1954 heavyweights v. 2004 heavyweights

Not entirely true. What about Horse Racing?

I think 2004 cleans up here, but there is a difference between performance and intangibles. Intangibles can matter in boxing
and I think the old timers had more of it.

 

Horse racing is a bet, not a sport.

 

Not funny, convenient for those who wish to don the rose colored glasses.

Basketball, baseball and American football lack the measurables, too. Ask any expert on those sports their thoughts regarding prior generations abilities versus today's athletes.

 

you've picked sports that have flourished to use as a barometer for a sport in decline.

That's like basing a fatboys fitness level on the fitness of his jock neighbour in school


why not pick like for like, comparing with a sport in decline? I'll tell you why - because then you wont be able to escape the truth that those sports more often haven't seen improvements, but losses instead.

 

Floyd and Wlad have been routinely among the highest paid athletes on earth. No other sport commands PPV dollars like boxing. Eastern Europe, Cuba and Southern Asia have opened up as new talent pools to the sport. Latin America continues to crank out top quality fighters at an unbelievable pace. The UK has had a run of top-level talent. Is it really in worldwide decline?

Baseball, now, is a sport in true decline. The average fan is approximately 108 years old. American's urban centers have long abandoned the sport. It is reduced to a quaint pastime.

 

why would you extrapoloate extreme cases such as mayweather to the whole sport? Zinedine Zidanes from Algeria but that don't make Algeria a hotbed of footie talent.

again, a few cases don't warrant the whole sport. plenty of sports outstrip the expenditure from fans on boxing. Basically you just keep lying, and then build another lie on it when the last lie is pointed out as fail. why?

I think you should be asking if it HAS declined in comparison to the dates given if you want to be relevant.

I'm guilty there too, I should have said it HAS declined compared to that time given.

 

I was agreeing with the reasonable claim that it's wrong to decide which era is "more disadvantaged" (and treat it as fact) on the basis that you simply have less knowledge of it.

Because It is ludicrous to claim a B grade fighter beats an A grade fighter from another era.

And the crucial point (that you have no answer for) is that no matter how great a fighter is it is a fact that there will always be one guy that can make him look poor -and if that's all the film you have of him you could assume he was not that good.

All fighters look great against Guys they can beat. Which is why non champions of any era matched only in 50-50 fights have 50-50 records.

The special guys are the champions. You can't upgrade a B grader.

 

BoxRec's database as of Jan. 2nd this year:

bouts
decade total
1850 2
1860 16
1870 340
1880 4617
1890 16694
1900 43732
1910 102794
1920 288615
1930 318491
1940 206433
1950 158230
1960 105756
1970 105928
1980 131411
1990 141987
2000 186060
2010 136751

 

Three things.

#1, in the year 1950 the world population was 2,556,000,053 and 158230 professional boxing fights were recorded.

#2, in 2000 the world population figure was 6,082,966,429 and 186060 recorded boxing fights took place.

#3, Therefore, the World having a few thousand more recorded bouts taking place in the year 2000 compared to 1950 when the world had almost three times smaller population is actually major reduction of interest. To stay the same there would need to be almost three times as many fights for boxing to have the same impact on the same World.

 

All this tells us is that Boxrec is less complete the further back you go.

 

Are there any posters who remember the 54 scene? :huh

 

Burt Bienstock




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Regardless, it indicates more boxing matches taking place and doesn't include am bouts and total boxers, which I assume would create a greater disparity.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk