In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

From hardline boxing talk on youtube. Robinson fought 85 top 10 rated fighters. 38 of those were against champions. So about 48 top contenders, still alot.

 

Just to be clear: do you mean Robinson fought 85 top 10 rated fighters - or that he had 85 fights against top 10 rated fighters?

 

Fights. 85 fights.

 

Ok... that makes more sense.

 

AGain, that only happens because of same day weigh ins. Guys are ripped on the scale because they are absolutely dried out. It's a different story the next day. They wouldnt even be so cut up if there were same day weigh-ins.

Holyfield and Tyson were small for heavyweights, needed muscling up. Ali, Foreman, Frazier beat them both - they weren't some hulks (and Foreman was stronger than those two combined)

Move along the weight classes smallest weight class to heaviest - Inoue, Loma, Crawford , Spence, Usyk, Fury are the best, none of these are built like "body builders", a psyche like that is a disadvantage. Clenelo wins in spite of this.

 

Your take on the internationalization of boxing is an interesting one!

As you say, back in the day (20s and 30s) almost all boxing of importance took place in the US - and most of it in the north eastern part of the country. Here you had Americans fighting Americans in nearly all the big fights - with very few foreigners participating. Of course travelling between continents back then was much more complicated than today - so Americans very rarely left home, and foreigners were seldom brought over from other continents to test the US boxers.

Today it's a completely different story. Jetting back and forth between continents is no longer a big deal, and with so many more countries hosting pro boxing now (105 last year, compared to 36 in 1920) the sport has become truly international - especially following the fall of The Wall.

The US is still where the big money is, and where most of the REALLY big fights take place. But now we see lots of fighters from all parts of the world being involved… it's no longer (largely) restricted to American boxers.

It's difficult for me to understand, how this can somehow be seen as instrumental in watering down the sport!

 

It’s great that there’s fighters competing from all over the globe. That can only be a good thing. But unfortunately, the sport’s been watered down for a while now.

 

What exactly do people mean, when they talk about this watering down process, that apparently has taken place over the past few decades?

Do they mean, that the many weight classes and multiple belt holders, make it easier to become a "world" champion these days? That is certainly true, and a thorn in the eye of many hard core fans, as I understand it. Or do they mean, that the individual boxers are getting worse - that they aren't as clever/dedicated/conditioned/etc., as they used to be?

As for myself... sure, I'd like to see one champ per division, but it really doesn't bother me that much. I think real fans have a pretty good idea, who the best boxers are. Personally, I'm more interested in the boxers, than the belts they may or may not be wearing.

When this Corona thing (hopefully!) is behind us, I'm looking forward to follow Usyk's heavyweight career - and also to see what the still young Gassiev can do up among the big boys, if/when he returns. Should Dubois beat Joyce, he could be the man of the future at HW. And at the top of the division, we could have Joshua and Fury battling it out for supremacy, before the end of the year (or am I being too optimistic?).

At the lower weights, I'll be keeping an eye on Bivol, Beterbiev, Crawford, Lomachenko, Spence, etc. And of course Inoue! I just love to watch this ultra-entertaining Japanese puncher - and his next fight can't come soon enough, if you ask me!

So even in this watered down era, there's something to look forward to.

 

Yes, mainly the number of divisions, the number of organisations and the number of available belts.

If having 4 main organisations wasn’t bad enough, some of the org’s have more than one belt per division.

We’re now living in an era where a European level fighter can obtain a world title belt.

Most of the top fighters only fight 2-3 times per year.

Some of the guys rehydrate by huge amounts after the weigh-ins.

The up and coming fighters often don’t come up like they used do, gaining experience by fighting different styles etc.

In my honest opinion, the sport was much better 20-30 years ago.

 

Boxing is a different beast than other "sports" but this video

This content is protected

makes a few interesting points. Level of competition, population demographics and economics all play a part. Humans have not "evolved" over the last century and are basically still the same animal.

 

Now give Owens todays training methods and nutrition science etc and maybe he beats Bolt.

 

You're right, of course... humans have not evolved as a species over the (relatively) short time, we've had gloved boxing. No genetic "improvement" has taken place since the late 19th century - but that doesn't mean, that our knowledge of things hasn't improved.

Like for example, it's obvious that boxing skills/technique evolved pretty quickly, from the very early days until about the late 30s/early 40s... where boxing, imo, by and large reached the level we see today. Of course there have been ebbs and flows since then. Every now and then, once-in-a-lifetime boxers pop up, who will dazzle us with their brilliance. like a Louis or SRR, an Ali, a Leonard or Duran - right up to more recent times with RJJ, Mayweather and Pacquiao.

And when you look at guys like Lomachenko, Usyk and Inoue - I don't really see, how boxing has devolved over the last 20-30 years.

 

Makes sense to me. Everyone learns over time but you hit a plateau eventually. Boxing is past the steep learning curve now the changes will be more subtle. Seems maybe a recency bias for some.