For the year 1891, when Fitz won the middleweight crown, 996 active boxers can be found in BoxRec's database. The number for 1897, when he became heavyweight champ, is 3313. For 1903, when he won his 3rd crown, they list 4854 active boxers. The last year where BoxRec revealed their numbers was 2018 - where they had 23535 active boxers in their database. https://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=101907&start=75
So, basically, what you're saying here, is that if someone doesn't agree with you - it's because he's ignorant, and hasn't got the knowledge necessary to judge how great Fitz was. Have you really no idea, how arrogant and condescending this sounds?
This stat stuff is all pretty silly (I know he asked you for it). You really can't compare trying to put together from record books (which generally only included top fighters), and news reports which often missed out undercard fights, to the modern situation where commissions are sending boxrec their record. Trying to figure out the number of active fighters is even worse and basically impossible to do with enough certainty to make any sensible stats. People can share names, or one fighter can use multiple names, reports can get the names wrong (I've seen James J Jeffries called E Jeffries).
Thanks! I couldn't find anything like that. So we have around 5000 boxers on boxrec in the early 1900s compared to around 25000 in 2018. That's 5 times more, I expected this value. Then think about how much better access we have today than in 1900s to gather information even about the most obscure fights. How many of fighters had incomplete fights then. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this number was twice or even thrice bigger. Do I think that there were more boxers back then than now? No, I don't but 5000 is a big number when you keep in mind that we mostly have information about US, GB and Australia - nothing else. It doesn't imply that this era was semi-amateur at all. By the way, these stats just prove that boxing reached its peak of popularity in the late 1920s and the early 1930s - many people call it a weak era. But sure, Pat M can train his childs to be better than Harry Greb and Johnny_B would dominate Jack Sharkey
No, I'm saying that when someone calls undoubtfully great boxer, who spent his whole life on fighting and perfecting this craft, a scrub then he's arrogant. Pat M believes that his trained fighters would beat Rocky Marciano, this is extremely arrogant. I don't have anything against being low on Fitzsimmons, but you have to be reasonable and at least respect what he did. Say all you want, but I never insult professional fighters in a way Pat M does all the time. We have a lot of posters insulting fighters, using some bad words to describe them and talking bull**** just because they don't like them, but I am arrogant? You'd never say that if I'd call Muhammad Ali a scrub and someone else would defend him.
Yes, I know... you and I have discussed this several times before (I was actually waiting for this post). No one is claiming that BoxRec paints the full picture (far from it, I agree). I just don't understand, why you so strongly oppose the idea, that there LIKELY (yes I know, we can never prove anything) are more pro fighters in the world today than in the 1890s. With pro boxing in more than 100 countries today, why is it so unacceptable to you, that there MIGHT be more active boxers today? I just find it very hard to believe, that in addition to the boxers listed in BoxRec's database for the 1890s - there was some kind of alternative universe, where more than 20,000 boxers fought each other, without leaving any trace of this activity. Also, when it is suggested (by another poster), that there are not enough boxers to go around today, for someone to amass 200 fights during a pro career - it just goes to show, how clueless some people are on this subject.
Nobody says that, it's just that one poster claims boxing wasn't a fully professional sport back then. Are you talking about me? Because I never suggested it.
You're right, everything points to the 1920s and 30s being by far the busiest decades - and even more so, if we assume there must have been lots of fights, that we don't know about back then. It's kind of shocking to note, how big a dip in activity there was after WW2, and that the slump lasted for several decades - until it started to pick up again in the 90s, coinsiding with the fall of The Wall, which of course allowed many new countries to take up pro boxing.
I see it now and of course I disagree with that. Fighters don't have that many fights now for different reasons and less fights doesn't always mean a bad thing (see Loma or Usyk).
My fighters weigh between 118-140, I've never said they would beat or lose to anybody in particular. I did say that I'd rather watch them spar than watch people like Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Marciano, Baer, Willard, etc. fight. Why wouldn't I? They fight using good fundamentals, their styles are individual, but they are balanced and move well. Please show me where I have insulted any fighter, I might criticize their footwork or some aspect of their fighting, but I don't call them names. I know that you don't know anything about the mechanics of boxing, but when I see a fighter doing something that I think is wrong I point out how it might affect his performance in a "fantasy fight." That is pointing out a weakness, not an insult. Maybe since you are so clueless about boxing mechanics that might seem like an insult to you? There is nothing I have written that I'm ashamed of, so if you're going to talk about what I write, at least get it right.
Why don't you criticize Ali for doing many things wrong from fundamental perspective? Why are you so high on Wilder, despite him doing "wrong" most things inside the ring? Would you call these fighters terrible as well? This content is protected
IMO, Ali did not make "fundamental" errors, he was well schooled. His "style" and some "techniques" were sometimes unconventional but he had the fundamentals of a man who started boxing at 12 years old. When things got tough Ali went back to the basics. IMO, Wilder is a physical talent. He cuts and creates space with his length and speed, he carries his power for 36 minutes of a fight, he is dangerous. As for your video...when one of them charged the other throwing punches from the hip with his chin leading the way that was all I needed to see...I'm not going to spend time watching that.
