David Haye in the 70's heavies and he would become an ATG? Put down the coffee, pull the covers over your head and come back tomorrow.
i haven't read the whole thread but, i kinda disagree. we probably just happened to have less people becoming boxers because of other sports (basketball, football, mma, etc) thus having less talent.
we always look back with rose-tinted glasses every generation has **** fighters, good fighters and great fighters but we tend to remember the great fighters and fights only.I was away all summer and missed alot of boxing so yesterday I just watched the matthyse/soto & lopez/ortiz doubleheader so I am on a boxing high which this thread ain't ruining. too many belts is a problem nowdays Fulgencio Obelmejias would have a title i the old days bundrage would be contender
Statistics, facts? With the Eastern Bloc fighters and Cubans turning pro these days then the talent pool would be deeper to my thinking. Boxing isn't as popular in America, the talent pool isn't as deep in America. Did you know that America isn't the whole world?
No. There were fewer licenced boxers in the world in 2000 than there were registered boxers in Britain alone in 1950. That's actually picked up now, almost certainly, but you're never going to see that kind of talent pool again.
Look at guys like George Foreman and Frazier, the guys Ali made his name off. They weren't skilled, athletic or that big by todays standards. They are men with superhero status. Really they are just men who bleed and get knocked out like anyone else. David Haye is the size of Ali but far more powerful, you're dreaming if you think he couldn't knock those 60/70s heavyweights out. I'm not saying he would be an all time great, I'm saying he'd be perceived as an all time great because he would've fought in that era when all the old timers allege boxing was in its prime.
Oh jeepers, thanks so much for letting me know that America isn't the whole world!!! Historians who have actually tracked the numbers have found that there is indeed a lower number of active boxers today than in the past; see the interview here and the book by the author: http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm
No, I don't have a link. It's in War Baby and was in The Observer. I can't help it if you don't believe it, but in all honesty to someone who has followed the history of the sport closely it's blindingly obvious. In 1950, Sandy Saddler fought thirteen or fourteen contests. He met dudes like Salas, Pep, Acevedo (one of the best Cubans at the time), Flanagan and Riley. He didn't meet anyone more than once. There were major, major fights on Friday, Saturday, Wednesday, in the UK and the US and elswhere. Of course there were more active fighters. It's almost indisputable.
George "Elbows" McFadden had a beauty too, he spent an afternoon explaining to a journalist why Joe Gans would beat the new generation of lightweights and had to admit at the end of the conversation that he had never seen any of them fight.
I haven't really got time for Silver tbh. I think he said that Hagler would be "just another contender" in the forties, or some **** like that.