Chris Bryd TKO 10 Vitali Klitschko- Let's revist round 9

Collective timing of good talent? The HW division runs through influxes. Today's it's bad, but it might return to some form.

Americans produced terrific athletes. I'm sure tons of potential is stuffed somewhere in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc... the great athlete types that would be trying otherwise to have their hats in the ring because options were lacking. If not fighting then maybe baseball. Boxing was a more diverse sport race wise, though.

 

I can abide by this. Stats for active fighters per division are hard to come by for past decades. I would love to know where Cox's Corner got the stats for licensed world boxers (and licensed by whom)... That said, I still think we are getting excellent talent in all divisions. Logically, if you concede that the talent in the lower divisions is up to snuff, then it has to go for the heavies, too. I believe the lights, welters, middles, and lightheavies of the past ten years have been excellent, on par with damn near any era.

 

True. Today's might be a bit easier, but would still take a lot of work to assemble.

As I understand it, Cox's corner only made an argument about U.S. boxing gyms. Boxing has declined in the United States if we use gyms as a proxy. The other stat that I quoted came from a recent book that somebody referred me to when I brought this question up in an earlier thread. I don't have the original citation, but I think I can find the book....

I agree that great lightweights and middleweights probably indicate great heavyweights. Here's the problem: we don't have objective measurements like track and field does. Maybe Floyd wins so impressively because he's better than most of his predecessors, but maybe he looks great because he's not facing the caliber of opponent that Ray Robinson or Sugar Ray Leonard or--heck, why not?--Jimmy McLarnin did.

I'm not accusing you of this (you're quite perceptive, and your iconoclasm is much appreciated), but a lot of fans rate eras based on excitement. The 80's heavyweight division is considered terrible because its top fighters didn't face each other and blew hot and cold. The 30's are considered awful for similar reasons. But who's to say that Sharkey or Witherspoon wouldn't clobber Lennox Lewis?

I'm using an extreme example, but you see my point. We need to consider the size and quality of the talent pool, and most people don't.

 

I think it was this one, but I'm not sure:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Arc-Boxing-Decline-Sweet-Science/dp/0786438495/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270949974&sr=1-12[/ame]

 

Points appreciated, no doubt. And I'm started to pour the sauce so I'll make this my last post for the night.

I have no doubt that US boxing gyms are closing and have closed at an alarming rate. That is a fact we all accept. The three gyms I used to box in are all gone. However, I feel that other places in the world have picked up pace and taken up the slack. There must be a reason that the 1990's stand out as perhaps the greatest decade of the HW division. The real talent for fighting (which is not at all analogous to the talent for football, basketball or baseball) is still attracted to the sport. The only sport I think that has a claim to drawing from boxing is MMA.

In regards to the relativism argument, when I watch fights from the late 90's thru early 00's of guys like Morales, Barrera, Calzaghe, prime Toney, prime Lewis, prime Trinidad, Corrarles, Mayweather, de la Hoya, Hamed, prime Jones, Jr., Tapia, Mark Johnson... etc... I see the same greatness if not moreso than I see on film from previous decades. Perhaps I am biased....

 

I did come across one statistic recently. Jame P Dawson in the article RISE IN 1944 IN BOXING ACTIVITY in the NY Times, 12-28-1944, said in this article that 4,382 licensed professional boxers were active in the United States in 1944. There were, of course, a considerable number of boxers in the service.

The fact that boxers used to commonly have more than a hundred to three or four hundred fights seems to point to there having been more active fighters in the old days.

 

Globalization is not new in boxing. I remember an article in The Ring from early 1952 listing the potential opponents for middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson---Randy Turpin (England), Charles Humez and Pierre Langlois (France), Peter Muller (Germany), Tiberio Mitri (Italy), Claude Mizzano (Morrocco), Eduardo Lausse (Argentina), Dave Sands (Australia), Bobo Olson (Hawaii) and Kid Gavilan (Cuba).

