Politically it would probably be impossible. I assume that it must be practically possible, if it was back then.
Realistically, only a real journeyman is going to fight this many times. The best prospects with good management get steered down a career path that often provides relative low risk-high reward pay off. Even if said fighters wanted to, they're too commercially invested to promotors and sponsors to follow this career path. Too much filler in today's economy damages brand.
Could Canelo (for example) have 4 serious fights in a year - and in between take 40 "stay busy" fights against walk overs? Of course such a scenario would be unthinkable today... but if it wasn't, I don't see any reason why he couldn't do that.
Very unrealistic, there are a few that have not fought since 2019, that would be asking too much. Fans do not matter, but the purse and the attention does to them.
To make things clear...I mean can a modern boxer PHYSICALLY fight 44 times in one year. Maybe WOULD fight 44 times a year is a better question. We all know that with the way boxing is set up today with multiple alphabet organizations, multiple cable/tv options, multiple promoters, that a guy could not make 44 fights happen; that's out of the question. Greb fought with boils (!), a supposedly broken arm, ptomaine poisoning, various cuts, black eyes. NO boxer today WOULD do so, for any amount of money. And I don't think anyone COULD do so..they aren't as tough as in the old days. You can argue that with me, but that's my opinion. Canelo would not put his body through such pain, nobody would.
this also existed in the Past, many a Fighter was Protected by such measures, none-the-less, you are Right! NO ONE Today has a Long Leash 'IF' they are Invested Commodities. but it did exist in Boxing from long ago.
Yes, he certainly did... and when the strength of the opposition is taken into consideration, something similar to his 45-0 for 1919 is of course unatainable for any boxer today - and likely forever! I was just commenting on the possibility of someone today being able to go 44-0 in a single calendar year - as specified in the OP.
Yes - I know but the difference is that fighters were allowed to lose back then without it completely downgrading their reputation. Floyd having a zero counts for a lot to modern fight fans, yet, the feats of Charles, Greb and Armstrong are much greater in my opinion. The issue isn't necessarily that fighters don't have a long leash - the best fighters are most certainly invested commodities - I think the issue is that they're not as incentivised to dare for greatness in such a fragmented sport as they should be and so many fighters resort to protecting the brand as opposed to risking greatness. Roy fought Ruiz for a reason as opposed to who else he could have challenged. Floyd fought Berto, McGregor for a reason as opposed to who he probably could have fought.
How many times did Dempsey fight in the last six years of his reign? Was it even seven times? And he didn't have a depression, just made movies instead of defending.
