Why is there an anti-recency bias in boxing?

SRL might well have beaten Floyd, but mopping the floor with him? I don't think so.

 

Of course it's all a matter of opinion. The difference is, that some people acknowledge that - while others believe that there is "proof", that backs up their opinion. like you, who claims that the degradation of boxing, over time, is something that has been proven.

 

To me it has. More opinion stuff rearing it's head again I guess.

 

Excellent points as always. For me, a lot of it boils down to simple common sense numbers. The more you do something the better at it one can become. Top fighters now fight so relatively infrequently (either because of a lack of enough local clubs to support such an active schedule or because this new "fewer is better" mindset caused the decay, not sure which is chicken and which one is the egg) that they simply can't be as practiced at it. Probably better for their health that way, so if you can get away with fighting only 2-4 times a year then bless ya. That's good sense in a lot of ways but it prevents you from being a better fighter. Not when compared to guys from the past that fought more often.

 

How has the opposite point of view been more proven?

Here's some evidence that heavyweight boxing has degraded - 3 of the top 5 heavy weights right now are over 30 years old and have titties

 

Boxing has changed not for the better in many ways. Boxing used to be the 2nd or 3rd most popular sport behind baseball and perhaps horseracing at least in America.

Other sports have come along but the true reasons it's a cult sport now is that boxers don't fight each like they once did. The best don't face the best. That is a fact. The # of total fights they have affects the skillsets being more shallow. More though if they best consistently face the best fans would be very pleased.
The safety measures that have been taken are necessary I guess but fights are stopped quicker, 12 round championship distance robs some drama from the title bouts we do have. The lack of a network TV presence hurts the game. Again though that could be overcome if boxers consistently fought the best. Owe and those half a dozen 'World Title Organizations' don't help the picture either. Look at the Welterweight division today. Good fighters Spence, Crawford, Ennis, Thurman, Ugas. A couple of those guys are hiding behind their belts (cough) Spence. I have great respect for Bud Crawford and I believe he could go down as one of the best ever but he was frozen out, ducked and told "get a belt" then he gets one and still can't get that diva in the ring.

After a couple of weeks of following what was happening at 147 I got physically ill. Couldn't read another Tweet. It was sickening. That is one division. Heavyweight has been historically the least skilled boxers, powerful but slow, less punch output, not the same type of combination punching or movement as the lighter divisions. That has always been true. With that said the recent Heavyweight Champion Wilder had a 4 rounders skillset...OK maybe Fury has a 6 rounders so there's some improvement. Joshua had some skills but those silk pajamas choked off his desire to fight the way a champ needs to.
Boxers are still tough, amazing athletes but they don't learn their trade and they don't get forged in fire like they once had to. Do you think Sugar Ray Robinson wanted to fight 200 professional fights? Hell no! He had to fight often to make that $. If he could have Tweeted some threats and promises he would be Ryan Garcia too.
Ray Arcel had a saying coming out of the Great Depression " tough times make Monkeys eat red peppers".

I think Bud could hold his own vs some of the Champs from the past. Unfortunately their stalling him out till he turns 36 years old or whatever.

This is the truth Ruth!

 

Far less fights than in the past. The old timers deserved to be the best ever

 

You're right... it all boils down to common sense numbers.

Back in the day (say in the 1920s) boxers often turned pro as teenagers, often with very little amateur experience. Of course they needed a lot of "practice" fights, over several years - before the best of them developed into world class fighters.

Today we still have boxers, who turn pro at a very young age (like Canelo) - but we also have boxers with extensive amateur careers, waiting until well into their 20s, before turning pro. Guys like Lomachenko, Rigondeaux, Usyk with 300-400 amateur fights and multiple world and Olympic gold medals behind them. Guys who were pretty much fully "developed" and only needed a few pro fights, to get accustomed to the longer distance - before going after pro titles. None of these have had even 25 pro fights yet - but would they be any better today, if they had had an additional 25 "keep busy" fights?

 

I don't think it has. Who is claming that?

 

Many back then had extensive amateur careers. Robinson won the GG six times for example. Those that didn't had many undocumented "smokers" a lot of the time. Not all, but that was the trend then.

Just as not every champion today boasts 400-fight amateur careers.

 

Besides, becoming learned in the art of 10-round fights is in no way the same thing as three rounds of fencing, which is all amateur boxi g really is anyway.

 

Point noted about recency bias, but I don't think it's only boxing fans that are like this.
For instance, in Formula 1 plenty of people believe that Ayrton Senna is still the GOAT.
In weightlifting/strongman, many people think that Bill Kazmaier or Paul Anderson are the strongest men ever to live.

Only recently in Football were Messi or Ronaldo considered the GOAT, before that it was usually Pele or Maradona.

But point taken.

 

So you don't think the long amateur careers of someone like Loma and Usyk is really the main cause, why they were able to raise in the pro ranks as fast as they did?

 

There's weight classes in boxing so a welterweight and a heavyweight is still a welterweight and a heavyweight though heavyweights today are bigger. That mitigates the effects of advances in nutrition and training. Today's basketball players are bigger because of those advances but not necessarily taller due to the reversion to the mean. Today's football players are just bigger, faster and stronger.

 

That and a general dearth of real fighters to challenge them. They do fine with what they can get I suppose.