How many more pro fights (on average) are we really talking about with the Golden Agers?

That would take a rather long and In depth research project. But I do believe based on many of the old vs modern records I’ve seen that it was generally common for fighters of long past decades to partake in a lot more pro fights. yes there are some exceptions. Men like Julio Cesar Chavez, Roberto Duran, buck smith and Harold brazier were more modern fighters who certainly had long records

 

I’ve crunched all the data and it’s a difference of 47.3 fights.

 

It's actually 47.5 fights. Not sure how you could've made such a grave error like that.

 

well either side of 100 Fights was basically an average career, with a good percentage of past fighters exceeding 150 Fights.

so they really did have them, therefore the average difference has got to be either side of 50 Fights or more.

 

Two questions:

1. What would you say, is a "good percentage"?

2. What kind of research have you done, to reach this conclusion?

 

Hundreds of Boxing Mags from 1937- 2000s

Fight Records of Hundreds of fighters from the Years 20s - 50s and the Number of Fights attributed to the fighters from that time.

3 Years researching my Book and 20 years talking & reading on these sites, with contributions made by some very authoritative voices over the course of that time.

I still have a good resource library and Sold my Collection 100 Years of Boxing History to the Hatton's, so I have had a great collection on Hand for about 15 years, more than the average Fan or even Serious Fan for that matter.

 

Great... so can you give os some of the percentages you have found?

 

NO, I don't File, Count or pull out my calculator for such matters.

But pick a Decade from the 20s - 50s, do a BoxRec Check of the Top Fighters during that time, click on most of their Opponents and then the Opponent's, Opponents and see how many fighters exceed 150 fights...

even IF it's only 10 - 15% for instance, that is Still a GOOD Percentage... because you will have checked HUNDREDS of Fighters by that point.

FLY at it!

 

It's not my job to do what should be YOUR research! So if you haven't done any, I think it's fair to say, that you have no idea, what you're talking about.

 

Yeah that's right, a person see's HUNDREDS of Fight Records for more than 20 years now, many, many of which have HUGE Numbers attributed the Fighters...

and because people (me) haven't counted "How many" of those Fighters have more than a 150 fights, and because they (me), didn't also 'calculate' a Percentage, well a " Generalized" statement based on Hundreds of Fighter's Records isn't good enough for you,

that someone (me) should make such an educated Generalization means we don't know what we're talking about.

Ok, sorry then, that it can't be taken as Perceived Consensus of Such Era's in Boxing.

'IF' you want Numbers for 'precise' Stats, You Do It... most people aren't that obsessive about such things.

 

The old age guys had their amateur career in those filler fights.They learned on the road.

 

Not even close.. There were even more amatuers years ago but boxers needed the bucks

 

I have also studied thousands of records over the years... and the intuitive sense I get, is that back in the day many boxers had a lot more fights than the average boxer today. You don't have to do a lot of research to figure this out!

However, when you research records of fighters from bygone years, isn't it exactly these types of fighters, that catch your eye? How much time do you spend on complete unknowns, with just a few fights? Not a lot, I would guess. So it's easy to lure yourself into believing, that boxers with 150+ career fights were really more numerous (percentage-wise), than is actually the case.

Anyway, if someone makes an outrageous claim (10-15% with 150+ fights), do you think it's unfair to ask for some evidence of this?