Can todays Champions hold a candle to past eras

Smokin Bert · Mar 18, 2015

Halfordscream said: ↑

That may be satisfactory to those that limit their expectations to using the benchmark of what occurred in the past (variously described).

It is not impressive on a comparative basis with the results and capabilities of the athletes existing in the present.

How many endeavors in life (whether in business, technology, science, medicine, the arts, etc., etc.) would use their measurement of "success", advancement, or accomplishment on the levels achieved with fewer people, or less socio-economic development, or in which fewer had the means and opportunity to study, train, or commit their time and efforts to improving some process or some thing?

In this era, in which there are more athletic programs within the US collegiate system than ever before, with more dollars (e.g., college basketball and football are much larger aggregate revenue generators than the NBA & NFL) - just massive financial resources produced from its commercial success and reinvested into the universities, there are more young people that ever in human history competing and striving to participate in college athletics with a then only small percentage able to force their way into the professional ranks.

The competition is severe, difficult, and challenging. Only the combination of the talented, gifted, physically benefited (as there are great athletes that simply do not have a chance to make the pros ONLY because they do not have the requisite size to compete at the highest level (i.e., the pros)), committed (driven), fit (far far more often not), and persistent can obtain one of the static or limited number of positions available in the major sports. Essentially, for one new player to enter, one old player is pushed out. In the pros it is essentially a zero sum game.

The result of generation upon generation of said competition means that you can find thousands of athletes (with the requisite size, skills, and abilities) that could thrive in the NBA of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is the depth or number of such that has exploded. But, they don't all have jobs in today's pro era. There are only so many spots. The quality and level needed to get one of those few desired positions has made for fierce high end competition.

The same is true for the NFL. There are thousands of athletes across the US that would THRIVE in the NFL of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is not a denigration of the best from the past. It is the product of a larger country, with more people, with more young people having the means (from their parents or through scholarships, etc.) and desire to practice and train from youth. But, huge numbers of these athletes don't end up with jobs in today's pros either. There are only so many spots. The competitive landscape is daunting. You have to be even bigger and larger than in the past overall to succeed in both sports today. America's biggest athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, quicker, and better than ever - but are not learning to box.

That more of these eventual "unemployable" athletes aren't making an impression upon young parents, or the young themselves, so that more take up boxing is due to the lack of an educational opportunity as a trade-off for the risk/commitment. The poor can't subsidize their kids where no scholarships are possible. The rest are still captivated by the cultural status that is accorded stars in the immensely popular and ubiquitous sports. Whenever everyone wants to be something it matters not that an opportunity exists elsewhere. But not starting at a young age in anything - means these athletes are at a disadvantage if they were to attempt a switch to boxing after failing to succeed in the NFL or NBA. So, the quality level of the boxing participant population remains unimpressive.

Where boxing is a failure, is in its lack of depth, athletic quality, and the result produced from that combination. All sports require or are best served by a commitment from the youngest age possible. The rest of the world (which I will leave to those from those countries to defend or explain) does whatever it does with its population and the resources available to it. In the US, boxing has not only not thrived but it has receded. Under many metrics it is akin to saying it is an advanced or developed country operating a third-world sized business. Sure, its increase in pop size and economic growth means that all kinds of niche activities have some successes, some quality participants, and may well be at or beyond many different periods within the long past. The main difference is that while few are pursuing the sport, general improvements for larger numbers in terms of relative quality of life, health, and welfare compared to the past means there are more larger individuals - even if they are closer to the "bottom of the barrel".

But, it is a dismal and irrelevant progress and nothing like what has occurred in the major sports within the US. Without the same cultural identity as in the past, without scholarship or subsidy to boost participation, without the recycling of resources of all types to enhance the conditions, training resources, gyms, ancillary support, etc., the sport receives second and third rate talent and small numbers of such "talent" at that.

Look at the arts, today you can find multitudes of small children (not even considering the numbers of youths and young adults) that are near or will be virtuosos, huge numbers of kids that can sing, dance, and play instruments at high levels. It comes from starting incredibly young and committing oneself to getting better. It doesn't come from "Well, I wasn't that great in the sports everyone wanted to be in so I'm gonna take up boxing at 28 and become champion there".

There is no real defense of boxing or boxing as a "too difficult" endeavor on any level. It remains a sport with no more detriment than the hugely damaging affect found in the NFL in which HUGE athletes are padded and helmeted to accelerate the force from running and hurtling through the air like airborne missiles at opponents often in no position to see or absorb what is coming at them. It is why the careers there are so extremely short.

The US heavyweights are terrible, usually poorly conditioned, and/or athletically flawed. These are not exceptional talents. These are not equivalents to what exist in our other sports. That some or a couple or a few are impressive or quality - over time - does not reflect, indicate, or substantiate a thriving environment. That the Europeans also have had almost no exceptional quality either (certainly 2 heavyweights of consequence from a major population broadly viewed is inconsequential) or appear only somewhat better today (with a Golovkin or Kovalev or perhaps Beterbiev) still exhibiting rather modest numbers of better performing examples is something for others to explain. The US has been on a long, long downtrend. A downtrend from a cultural shift in which the greatest youth athletes wanted to grow up to be powerful running backs, big elusive wideouts, grid iron enforcers, shooting guards, high flying slam dunk acts, and not heavyweight champs. This had already taken hold as the segregation lines loosened, pro sports began to open their doors, and civil rights made inroads in universities and larger and larger parts of the country. But, the shift eventually grew to take all of the country's youths, without exception.