Looking at opponents for thirties champions Baer and Louis:

Baer--Carnera (Italy), Schmeling (Germany), Uzcudun (Spain), Santa (Portugal), Farr (Wales), Toner (Ireland), Foord (South Africa), Heeney (Australia)

Louis--Schmeling & Birkie (Germany), Carnera (Italy), Uzcudun (Spain), Farr (Wales), Agramonte (Cuba), Brescia & Brion (Argentina), Godoy (Chile), Borchuk (Canada)

Pretty much circling the globe there, other than Eastern Europe.

 

What is "the great athlete type"? This is what I am wondering.

We know by anecdotal evidence that Frazier, Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson, even Ali were not especially blessed with the talents that help one excel in those other major American sports. Thus, I assume we can deduce that hidden with the ranks of the NFL, AFL, NBA and MLB were the true heavyweight champions of the late 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Thank you for clearing this up.

 

"Fact" ?? I dont accept that.

At the time, for most of the 1990s, the same old complaints about a severe LACK of depth in the heavyweight division remained.
We had flabby old Holmes and Foreman campaigning, ancient, out-of-shape re-treads. A few one-hit wonders, and people hoping that Tyson be released from jail or resurrected after continual disgrace, a sign of desperation. Bowe's brief brilliance (one fight ? Two ? ... and a major duck job), "heart-attack" Holyfield.
Alphabet soup and some of the most farcical events in heavyweight history (eg. Tyson-Seldon, Lewis-McCall 2, Tyson-Holyfield 2 ..... anything featuring Golota).

Outside of the Holyfield-Bowe trilogy, and the general records of Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis (who both had their hiccups too), and a few other results, I didn't see much special in the heavyweight division. No improvement on the 1980s, an period I've seen you criticize quite heavily.

I'm not saying the 1990s was necessarily a BAD era - heavyweight has always been the "slow news" division - but I dont buy that it was a certain stand-out era. Not at all.

But if you can back up your "FACT" of the 90s being so superior, then please educate me.

 

OK, it's certainly in the argument, along with the late 60's to mid-70's, which still makes a standout era. You give me an era, I can do a burn job equal to the above. The 90's was loaded and deep with heavy hitters, moreso than the 70's, more so than the 50's...

 

My two cents worth. The nineties was one of the best era of HW boxing without a doubt there were arguably four top ten of all time fighters in Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield and Bowe active but also a long list of quality fighters such as Foreman, Moorer, Galota, Mercer, Douglas, McCall, Morrison, Ibebuchi, Tua, Rahman, Byrd, young Klitschkos. and then the fringe guys like Briggs, Tubbs, nad others, this was a good era in boxing no doubt.
No other era had four fighters that would not look out of place in someone's top ten ever.

 

How do we know? If those talents aren't explored there is still potential, no? And I don't know how we deduce that because talents of boxing weren't talents of other major sports (Even if that is presumptious) that talents in the NBA, NFL, etc would not be a talent in boxing.

The NBA didn't explode till Bird and Magic. In fact it was struggling in the late 70's and early 80's drastically. And the NFL didn't start becoming huge, or increasingly bigger until at least the 70's and until the Montana era.

Boxing was the bigger sport in America next to baseball probably till the 60's/70's. Boxing isn't even on the main page of ESPN anymore. You'll find it split between Tennis and MMA.

 

So, what you are saying is that Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson were placeholders for the obviously better talent that was lurking in other sporting arenas.

Do any of you sporting geniuses want to speculate on what the world popularity of football (soccer) is depriving us in the pugilistic arts? Perhaps Floyd Mayweather is also merely a placeholder for the far more talented athletes in the realm of international football who could REALLY shine in the ring?

 

I agree, every era at heavyweight can be criticized, and quite heavily.
I dont see anything special about the 1990s though.

It's purely a matter of taste, and subjective judgment, a preference, rather than anything resembling fact.

 

This content is protected

History shows that this guy KOs Tyson, Holmes, Old Ali, Spinks, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Douglas etc. I dont think 49-0 would be too much of a problem.

And with this guy fighting, it would probably be a case of Joe Who?

This content is protected