Could a modern boxer fight 44 times in one calendar year?

Politically it would probably be impossible.

I assume that it must be practically possible, if it was back then.

 

Realistically, only a real journeyman is going to fight this many times.

The best prospects with good management get steered down a career path that often provides relative low risk-high reward pay off. Even if said fighters wanted to, they're too commercially invested to promotors and sponsors to follow this career path. Too much filler in today's economy damages brand.

 

Could Canelo (for example) have 4 serious fights in a year - and in between take 40 "stay busy" fights against walk overs? Of course such a scenario would be unthinkable today... but if it wasn't, I don't see any reason why he couldn't do that.

 

Very unrealistic, there are a few that have not fought since 2019, that would be asking too much. Fans do not matter, but the purse and the attention does to them.

 

Reggie Strickland had 42 in 98 and 44 in 1999. He however, did not go undefeated.

 

Buck Smith had some years with 30 + fights. In 1992 he wen 36-0.

 

Yes in 1919 harry gerb was on roids.

 

No way would Fury be in good enough shape to do this.

 

this also existed in the Past, many a Fighter was Protected by such measures, none-the-less, you are Right!

NO ONE Today has a Long Leash 'IF' they are Invested Commodities.

but it did exist in Boxing from long ago.

 

Greb fought more than 4 serious fights in 1919 though.

 

Yes, he certainly did... and when the strength of the opposition is taken into consideration, something similar to his 45-0 for 1919 is of course unatainable for any boxer today - and likely forever!

I was just commenting on the possibility of someone today being able to go 44-0 in a single calendar year - as specified in the OP.

 

If their names Tyson Fury they'll try and do even less..

 

Yes - I know but the difference is that fighters were allowed to lose back then without it completely downgrading their reputation.

Floyd having a zero counts for a lot to modern fight fans, yet, the feats of Charles, Greb and Armstrong are much greater in my opinion.

The issue isn't necessarily that fighters don't have a long leash - the best fighters are most certainly invested commodities - I think the issue is that they're not as incentivised to dare for greatness in such a fragmented sport as they should be and so many fighters resort to protecting the brand as opposed to risking greatness.

Roy fought Ruiz for a reason as opposed to who else he could have challenged. Floyd fought Berto, McGregor for a reason as opposed to who he probably could have fought.

 

How many times did Dempsey fight in the last six years of his reign? Was it even seven times? And he didn't have a depression, just made movies instead of defending.