Extinct Sports: A thought about the Old vs. New Debate

So this is just a thought that occurred to me while weighing the arguments for both sides of this debate against each other (as I am wont to do when I should be focusing on things that actually have any importance to real life):

One of the most often used and strongest arguments of the modernist brigade is the comparison to performance in other sports which, they assert, have universally and sometimes vastly improved during the last century or so. It is then assumed that, just as all other sports, boxing must have behaved in the same manner.
This is a strong argument because it seems unconvincing to argue that boxing as the only sport developed differently, stagnating or even devolving over time. It is far more intuitive and logical to think that continual improvement in performance is the way sports, including boxing, develop over time.

However, there is a rarely made argument that calls into question if improvement in sports happens universally: the historical existence of extinct sports, or sports that have because of waning interest become niche disciplines.

Consider for instance the Greek pankration, which eventually died out and ceased to be practiced. Certainly it would be more reasonable to assume that there was a period of waning interest and therefore a smaller talent pool and stagnation/degeneration before it died out completely rather than abruptly vanishing after a continuous evolution of skills.
I haven't looked into it in detail since I'm a lazy mofo, but I think it is reasonable to believe that there must have been dozens if not hundreds of other historically documented sports that have gone down the same way. (I would be interested in opinions of people who have studied this area)

It could then be argued that the predominating view of sports' performances improving continuously over time be it by the accumulation of knowledge, an expanding talent pool, or advances in sports sciences, is incomplete if not altogether erroneous because it is based
A: on a very limited focus of just the last 100 years or so
and B: on a confirmation bias by looking only at sports that have become more popular and have therefore seen an increase in competitiveness and talent pool (such as football or track and field) while not considering other sports that might have waned in popularity.

If the figures posted on this board sometimes are true, boxing's talent pool and number of fights have actually decreased over time compared to its heyday ca. 1920s-1950s while still being on an acceptable level. Furthermore, the increasing number of belts and weight classes, and the decreasing number of fights are all undeniable factors that dilute rather than increase competition and it is commonly held that tougher competition leads to better results.

Anyway, this was just a thought I had recently and I would be interested in hearing your input.
I should mention that while I tend to agree more with the old timers' camp here based in part on the arguments mentioned above, I am not at all certain in my opinion. The modernists have some good arguments and the discussion is much more complicated and vast than the aspect discussed in this thread.

Cheers!

 

I will look for further examples later but one that comes to mind is martial arts using obsolete weapons such as broadswords or hoplite spears for example. I mean sure, there are a few hobbyists who try to re-create and revive these sports based on old manuals, but the talent pool must have decreased vastly, not to mention that some of those disciplines had probably died out completely before the interest by modern enthusiasts.

 

I'm sorry but who or what are you referring to?

 

I am not. What leads you to think that?
I have read some of his posts and besides a similar interest in ancient history I honestly don't think we have that much in common.

 

It's all good.