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

In order to answer this topic, we have to acknowledge a few simple truths. We have to concede the fact that fighters in the past fought more often for less money than they would have made right now, and that the massive amounts of money a top-flight, well-known fighter can make right now ensures that he doesn't have to face the best available competition if he chooses not do do so.

We have to acknowledge those facts...but, that doesn't mean that the answer to this question is automatically going to be "yes".

For, we also must acknowledge a few other truths. We have to acknowledge that there are a great many fighters these days who were born into abject poverty, and are fighting desperately in order to improve their own state of affairs.

We should also note that, while fighters make more money, the cost of living has also skyrocketed, and that means that the chasm that exists between the richest of fighters and the rank-and-file is every bit as large right now as it was at any point in the past.

Kassim Ouma was a child soldier. Edison Miranda was homeless when he first entered a boxing gym, and so, for that matter, were the Peterson brothers. The rules of the game may have changed, but even if they had remained static, it's guarunteed that these individuals, and others like them, would have considered the option of using their fists as a means to escape their conditions.

If you want proof of this, just pop in your copy of the first Corrales-Castillo fight, or the Cotto-Judah fight, or any number of Gatti fights. Something enabled these fighters to continue to throw punches in the face of the severest forms of adversity.

And, that something was hunger.

That hasn't changed at all over the years...and it probably won't be changing at all in the future.

 

Like Marvelous Marvin Hagler once said.."It's hard to get up at five o'clock in the morning to do your roadwork when you're sleeping in silk pajamas". Let's face it, there's more money out there now than there ever was. A champion today can fight once every year or two and still make millions. So can a ranked contender for that matter. When the golfer Gary Player was asked a similar question he said something like "Are you kidding me? In my day you had to play for your supper" Ther's no more "Winner take all" It's now "Still lose and make millions anyway" Get the point?

 

I've noticed that so far everyone's posts have only been about fighters being motivated because to them boxing is a way to get out of poverty or else as a way to get even richer than they already are. But although it doesn't sound like my idea of fun to get punched on the nose or have a medicine ball thrown at your guts, some boxers are in it for "the love of the game." How about those who aren't exclusively motivated by material gain, but are fighting, or continuing to fight for the glory of it all, for their legacy? They may be a rare breed, but I'm sure that guys like Holmes or Holyfield didn't/don't continue fighting because they want(ed) one more Rolls Royce in their garages. In fact, looking at the difference between, say Holmes' and Tyson's last four or five fights, it can be argued that sporting glory can be an even better motivater than money.