Fighters Were Better In The Old Days Because.....

Bill- Have you ever been punched in the face? Had your jaw dislocated or rib broken?

Those blokes did it ONLY for the money. The few masochistic ones might have liked the punishment but they did it for the same reason that boxers today do it. Sure, the desire to be the best is part of it, but if you have the means the desire to be the best lawyer, architect or physicist is a bit more comfortable- tho equally as challenging- row to hoe. People, back in the day, boxed because it was the last calling waiting.

 

Of course they did it for the money.

They just didn't get as much of it at one time.

 

Considering an annual inflation rate of 2.95%, Jack Dempey earned $50 million of today's money in his career, mostly over the last few fights.

 

Jack Dempsey was also making a ****ton more than everybody else, though. He was bigger than Babe Ruth at the time, IMO.

 

Former WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION Mike Dokes earned $2000 for fighting Danny Wofford in Vegas... if memory serves. That's a little under $190 in 1920 money.

 

bit of a skewed comparison as far as popularity goes dontcha think?

 

I'll take Sugar Ray and Willie Pep's shabby "sub par" "too often" performances over Mayweather's once-a-year-or-less super-performances, thank you.

 

U,rest assured that the "shabby sub-par" too often performances you cite, was when Pep was over the hill ,and aside from the Saddler films,were the only films available today of the "peak" Willie Pep. Even Pep's marvelous decision
over Saddler in 1949,available today, was 2 years after his near-fatal plane crash in 1947. Pep by 1949 was maybe 70% of the Willie Pep I saw in 1943, against the lightweight Allie Stolz at MSG. That was the prime Willie Pep,of which there is no film of today. Shame, cause that Willie Pep was UNCANNY.
Lightning in a bottle, was prime Pep...Cheers...

 

i agree on some points like yes there was more a boxing culture
the fighters fought more, sparred more and probably worked on the finer
points of the game


but the talent pool is an interesting question

yes in american this is very true 100 percent
but around the world

the talent pool is much bigger now in europe and asia too,
and i am even sure there are more fighters in latin america now then
say in 1940's


and with the speaking of finer points of the game

style wise
in modern times you see various different styles from different european-latin countries as well as russian or asian ones too

 

I also preferred it when there were less fighters from Asia, Latin America and none from the former Soviet Republics.

 

As I would, also. But you have to admit audiences did not see many primed, peaked performances from those fighters because they simply fought too often. A world class athlete, especially one in the combat arts, can not give so many peak performances a year as some of those fighters tried to.

 

they were simpler times. less money, fewer prizes and fame was harder to come by. as a result they fought more, champs were champs, and people only knew you if you deserved it. in general.

 

Well, the fans seemed to be happy with the Robinson-LaMotta fights, and untold other fights that happened close together.
I don't see any evidence that the ratio of disappointing performances was higher when they fought more often.

I still see regular lame performances from overpaid once-twice-a-year champions in recent eras, and I hear the excuses of injuries and other stuff to explain why they weren't 100%.

 

...Duran deserves a mention.

And blacks weren't allowed to fight for the title.