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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by lynx_land, Apr 29, 2020.



  1. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,362
    3,455
    Apr 20, 2010
    Great graphic presentation of number of fights/fighters over time. I saw these graphs some time ago on another site, but have been unable to find them again - so thanks for posting this!
     
  2. Crazy Horse 23

    Crazy Horse 23 Ghost of ESB Past Full Member

    100
    144
    Aug 23, 2013
    Ultimately, with boxing, it's about the intangibles: hunger, heart, toughness. This isn't track or football or basketball. This is hand to hand combat, which goes back to Cain and Abel, so to speak. This is about skillfully kicking another man's ass. It doesn't get any more personal that that; and fighting, in addition to things like speed and power and size, also encompasses an individual's survival instincts, which is a pretty powerful motivator because that is based upon character and is also relative to how hard that individual had to struggle in life, itself. This is why, when you look at the history of the sport in it's entirety, the fighters who rise to the top, invariably, had it the roughest, growing up, with very few exceptions. The environment shapes the man and a man who knows what true hunger is, a kid who had to fight for his very meals, is going to have a level of determination that a kid from suburbia can scarcely fathom. If you don't think that plays a role in the middle of a prize fight, you're kidding yourself.

    You can take the most physically gifted athlete the world has ever seen, have him grow up in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons and put him in the ring with a not quite as physically gifted athlete who grew up in the roughest barrio in East L.A. or lowest income area in New York and that poor kid is gonna whup that rich kid's ass at least 9 times out of 10. Why? Hunger. The poor kid's gonna have it, the rich kid's not.

    When you start going back in time, fighters had to fight 100's of times because their paychecks weren't nearly as lush as the star boxers of today. Jersey Joe Walcott, for instance, lost many times in his early and prime years because he was trying to hold down a job and feed his children while pursuing a career as a fighter; he was rarely in top form and often injured. Ray Robinson and Jake LaMotta once fought two weeks apart, after Jake handed Robby the first loss of his career; and all 6 of their fights were brutal wars. Can you imagine one of today's fighters having two main events two weeks apart? I don't think so.

    Is this to say all modern athletes are going to lose to "yesterday's stars"? No, not at all. What I'm attempting to convey here is that there is far more to boxing than numbers. It is not only technique and training, as it is in other sports; but it is also the coveted "X-Factor" which is far more prevalent in the art of hand-to-hand combat than in any other athletic profession, because boxing is the grandfather of all sports, it is the ancestor to all athletic competition, and it is as close to a time-machine as you are ever going to get because it is the closest sport to our very primitive, basic essence of who we are. It's very roots are based in our desire to survive; and you don't find anything more self-defining than that.

    Styles, ultimately, make fights, regardless of era; but if you take Stanley Ketchel and put him in the ring with the comparatively pampered Canelo Alvarez, I'm going to favor Ketchel. Saul's own background very well might be tough enough that it will give him that extra grit he's going to need; but don't count Ketchel out just because he fought more than 100 years ago. Life was a hell of a lot tougher in the early 1900's than today and there's a reason Ketchel has the reputation he has, which has lingered all this time. The same can be said for Greb, Armstrong, and countless other old-time fighters who warred for upwards of 20/25 rounds or more, while today's fighters halt at 12. Boxing was far more savage in those days than now; but the basics are still the same, as is the difference between a contender and a champion.

    Don't let our multiplicity of belts fool you. Not every man who holds a strap wears the crown.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,011
    38,437
    Mar 21, 2007
    1 - They do it less

    2 - Fewer people seem to be doing it overall

    3 - They spar less

    4 - Boxing appeals more to hunger than most other sports, and there seems now to be less of it

    5 - Changes in the sport - fighters are fighting fewer rounds and are more heavily protected.

    Loads of reasons really but those are probably the best. It should be obvious enough that if you do something way less - twice a year rather than 11 times a year - you're going tobe less good at it.
     
    MaxDamage, OvidsExile and gerryb like this.
  4. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    Thanks. I got the data from a thread on boxrec where someone listed the number of fights and fighters from every year, but I made the graph myself. This is the only place I've posted it, although I've posted it here before. I used to just post the numbers from that boxrec thread when these discussions popped up, but I figured a picture is easier to understand than the raw numbers.
     
  5. AwardedSteak863

    AwardedSteak863 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,873
    8,524
    Aug 16, 2018
    Yes, of course it is thriving in other parts of the world which is a good thing for the sport. I'm only speaking on what I know in regards to my own country.
     
  6. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    31,005
    31,542
    Aug 28, 2012
    That was one of my thoughts too. They still play the same number of games in a basketball/football/baseball season don't they?
     
