Classic's Opinion Of:The Arc Of Boxing by Mike Silver

By and large I agree with the premise of the book..There are no short cuts in boxing...The fighters of the 1940s, averaged 2 and three times the bouts of today, against tougher and tougher opponents,by the SIMPLE law of experience had to have been more rounded fighters than today.
They also had a slew of great FULL time boxing trainers,such as Ray Arcel Charlie Goldman , Freddie Brown,Eddie Futch, Chappie Blackburn,Whitey Bimstein, Chickie Ferarra, etc,and a host of top trainers imparting their wisdom to the boxers ofthe 1940s...I saw that era, when a Willie Pep, Ike Williams,Archie Moore, Fritzie Zivic fought hundreds of battles,learning skills ONLY repetition can teach...
Yes Mike Silvers is on target in his book,THE ARC OF BOXING, by and large, methinks...

 

Yeah, and cigarette ashtrays used to be in hospitals. Things change, and from the perceived "golden days" of boxing the sport has evolved (for better or worse). The one thing a sport like boxing has to contend with is the general sentiment over what people see as primitive. As safety became a standard and medicine research evolved, it began to release information about the truth of fighting in the ring. Recently I heard the stat that, "a solid punch has more concussive power then that of what a football player receives in a tackle" and "a boxer's brain is much more damaged then that of the (recent) concussion cases presented from the NFL". After that was said I thought, "I wonder if this is going to lead more potential boxers away from the sport?".

We can say that fighters were plentiful in the past, and that they were of greater caliber, but they were also taking risks with themselves in a world where information was scant and kept with the professionals (doctors). That and there wasn't an internet to pass all this information along. The "law of experience" is now padded and protected, but still filled with potential concussions or other "fight wounds". It's not the golden era anymore and as we've all learned "nothing gold can stay".

What I'm saying is that I agree with the concepts put forth in the book, there's always a deeper meaning then what we see happening (or read).

 

Still haven't read this book.
Sounds interesting.

 

While I'm sure Silver has his share of points, he is a jaded type.

Silver is very anti modern boxing. He thinks televised boxing was a big reason for the " decline " in boxing. How wrong, without TV boxing would be out of business!

Silver also thinks Ali could have beaten Wladimir Klitschko blindfolded, and picked the round.

And for good measure he enlists Teddy Atlas in his book.

Pay no attention to the reviews if they are friends with him.

 

I haven't read it, but here on Classic we've already seen lots of quotes from the book, where various experts/historians really stick it to modern boxing/boxers. An extreme case of oldtimer nuthuggery, that shouldn't be taken seriously... IMO!

 

TV made boxing very big in the 50's it also nearly killed it.

That is an established fact.

 

Boxing was big long before TV ( fact ) , and is pretty much sustained these days by TV / Satellite broadcasting. Without TV, the sport would lose the majority of its fans.

There are many reasons why boxing is in decline in the USA...note I say the USA because boxing in other areas of the world is on the rise.

Among the reasons for decline in the USA are more popular sports, the constant crowing of guys like Mike Silver who go out of their way to trash the sport, the closing of gyms, an alarming amount of lazy and out of shape teenagers, and lack of star power above jr middle weight to display on television.

Outside of Andre Ward, I can't name one very good USA based talent who will be on top by 2016 from middle, super middle, light heavy, cruiser, or heavy.

This is not to say there isn't a good deal of talent in these weight classes. Kovalev, Golovkin, and Wlad are three likely hall of fame guys. There are also plenty of talented young professionals who look promising at middle, light heavy and cruiser, but again few North American born talents.

 

mike, hates floyd too!!

 

Of course he's right to say TV had a negative impact on boxing, in the sense that so many of the old boxing venues closed down. Because people could watch boxing on TV, didn't have to go to the local clubs ... because people could watch something else on TV, didn't need to go out. That whole weekday night culture was largely replaced by TV. Sit at home, or sit in a bar. See something on TV.
Boxing suffered at the grassroots level. Whether or not that had an impact on the quality at the top is debatable. I'd say probably not.

 

Tv really hurt boxing. There is no two ways about it. Television brought in unprecedented purses for even club level fighters. This commercialization of boxing had been warned about and against for decades before television and sure enough now you have a situation where the only guys who are willing to really fight are the ones who get air dates. Those are few and far between so you have less fights. Less fights means less skilled fighters. The increase in purse sizes means that you have a breed of fighters who are millionaires by the time they get a title shot and as such they arent as hungry as a guy who NEEDS to win in order to feed his family. This has also created the situation whereby fighters are manufactured to build a following by being carefully matched against only fighters they know they can beat in order to preserve a meaningless unbeaten record. Typically those fighters avoid their top competition until both guys are well past their expiration date and as a result the bout is meaningless. No, there is no doubt that boxing has become watered down and has suffered as a result in the modern era. TV of course isnt the only factor but its a big one. That being said Silver's thesis is flawed because of course there fighters today who could compete in any era.

 

What hurts boxing more than anything else is the politics of the sanctioning bodies, too many weight classes, promoters who prevent matches, lack of an overseeing commissioner with power, and fixed schedule dates for the fans.

 

What hurt boxing is the fact that societies of the western world became more affluent, the standard of living increased, and there's been some degree of welfare.

There aren't so many desperate uneducated men who see the option of punching each other's brains to mush every other week for a measly purse as a viable way of living.

Still, there are too many hapless exploited pugs, but not as many.

It's progress. :good

 

This is a direct result of television though. They created more championships (i.e. more weight divisions and sanctioning bodies) in order to sell more championship bouts to TV.