Why can fighters fight at older ages today but not in the past?

That's fair.

 

LOL

But on the subject, I truly believe that Fighters can fight at a higher level and at a more advanced age because the competition isn't as tough, the sport is not as brutal and the amount of quality opponents on average that are faced is much less than it used to be back in the day.

 

So you think, the average fight from way back, say the 1920s, was harder and more brutal than the average fight today? And if you do, what do you base this belief on?

 

One of the most obvious things is how quickly fights are stopped nowadays. Do you agree that referees used to let beatings go on longer back in the 20s than today?

 

The amateur records of fighters obviously needs to be respected.

However, without knowing the specifics, I personally wouldn’t take them into account when ranking someone.

Again, not without specific information.

For most fighters, we have an idea of who they fought. Some of the bouts were obviously filmed. But at the same time, there’s lots that we don’t know.

We can’t be certain if the numbers are 100% accurate.

We have no idea of the standard the bouts were fought at.

The intensity etc.

Most of them were 3 round fights, with head gear, scoring under an amateur system.

Many of the bouts also took place before adulthood, or when fighters had just reached adulthood.

Me and Serge have debated this a few times.

Anyone who knows Serge, knows what a great poster he is, and how intelligent he is.

We have debated the amateur careers of Usyk and Beterbiev before.

And I do respect the numbers. And the fact that they must have endured a lot of wear and tear. But IMHO, there’s too many unanswered questions, in order to rank a fighter based upon his amateur record.

Unless someone was there to witness many of them first hand, again, we simply can’t know the specifics.

Serge is of the believe that Beterbiev and Usyk could have cleaned up their divisions had they have turned pro years earlier. He believes that they could have had long, undefeated records. And I absolutely think that that theory is 100% realistic. Because they are both incredible fighters.

However, IMHO, it’s also realistic to believe that they could have faded quicker than what they have done, where both of them might have endured a loss or 2 on the way. I think that both theories are realistic.

If you or Serge were to start a thread, I would certainly be very interested in reading it.

 

Lower level fighters often fought similar amounts of bouts though.

I’ve looked through the resumes of Charles, Moore and Greb etc, from the 20’s-50’s.

 

Hopefully, this is just a joke.

 

100%

Great post.

 

I would say so.

They had smaller gloves.

They fought more rounds.

The referee let them in-fight/foul. Go and read some of the ringside reports from Greb’s fights.

The referee let them literally stand over a floored opponent, where they didn’t have to let their opponent get up and reset, by going to a neutral corner. See the Dempsey-Willard fight.

They had harder careers.

Many of them had to have gone into fights at less than 100% condition, after having fought so frequently, and probably not that long after their previous bout/bouts.

It was a very different world, both inside and outside of the ring.

 

I don't know - nobody does! Simply because we haven't got enough film from that time, to make such a call.

I'd like to see some fights from back then, that were harder-fought than Chisora-Whyte 1, Leigh Wood-Michael Conlan, Bradley-Provodnikov (just to name a few, that comes to mind)... or where one of the boxers was allowed to take more punishment that Briggs against Vitali and Lebedev vs Jones. But I don't seem to be able to watch such fights!

 

There's no doubt fighters fought more often back in the day.

Things like concussion protocols were not understood or practiced.

Guys would get knocked out or cut up and battered and be back in the ring inside a month sometimes.

Guys were fighting with detached retinas and who knows what.

Medical science was nowhere what it is today.

Those guys were teakwood tough but the body can only take so much.

It's no wonder why most of them were completely shot at a relatively young age.

 

Better sports scientists, better doctors, better nutritionists, and most importantly, corruption at the highest level.

 

Have you watched much boxing pre 1990s?

 

Before 1990s? Perkins, Griffith, Monzon, Foster, Buchanan, Duran, Pryor, Conteh, McGuigan, Galindez, Carrasco, Arguello, Pedroza... plus on film, of course whatever from the old days, that can be found on YouTube.

 

I just did a quick look...

Henry Armstrong had 27 fights in 1937. That's more than two per month. Imagine that!

Picture your favorite fighter today fighting 27 times in a year. It's not hard to predict what effect that would have on their career longevity.