It seems to be a trend in recent years, since fighters stopped fighting as actively as boxers of past generations. Some of the best fighters of the past few decades fought monthly if not multiple times monthly. James Toney. Mike Tyson. Bowe. Nunn early in his career. People are sometimes skeptical of the greatness and ability of boxers of the past, but the above mentioned fighters just off the top of my head were all extremely exceptional, and all took the hard road on the way up. Is this one of the reasons greatness is more or less rarer these days then it was when fighters had far more contests throughout their careers.
An astute observation. A couple of points: 1. "Greatness" is something that is typically awarded to a fighter either after his career is over, or at least near the very end of an exceptionally long career ( such as Toney's. ) 2. While fighters of today certainly fight on average less than some of their predecesors, we cannot generalize this as being the case for everyone. Wladimir Klitschko, though not yet a great fighter by most standards, fought some 24 times within his first two years of boxing, and over the years, was handed some rather humbling defeats. He did however recover both mentally and physically from these losses, to improve himself and return on a winning path. Today at the age of 32, he has over 50 pro fights and is generally considered the best heavyweight in the world. The opposite can also be said of fighters from yesterday as well. Not everyone took the path of a warrior during the eras of Nunn, Toney and Tyson.. Meldrick Taylor, though one of my favorite fighters, was groomed and pre-ordained as the next Sugar Ray Leonard, before he had even accumulated a dozen pro fights. A similar argument can be made for Donald Curry and a few others. Overall however, I agree with some of what you're saying. Fighters today typically turn pro at later ages in life, fight less often, and take fewer risks against formidable foes. I would also like to ad, that bad matchmaking, over priced media venues, the over abundance of ABC titles, and shear corruption in general have all played a part in limiting the number of the very few great fighters that are still out there.
Some would argue that Wladimir was on the fast track to greatness back when he was a exceptionally active wrecking ball of a fighter. That a change in mentality if why that stopped and or slowed down. *Shrugs* Supposedly he was injured from fighting so often and not recovering resulting in his first loss to Puritty
True, One point that I would like to make, is that he is often scrutinized by his critics as lacking in mental and physical toughness. This is hardly a fair criticism in my honest opinion. In times past, it was common for even the greatest of fighters to lose fights, often badly to men who were hardly considered their equals later on. How many losses did Jack Johnson, Joe Walcott, Max Schmeling and other good fighters have early in their careers before ascending to greatness? Some would argue that they had less advantages than prospects of today. While I agree, I will also counter that by saying that the very disadvantages that Walcott, Schmeling and Johnson had to contend with, were also shared by their peers at the time, making it an even playing field in some cases... Wladimir Klitschko is nothing shy of a throwback to some of those fighters. He has compiled a record of 51-3-0-45 - a remarkable number for a 32 year old fighter by today's standards. He has won some 15 title fights, albeit alpha belt wins, but then he's also about as close to a lineal champ as the sports had for over 5 years. Most importantly, he has rebounded from some very devastating defeats to resume a winning career, when most men would have been ruined by the kinds of beatings that he took from Purity, Sanders, and Brewster........
IMO boxing is the only sport where you can't make the argument that athletes are bigger, faster, stronger and better today. The fighters produced from the 1930's up into the late 1980's were the best the sport has ever seen. Fighters fought more often, and since there was more boxing cards they had more of an opportunity to ply their trade. And since there were less titles, the road to a title was much harder, and you had to face more top opponents and have more fights to even get a title shot, which in turn makes a better, more complete fighter. But to answer the question, I feel just the opposite of the guys who view the old timers with skeptism. I am more skeptic about the merits of today's fighters when you compare them to the old timers.
