ESB Essay Competition: Were old-timers more motivated than modern-day boxers?

I think we should retain the 250 word limit, actually. It brought up a lot of very well stated, succinct points with a minimum of flowery verbiage.

 

Yes, because any bum off the street with some raw toughness, like Tony Galento, could compete and make a good living.

 

Since i was robbed of the decision last time, i will go for a rematch:

Were old-timers more motivated than their modern coutnerparts?


Contrary to popular believe, physical appearance means absolutely nothing in boxing. A wimpy bald looking guy like Fitzsimmons has more toughness than a bear like Liston or Golota could ever dream about.


Through the last century, boxing has changed somewhat: larger gloves, less rounds, neutral corner rule, the invention of the mouthpiece, etc.
But i don't think that those factors contributed much to change in toughness.

Toughness, in my opinion, is determined mostly by society's circumstances. Luxery. Things we take for granted were not there around the beginning of the 20th century. Jack Dempsey had to fight on an empty stomach and Jack Johnson did not have a luxerious hotel to stay at before fights.

This content is protected

Jack Johnson having attained a luxery that every adolescent can attain today


The fact that society was a lot harder made for tougher people in general, with a higher threshold for complaining and quitting compared to later generations. I believe people in general were a lot tougher around 1900 than they were around 1980.

Does this mean that fighters from the 80's and after were pansies and quitters? Not at all. The top fighters are still willing to go through hell to get that precious win. But this is by definition true; the quitters won't reach the top. Boxers are still the tougher elements of society. So what it really means is that a tough society will produce a larger talent pool of potential boxers.

This content is protected

All toughness in the world couldn't save Joe Frazier from an early knockout loss at the hands of George Foreman

To conclude, i don't believe that the old-time top fighters were more motivated than today's top fighters. But i do believe that people in general were tougher and this made the sport more competitive and talent-rich.

 

You get to win the Rugby World Cup!!!

 

The old-timers' "hunger" has become a cliche. Yeah, we know all about it--they didn't eat, they didn't have great medical care, they ate titanium plates for breakfast, yadda yadda. It's become such a cliche that we tend to overlook it. But unfortunately, it's the truth. Fighters were better motivated back then.

The roll-call of ATG's who were down on their luck is longer than the Corbett-Jackson fight. Walcott. Braddock. Johnson. Sayers. Cribb. Mendoza...and many more who would not fit into the 250 word limit. Running through the history of boxing from Figg to Klitschko is a long thread of misery, and with that misery came motivation. If you want an idea of this today, take a look into the training camps of Thailand, whose champions fight for four-figure paychecks and thrash their Western counterparts. Or, if that's too far afield, observe how relatively poor countries produce the better fighters. A fat, decadent US heavyweight division found this out the hard way in the last few years.

Table 1: World GDP in 1950 per capita

Table 2: in 1900

Table 3: Some Modern Countries



Then remember that "back in the day", every country was a third-world country. Infant mortality rates, medical care, per capita GDP were all at the level of the developing world. Boxing was booming, violent, and the only way out of poverty for many. It was a last chance that begat frenzied motivation, and some of the best fights in history.



Appended:

This content is protected

 

If everyone was the same, it would be boring...:yep