  7. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,362
    3,455
    Apr 20, 2010
    Ok, then I must have seen it here before - and not on another site. Anyway, as you say - a picture gives you a much easier understanding, than going through a lot of numbers.
     
    OvidsExile likes this.
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,011
    38,437
    Mar 21, 2007
    Right.

    In the end, sports science for injury treatments, some nutrition stuff and learning will have stopped the rot a bit, but there are clear reasons to see why ye old fighters could be better. I don't think that there's a huge amount of difference between the very best era on ears tbh, but if the OP wants an honest answer there's plenty of detail in this thread now.
     
    OvidsExile likes this.
  9. Limerickbox

    Limerickbox Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,966
    3,944
    Jul 18, 2015
    Maradonna played up until the mid 90s, hes not exactly from a completely different era.

    Take George Best, can you imagine chain smoking, big drinking George Best lasting 90 minutes against modern footballers?
    He'd be huffing by half time.

    Sports have evolved overthe years.
    Knowledge about fitness and tactics improve generation to generation.

    Some people long for nostalgia, but it just does hold up.

    This is Jack Dempsey. A guy considered one of the greatest HWs of all time on the heavybag...
    This content is protected
     
    Camaris likes this.
  10. pistal47

    pistal47 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,779
    4,282
    Jul 14, 2007
    Because successful sports evolve. Boxing has devolved.
     
  11. Serge

    Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member

    71,006
    107,794
    Jul 21, 2009
    I think a lot of fans view past eras through rose-coloured glasses and personally I find it difficult to take the opinions of people who need to wear glasses to help them to see better seriously over those of us who don't. Just my two sense.
     
    Loudon and Bukkake like this.
  12. Bukkake

    Bukkake Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,362
    3,455
    Apr 20, 2010
    Is there any evidence, that a tough upbringing manifests itself in extra courage/heart in the ring? How do we know, that it isn't some innate quality - like punching power? There have been lots of fighters, with a (at least comparatively) comfortable upbringing, who have exhibited tremendous courage in the ring. And even if there is something to this idea - how about the thousands of fighters today from the former communist block or from developing countries, who may have had as tough a childhood as Americans in "the good old days". Are we to believe they lack toughness - just because they are modern?

    And if you think fights today aren't hard enough, then take a look at this one:

    This content is protected


    10 rounds of non-stop exchanges, with hardly any clinching… getting wilder and wilder with each round! Not savage enough for you - or do you prefer 20 rounds of pushing and shoving between Ketchel and Papke? Well, obviously you do - if you seriously think Ketchel would beat Canelo!
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
    OvidsExile likes this.
  13. Holler

    Holler Doesn't appear to be a paid matchroom PR shill Full Member

    12,446
    23,518
    Mar 12, 2018
    Great post that.

    I'd only add that when these comparisons are made I think there should be an explicit acknowledgement that we assume each fighter has access to the same nutrition sources and knowledge, same access to exercise and post exercise equipment, same level of PEDS (none) etc etc.
     
    Crazy Horse 23 likes this.
  14. SpeedKills

    SpeedKills Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,739
    812
    Jan 7, 2009
    Going too far with Dempsey. Modern boxing started in around 1904. Those first guy’s were bound to be weaksauce. The sport looks to have peaked somewhere from 60’s to 90’s (unfortunately including the steroid era which has died down a bit today at least).

    Less rounds
    Less fights
    More protection
    Etc

    The talent seems to have decreased, if anything.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
    Loudon likes this.
  15. carlingeight

    carlingeight Active Member Full Member

    1,434
    1,662
    May 15, 2016
    Granted the 'numbers' part of my post was quite US-focused. Mainly because so many of the greats are American, and boxing has been popular there for so long so easier to compare eras. Boxings drop in popularity in the US is quite well documented, right? It's not hugely important to the original question though.

    It's more difficult to make it in some countries than others that's for sure. Remember hearing some crazy stats about just how many more lighter guys try to become boxers in Mexico than elsewhere. Also hear lots of stories of just how tough it is coming through as an amateur in Mexico. Stands to reason you'd get some tough sobs from that part of the world.

    In any case, focusing on numbers is getting away from the main point. You really only need to watch a few fights from 30/40 years ago to see how boxing is different to other sports. The qualities required in other sports have been massively improved on. A lot of qualities in boxing have simply not moved on at the same rate, if at all. It's far too primal, and I'm sure this is what makes boxing the exception. I'd also argue that you needed to be even tougher back then to succeed, but happy to debate that.
     
    Loudon likes this.