Hardline Boxing Talk

I am torn on if they were better, but even if they weren't all those extra fights have to count for something. Ezzard Charles got in a professional ring 121 times including facing off with some legends multiple times.

It feels a little dirty to rank a guy with a record like 25-0 ahead of him. What would the guy with the perfect record have looked like on his 100th pass through the ringer? We'll never know.

 

Times were different but guys today fighting 2-3 times a year if that would lose to most fighters of the past simply due to experience and harder living. Fighters today tend to be soft.

 

Is there any evidence, that harder times created better fighters back in boxing's "Golden Era" (1920s or thereabouts)?

 

When fighters fought more they could become masters of their craft. Now everyone is obsessed with never losing the 0 they dpnt take the chances fighters from the past did. In the old days if a fighter had 5 or 10 losses you wouldnt necessarily think less of him, it was more about who they fought and who they beat etc.

 

In the old days, the same boxers fought each other over and over again. For example, after having faced each other 5 times, how much more could Jack Dillon and Battling Levinsky learn from each other in 5 additional fights - if anything?

Or how about Dillon's 12 fights with George Chip? Was that really necessary for them to become better fighters?

Not to mention Jack Britton and Ted Kid Lewis going at it something like 20 times... which helped to make them masters of their craft? Jesus...

Personally, I don't really care, how many fights a boxer had/has. If he's good, he's good... and if he's not, a further 200 fights won't help him!

I think Usyk and Inoue, both with less than 25 pro bouts, are excellent modern fighters... and I can't think of many 150+ fight boxers from 100 years ago, at their respective weights, that I would favour against them.


And what is this thing about "fighters today tend to be soft"... where do you get that from? Every weekend I seem to be watching fighters tough it out in the ring, with most showing plenty of heart. It's not like softness or cowardice are the first words that enter my mind, when I see these young men (and women, yes them too!) give their all in the ring! So for you to make a sweeping statement like that, is very strange!

 

It's now been a couple of days, since I asked you about this, so I'll try again (as I'm genuinely interested to know, why you would say so): What makes you think, this is the case?

Of course there have always been boxers with varying degrees of heart/guts/toughness, or whatever you want to call it. From those who give it their all, and fight to the bitter end - to those who look for the exit at the first sign of adversity.

So what makes you think, that the oldtimers exhibited more toughness in the ring, than boxers do today? Yes, we all know that everyday life was harder for most people, back in the day... but is there any evidence, that this carried over into the ring, producing braver and tougher boxers than we see today (generally speaking, of course)?

 

Actually yes. Many fights today are stopped way too early, and yes many fights from the past were allowed to go on too long, but some stoppages today are way too soon. As society has softened so have fighters. Fighters from the past would shale their heads at todayś fighters. You did make some good points in your previous post I have been busy and just now getting back to this. It takes guts to get in the ring period, however when the going gets tough many fighters today wilt. Look at Anthony Joshua whining after his second loss to Usyk. Wilder making every excuse on the planet for his losses to Fury. Spence and Crawford ducking each other instead of fighting. Modern boxing has lots of problems.

 

Joshua and Wilder making excuses for their recent losses, aren't examples of boxers wilting, or taking the easy way out, in the ring. Neither is Spence's and Crawford's reluctance to meet each other.

Yes, modern boxing has a lot of problems, that's for sure! But I don't see any evidence, that boxers now perform with less ambition/heart than in earlier times (generally speaking, of course).

 

And another thing...

Since you state that fighters today tend to be soft, I take it this comes from personal experience (that you have actually seen this softness unfold, in fights you have watched).

So can you give us some examples of recent boxers, who have shown this softness - in the ring. By this I mean boxers who, in your opinion, have shown less ambition/willingness to fight, than one can reasonably expect from a professional fighter.