big deal.
I agree, that it's a bigger deal to be champ in a world with 8 divisions than in a world with 17 divisions (especially if there are 4 or 5 "champs" in each of those many divisions). No doubt about that. But if everybody agreed (totally unrealistic, I know), that from tomorrow we will only recognize the 8 classic divisions, and only one champ in each… would that improve the ability/quality of today's boxers?
It would definitely improve the matchmaking and possibly Boxer ability by extension due to the competition. If we only had 8, for example, we would've had, in the 80s / 90s, Chang, Yuh, Lopez, Carbajal, Chiquita, Arbachakov, Zapata, Laciar, Chitalada, Magri etc etc all fighting each other in the Flyweight division, alongside a score of top contenders who would've been in 105 to 112, and it might very well have been the best Flyweight division to ever exist with lots of legendary (hypothetical) fights..
No. But it would definitively further establish who is "the best of the best," for lack of a less cheesy phrase.
That is total nonsense. For example, there are about 3k active fighters between 140 and 147 today across countries that weren't in pro bxoing in 1920. Tell me with a straight face there were 6k welters in 1920, which is what doubling the professional pool would mean.
I think we can all agree, that in an ideal world the best would be fighting the best, that way establishing the pecking order in each division - ensuring that the VERY best would rise to the top to challenge the reigning champion. But of course such a world never existed. Back in the 1920s, the best didn't all fight each other - and the VERY best contenders didn't always get a title shot. For example, Harry Wills was the outstanding challenger throughout Dempsey's 7-year reign, but was denied a chance at the crown. Another HOFer, Sid Terris, was ranked #1 contender 3 years in a row, but never got a shot against first Leonard and then Mandell. Ray Miller was top-10 ranked by The Ring in 3 different divisions (as high as #1 contender at lightweight in 1928) without getting a title bout. Just because there were only 8 world champions in as many divisions 100 years ago, doesn't mean that everything was better back then.
I get what you're saying. In retrospect, my response might not have been appropriate in terms of how you worded your post I quoted. You're right, it says nothing about the relative quality, and doesn't mean they were better. I would agree with that. But generally speaking, what I believe it did do was that it usually resulted in higher quality match-ups where the best from a given era was generally more "proven" in his era. That's not a fine science either, as boxing has always been inherently corrupt, and there have always been ways for the money-makers to get certain advantages. My greater point, I guess if I actually had one, was that I think it's generally easier to manufacture a career today with so many belts and so many divisions. But I understand that's not really what you were getting at.
