They don't, just more weaker chins make it to the big leagues. A fighter today on average probably fight 25 rounds a year, whilst back then 40 rounds a year was closer to the mark. That's another 45 minutes of fighting a year, so 45 minutes more time to make fight ending mistakes. That's why chinny fighters in those days couldn't make it to the top level coz there careers would be set back by KOs too frequently.
not really, different times, different culture that's all. FIghters today could fight once a month or more but they'd look worse on film just like the majority of old time fighters do
This was the reason alcoholic beverages were consumed in those days by fighters during training. They were the lower risk option.
I have lived in Indonesia for three years, where poverty is probably around the same as in Latin America, and it is as you described it: lots of potential, not enough sophisticated infrastructure and trainers. I trained (and fought once) while living there. The gym was filled with tough as nails journeymen who often took fights on a week's or a day's notice. Many of them show signs of brain damage, but when you get 3 times the average salary for getting your face broken by a much better prepared opponent, it's what you do. One of the guys accidentally killed his opponent who was just 17 years old and the other guys just kind of laughed it off. Rough stuff... It is when you find a prospect with the kind of toughness bred in those places and add the necessary polish and professional training that you have struck gold.
For Americans, hell to the yes. Myth fights always brings old timers to today, but if we put today's fighters in the past, Floyd May weather has no access to hand injections. Think he'd be undefeated? Today's fighters love to talk catch weight. Well Hank Armstrong would catch U at wherever weight U were at, and Homicide season begins! Today's fighters have the temptation of million dollar paydays, so they play the "If the money is right" smack talk. Today's fighters feel they only have to win a single belt, now they deserved to be ranked with ATG's who literally had ONE belt, so there was no question of who the best were, then. Add on pass the major 3, now 4 belts, I won't go there, not the USBA, ISBF, Diamond, silver belts. These new belts sounds like a new blunt roll. Yeah, let me get uh, one diamond, one silver and a USBA vapor .
A big problem here is that fighters that are the fighting in the ‘same’ weight division, are actually fighting sometimes 3 divisions up on fight night. Naturally they are going to look more sluggish and have worse stamina than the fighters of the older generations. For example,I find it hard to picture people like Sugar Ray Leonard having great success against the best in the middleweight division today, when Canelo, GGG and Jacobs are coming in at 175, 180 on fight night, even though Sugar Ray, looks like the better fighter on film
Is it possible, that the fewer knockdowns/knockouts in the days of 100+ fight careers, can be seen as a result of boxers going easy on each other back then? I mean, the reason they fought so often back in the 20s and 30s, was not because they loved the sport so much, but because they had to (in order to put food on the table). So there must have been some sort of understanding between the fighters, that it would be in everybody's interest to get it over with as painless (and injury free) as possible, so they could live to fight another day - which sometimes was already next week!
Yes they are. Life is easier now. Back then you had to crack a sweat and manual labor was at its peak.
I remember when Sasha Liakhovich was fighting a Harlem born fighter and said fighter basically alluded to him being much tougher than Liakhovich because of his upbringing to which Sasha simply replied Harlem was a paradise compared to the area he grew up in Belarus. That always stuck in my head. People associate certain cities here in the U.S. of producing tough guys. In other parts of the wotld theres almost whole countries that are far worse off than Detroit North Philly ect.
yes old school fighters usually came from adversity they didn't have all the technology or proper diet
I don’t know if I agree about the diet part. I knew plenty of old school fighters and many of them were almost fanatical about their diet. One example is Jimmy Carter, who was the former lightweight champion of the world and very close friend of the family used to regularly turn down fighters, who wanted to train with him, since they didn’t want to commit to a strict diet. Jimmy didn’t believe in active fighters adding salt or table sugar to any of their meals and he’d drop you as a fighter if you let your weight go 5 lbs over your competition weight at any time during the year, since he said that showed a lack of discipline. Fighters that were serious and made a good impression on Jimmy were usually sent by Jimmy himself to Kid Gavilan, who had some kind of arrangement with Jimmy at the time and who Jimmy considered one of the best conditioned fighters he’d seen second only to Al Gainer, who Jimmy used to rave about.
The business is different. No point going to a random town or country and fighting their best guy for a small purse on a tour of sorts. The risk isn't worth the reward. The big fights make the big money on the big networks. You still see plenty of amateur fighters fighting 100 fights against a myriad of styles and fighters from all kinds of places. Often rematches occur between the best amateurs. Less risky doing that stuff in obscurity. But often these amateurs who go this route don't fair much better than the career pros who don't. So I don't think you can say one approach is superior. Fighters today are still sparring other pros all the time behind closed doors. It's not like they only work part time compared to pros of yester year. Of course, don't ask the old farts stuck in the past. According to them boxing is on an eternal decline from whenever they were young. Always.
