Might sound like a stupid question but I'm gonna ask anyway, was looking through the classic photo thread & got to wondering, the old time fighters were all tough as nails, fought very frequently & had far more fights than fighters today, so what was it that made them more resilient than todays fighters? Was it just that people in general were tougher than today?
I have a theory that constantly cutting weight and not fighting nearer your natural weight leads to a shorter shelf life.
not exactly on topic here, but maybe it has something to do with having to struggle to earn money? http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...ight&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&index=0
I'd say that was right on topic when it comes to the ability to earn enough money to live on. The purses of many fighters from the 30's-60's for major fights was pathetic when compared to what they receive today. If a 30 yr. old fighter today had the ability to fight one major fight and clear $5 million, he could live comfortably on that money the rest of his life if he lives reasonably. That's why I have little sympathy for guys like Tyson who reportedly earned over $400 million dollars in his career and are now broke. I've said this before and will repeat it here. If Floyd Mayweather continues to live the way he does by pissing away money after his career, he'll likely be broke by the time he's in his late 50's.
I've already posted on the money aspect. Here's what I think about the frequency of fights with old time fighters. First, it was just the nature of the beast back then. Fighters were expected to fight, that was their job. Look at it from this perspective too. There was only newsprint, radio and the occasional TV back in the day, so exposure to the public by those fighters wasn't near as readily as it is today. Every household has at least 1 TV, more than 1 radio, many have computer access, so all that brings the world just that much closer and information is shared more easily. Back then, a fighter needed to fight to keep his name in the news or risk slipping off into oblivion. So, do I think they were tougher, yeah, probably so, at least from the mental aspect. I think today's fighters are probably better physically fit with advancements in nutrition, training techniques and medical advancements.
Brought this up a few months ago in relation to a history podcast I was listening to. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308871
A few things : necessity is the mother of invention it is said. Life in the old days was so much tougher to exist in general. Fighters had to fight under harsher conditions,and their were no safety nets. No food stamps etc. So to have food and shelter ,fighters were not coddled and pampered as today and fought frequently to earn a living,against other fighters that the public DEMANDED. All these conditions toughened them up and were the reasons for the "golden age" of boxing. For a small example : In NYC area alone in the 1940s, there was at least one pro boxing card EVERY night of the week except Sunday,all year around.The fighters fought often, honing their skills against top opponents,producing such great fighters,too numerous to mention here...
In philadelphia in the teens they were usually fights every single night and most nights there were at least two or three, sometimes as many as four or five, staging fights at the same time. There were so many most of the philly newspapers couldnt cover them all and you often had certain newspapers aligned with certain clubs. So if you wanted to know what happened at the alhambra you would have to look at one newspaper and if you wanted to know what was happening at the national you had to look at another.