Mayweather the Goat?

As an aside, as I told Philly, you should beg the boxing commissions to release those numbers; as they would have more complete and accurate records than BoxRec could even dream of - at least for the U.S. fighters.

I don't know how BoxRec works these days, but when it first appeared, it was mostly a volunteer-driven aggregator of data. Back then it didn't even have names of, for instance, Korean fighters who challenged for world titles - much less the more obscure fighters. Moreover, it didn't have many fights for even world champions. TLDR: It's not remotely a comprehensive record of fights - especially the more you go back, and the further you go away from the U.S.

 

Yeah, sure... that must be it!

 

Well, as someone who heavily contributed to the site's data aggregation for Korean fighters in its early days, that is the case.

 

This is what BoxRec's own page itself says about ithe incomplete nature of its own data base when it comes to records of older fighters/fights:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec_Ratings_Description

"There admittedly are inaccuracies and anomalies...mostly because of incomplete records in the BoxRec database... Pre-World War II boxers in particular are at somewhat of a disadvantage, vis-à-vis modern boxers. Their opponents’ records often are quite incomplete--because of the scarcity of source material or Editors' time--while the records of opponents of more current boxers may be quite complete. So, for example, while Mike Tyson's own record, and those of his opponents, may be complete--thereby earning Tyson a certain number of points and thus giving him a high ranking among the All Time Heavyweights--the records of Young Stribling’s opponents may be extremely lacking, thereby giving Stribling fewer points and a much-lower All Time rating."

Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Well, the site flat-out says that its records are incomplete when it comes to older fighters - which flat-out invalidates their rating system altogether.

And the situation is far worse when it comes to foreign fighters.

 

If you look at the annual fights in the link, you can see, that if we go back to the 20s and 30s, there were more fights than today. For some years FAR more. Then came the war and numbers plummeted through the 50s, 60s and 70s... only to make a strong comeback (especially after the fall of The Wall, which saw many new countries embrace pro boxing).

Do you really not see, that activity peaked pre-WW2, after which it hit a slump over the next several decades - only to now have rebounded somewhat (though not to the peak level of the 20s and 30s).

You're right, of course - BoxRec isn't complete, and is undoubtedly missing a lot of fights (especially in the real old days). But there's at least a trend over time, that can't just be explained away with the usual "yeah, but BoxRec's record is incomplete"

 

I am sorry, but this debate for me is beginning to have the character of Flat Earth or birther debate. For the last time, I've cited a widely-read boxing book whose factual conclusions have been unchallenged that document statistical decline in the number of boxers in the U.S. That book cites primary sources, including US boxing commission reports. According to those reports, there were more fighters in the U.S. in the 1950s than there are now. Exponentially more. There's really not much more for me to do than to get the commission reports myself, xeroxing it, and then posting it. But that burden should not fall on me to waste time. If you truly doubt Silver's numbers and think he's making it up, then why don't you write to the commissions for the same very statistics he cites? I am really done with this.

 

Yes, you have been citing a book, written by the biggest hater of modern boxing, who will say anything to put down the present. But when I come up with actual numbers, that can be found on the internet, you think it's turning into something resembling a Flat Earth discussion!

I think, the number of boxers that have been active in different eras, is a very interesting topic - and one that I have been interested in for years. I don't really care which era had the most, or the fewest, boxers... but, like PhillyPhan69, I just want to know what is what! So I came on here in the hope of having a serious debate with you (among others) - but since this apparently isn't possible, I'll bother you no more.

 

Wait a second here, I thought the Earth was flat

 

Yeah, that's my take on it as well.

I would very much like to know, if the huge number of annual fights pre-WW2 is the result of a bigger talent pool - or did the boxers back then fight so often, that a smaller pool could create those numbers? That would be VERY interesting to find out - which is why it's such a pity, that BoxRec refuses to reveal this information!

 

Any idiot can find tons of earlier fights missing from the system in newspapers, and there were tons of fights that weren't even reported. Historical fights aren't boxrec's priority.

 

But what I'm saying is this:
For the year 1931 (busiest year, according to BoxRec), we can find 46,868 fights in BoxRec's database - compared to 26-27,000 in recent years. I want to know, if it took more or less boxers than we have today to produce that huge number.

This has nothing to do with incomplete records or missing fights!

 

Floyd wouldnt be stopped by Duran. NO WAY!!