I don't think a comparison that says here are six or eight good or great fighters today and then lists six or eight from yesterday is any evidence that the current times are on a good footing. The present should be far, far deeper, and the quality extremely or incomparably high. After all, it should be built on the backs of what came before with the benefit of watching, reviewing, examining, and learning from what the sport's "forefathers" had already contributed.

In a thriving era, an old athlete should always be rare. In an era (like this) in which humans are growing larger on average and thus, athletes are larger and the heavyweight division is open-ended it should be rare for ex-MWs, LHWs and CRUISERS to make the climb to HW. In an era with high or meaningful participation rates the competition would produce and result in highly skilled, fit, and impressive talents that would be inarguably or universally lauded. While it doesn't have to reflect the "chicken or the egg", it would certainly mean that the US audience would be avid buyers of heavyweight fights as their consumption of media and entertainment has been second to none. For most discerning eyes, you can simply look at the list of world boxing rankings and whether it is the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, Ring Magazine, or Fightnews or whomever, the obvious point or realization is that the 16 or 20 names reflect a straight out majority of mediocre big men.

And for those that dislike the US-centricity .. the reality is that if the US is not watching .. it isn't very good or good enough (yet). The US is not discerning if something is at all entertaining ...
Click to expand...

Excellent post. Well reasoned, and right on the money.

Seamus · Mar 18, 2015

Halfordscream said: ↑

That may be satisfactory to those that limit their expectations to using the benchmark of what occurred in the past (variously described).

It is not impressive on a comparative basis with the results and capabilities of the athletes existing in the present.

The result of generation upon generation of said competition means that you can find thousands of athletes (with the requisite size, skills, and abilities) that could thrive in the NBA of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is the depth or number of such that has exploded. But, they don't all have jobs in today's pro era. There are only so many spots. The quality and level needed to get one of those few desired positions has made for fierce high end competition.

Click to expand...

Are we talking bout those prime US super athletes on the San Antonio Spurs and the New England Patriots, current champions of their respective US UberSports?

I am sure boxing is really missing out on Julian Edelman, Tom Brady Tony Parker, Manu Ginobli and a prime Tim Duncan.

As a keen observer of both the NFL and NBA since the mid-80's, I would say that the quality of both products has declined since that era. And many agree. Not all of that is on the athletes. But a certain amount must be. But then I am sure that those leagues were deficient then having been deprived of such great athletic specimens such as Tony Tubbs, James Broad and Gerry ****ey.

mcvey · Mar 18, 2015

Boilermaker said: ↑

I am thinking that right now, they can and at least from a champions perspective we have a much stronger era than is often given credit for. Going off boxrec:

Heavy: Klitchsko - An ATG champion, as good as anyone.
L Heavy: Kovalev - A good undefeated light heavy champ, whose last two wins show he is clearly a threat to any fighter.
Middle: Golovkin - A huge puncher and excellent champion who is considered a possible ATG by no less than Burt Bienstock.
Welter: Mayweather - An ATG Champion who is undefeated.
Light: Crawford - Reasonably young and undefeated.
Bantam: Yamanaka - Another undefeated fighter with a solid record.
Fly: Gonzales - Yet another undefeated fighter.

Looking at this list, it seems as if the actual 8 best fighters in the world are as good as any other time in history. we have 2 all time greats and 6 good fighters 1 or 2 of whom may even go on to become all time greats.

Pick any random year and there wont be too much difference. I just tried with 1957 and came up with:
Heavy: Paterson
L heavy: Moore
Middle: Basilio
Welter: Vacant/Basillio
Light: Joe Brown
Bantam: Halimi
Fly: Perez
Being fair, i would say 2 all time greats and at the time there was a chance that one or two of the others (Basillio and Paterson) may have gone on to become atg fighters. with the rest being good champions. No different today. i wouldnt mind seeing how different years matched up.

The only real difference (and shame) is that no champions (or worse yet) contenders ever actually fight each other. If we fixed that up, i dont think todays era would be anywhere near as bad as what we often think it is.
Click to expand...

What happened to the featherweights?

Halfordscream · Mar 18, 2015

Smokin Bert said: ↑

Excellent post. Well reasoned, and right on the money.
Click to expand...

Thanks, man.

Halfordscream · Mar 18, 2015

Seamus said: ↑

As a keen blah, blah , blah ....
Click to expand...

Whenever you need to get your little heart pumping just read my posts, clown. I'm there for you.

I know it is quite the internal struggle between suppressing yourself and needing to respond ...

Mango · Mar 19, 2015

Halfordscream said: ↑

.. the reality is that if the US is not watching .. it isn't very good or good enough (yet).
Click to expand...

Wow... is this guy for real!?

Log in or Sign up

Can todays Champions hold a candle to past eras

Smokin Bert Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Halfordscream Global Full Member

Halfordscream Global Full Member

Mango New Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Can todays Champions hold a candle to past eras

Smokin Bert Boxing Addict Full Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

mcvey VIP Member Full Member

Halfordscream Global Full Member

Halfordscream Global Full Member

Mango New Member Full Member