Classic Fans, Who Still Follows the Sport, When did you Stop?

I can understand how you feel. I just simply got to the point where I let go of some of those thing that drive me crazy like all of the alphabet titles/sanctioning bodies/crooked promoters and simply just enjoy the fights. I do think because of the lack of mainstream media attention that a lot of truly amazing fighter's are not getting the attention that they deserve and that is something that is not new. So many great fighters from past era's were undervalued as well because they weren't with the right promoter or not the right skin color. Too me, the sport really has changed all that much. Still corrupt on the business side but the fighters heart never changes regardless of era.

 

I'm trying to get back into it . 80s 90s I was a fanatic. We will see

 

Isn't the biggest difference between today and the old days... that we now have internet, where fans can find a forum like this, and agree that moder boxing not only sucks, but is actually dead?

Imagine if there was a "Classic" forum back in the '40s and '50s - during the time when the mob infested the sport. Where fans could vent their frustation, like they can here today. Wouldn't they have been talking about the shady shenanigans that went on back then - just like they do now?

 

YES, but Boxing is definitely worse Today and for a multitude of reasons, namely number of Fights, number of Divisions, number of Sanctioning Bodies, the Land of the Giants, the amount of Media Hype & B.S, especially in Britain and the Influence of Money Corruption in the sport/Business (yes in the past too).

Boxing IS Mortally Wounded!

 

But why care about the number of divisions and sanctioning bodies? This doesn't make boxers/fights worse. Neither does the "Land of the Giants"! Just because you don't like Tyson Fury (I don't either), doesn't mean that the big heavyweights today are destroying boxing. Why lose any sleep over this, and not just enjoy the many fights, that are now at our disposal - unlike in the old days.

Boxing is no more "Mortally Wounded", than it has always been!

 

Agreed, though it does contribute to the best fighting the best less often.

I say contribute, because of course, the best boxers fight much less often than their counterparts from distant eras, in general.

 

The problem I see, Buk, is that the amount of younger people is decreasing almost everywhere, so this has a impact in sports for obvious reasons, the size of the talent pool is getting smaller generation after generation because of the lack in youg people. The "boom" in young people happened circa the 50s-70s in most of the west at least, including latin america.

 

This is me.

Honestly, aside from the quality of the fighters ... with heavyweights, for example, I don't think bigger is necessarily better ... there are no really compelling personalities anymore who interest me.

 

When we're talking boxing, the size of the worldwide talent pool certainly isn't smaller today than 50-70 years ago!

 

The issue is there's a bunch of nobodys at the top running the sport who also don't want to fight each other. How many people who aren't into boxing know about the top guys? Few to none. This ain't the 70's where Ali and Foreman were known to even non-boxing fans. Its much harder to stand out today and it seems no one has the ability to do so.

 

You sure ? Didn´t the 70s have more young people around ? My mother had 6 brothers and sisters, I have one.

 

Yes and no.

The fighter's heart, in my opinion, isn't the same as what it was when fighters literally fought once every three to six weeks to eat. Then you took fights anywhere and against anyone cos you had to. Today's fighter isn't generally as affected by these circumstances and so doesn't have the same fight or starve drivers. The lack of fighting regularity has, IMO, led to a downgrade of general skillset, as has the move from 15 to 12 rounds.

That being said, I would never question the heart of any top fighter regardless of era as I genuinely believe that everytime you step into the ring, your life is on the line. However, if we are comparing the very elite and trying to discriminate, it's a lot easier to credit the man who turns it up in round 15 after taking a battering all night, than it is the guy who turns it up in round 12, all other things being equal.

 

There are about twice as many people today, compared to the mid-70s... so I would be very surprised, if you can show there were more young people back then!

Anyway, I'm talking about the boxing pool (number of known active pro fighters) - which is far bigger today than 50 years ago.

 

Not sure about your points about divisions and sanctioning bodies, as more champs definitely dilutes things. However, we'e had at least 3 major alphabets for 40 years (since the emergence of IBF) so that's a long long time. Then, even worse, the WBO (or World Body Odour as it was known back then) came on the scene and was about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit. The good thing was though, the key boxing publications, decided not to recognise the WBO for a while. and dismiss it. For example, Boxing Monthly's write up of Damiani vs Mercer only mentions it was a title fight in the very last paragraph of its (long) fight review, such was the title's insignificance then. But, sadly, enough big fighters fought for them, then it just melded into all the others and didn't really matter any more.

Although i do agree with your previous point that the 'good old days' argument has always been a thing..if anyone doesn't believe me then buy yourself a Ring or Boxing Illustrated from the 1960s on ebay and the writers there will tell you about how much better used to be.

 

My Mother's one of 14 !