Interesting Manny Steward Quote

Manny knew what he was talking about.

 

Maybe there was a far greater number of 4-6 round fighters back then?
It is when we get to the top 10 - 20 in the ratings from both eras that the pendulum swings.

 

I don't know about that, I think the top 3 from most divisions today would definitely fair well against the greats of the past, and when they lost they'd be considered good wins for the legends

 

Well, what would Manny Steward know.

 

He's probably right. The vast majority of 'contenders' in recent years achieved contender status within less than 25 fights (often far less) and with only 1 or 2 fights against anyone even remotely tough. They are usually groomed for the contender level with a load of fights against easy set-ups brought in on late notice. Most of these contenders disappear into obscurity after a couple of losses, or lapse into retirements.
Whereas "the better four- and six-round fighters of the 1930s, '40s and '50s" were being tested all the time and had to stay good and improve to survive and get regular fights. Win or lose they were in real competitive fights.

 

The name is Steward though, not Stewart.

 

Good post

 

Steward was never an iconoclast or a modernist—not in the least. Maybe you mistakenly assumed that because he was so dismissive of Marciano’s chances against top modern heavyweights?

 

No, Steward just never managed to grasp the nuances of the sport well enough to understand that size is virtually irrelevant when it comes to ATG heavyweights. He was getting there, I think—he just ran out of time.

 

Difference being for the most part at the top level today’s contenders had 100 or more amateur fights and had to succeed against other top amateurs (in their countries and internationally in most cases) ... these are the equivalent of those 4- and 6-round guys in the 30s-40s-50s.

Some exceptions, sure, but I’d argue that a lot of top pro fighters in the 1970s forward did their apprenticeships in the amateurs whereas those from these earlier decades did theirs in 4- and 6-round fights.

 

Good post!

 

I'm not sure that today's contenders (or fighters of recent years, the last 2 or 3 decades, I should say) had a significantly larger number of amateur fights than the fighters of the 30s, 40s, 50s.
Many of the old-time contenderrs had 50, 100 or more amateur fights, often a lot of "bootleg" amateur-pro fights too, and also many fought in national and international tournaments that were very popular from the early 1930s on at least (amateur tournaments drew HUGE crowds back then).
..... and then still usually had to progress through thhe better 4-round and 6-round guys in the official professional ranks.

Of course they were plenty of exceptions, fighters who started professional with no amateur experience (Billy Conn apparently), and there are extreme cases on both ends of the spectrum in later eras and earlier eras alike.
But I think the tale that the old-timers didn't really have a substantial amateur backgrounds is a myth.
The fact is, they just fought more, a lot more, than modern fighters.