Mike Silver's NEW Article..

People have been writing about the demise of boxing since Sullivan .. it is what it is ...

 

When you can put out a book, where it is claimed that Rocky Graziano would beat Hagler (and other assorted nonsense)... you do not deserve to be taken seriously!

 

I don't get, why some people are so obsessed with the number of pro fights a boxer has under his belt. Why does this matter? Shouldn't it be about how good you are?

Loma and Rigo were probably at their absolute best after only about a dozen (give or take a few) pro fights. Same with Usyk. All three brilliant boxers.

Oh, and let's not forget Inoue - another exceptional modern boxer with, so far, very few paid bouts. With so few fights, would they be seen as no more than journeymen/beginners in a "better" era - lucky to maybe get a down-the-bill 8-rounder on a big promotion, like Mr. Silver suggests? I don't think so!

 

You need proxies for ability when comparing eras. Pro fight numbers aren't bad as one such proxy among many. People tend to get better at doing things with experience, and pro fights are one type of experience.

Also, didn't Usyk have a long amateur career?

 

Also, I've been intermittently reading "The Arc of Boxing," and it makes some interesting points. Very well argued at times, but inconsistent, in the way that you get if you decide on your conclusion first and work backwards.

 

Indeed he had - as did Rigo and Loma. Which you of course already know!

My point is, that all three were more or less the finished article when they turned pro - and just needed the experience of a few fights over the longer distance, before they were ready to take on the world. Surely 30-40 "learning" fights against mediocre opposition, would be a waste of time!

 

Eh, my memory isn't perfect, and I'm lazy, so it's more economical to make sure by checking with my interlocutor at the same time I make a point.

 

Also, it's an interesting question whether 30-40 "mediocre" fights would be worth it. The pro game is still different from the amateurs, the experience of boxing in the pro ranks is different, and even a "mediocre" pro is probably good at something that you and your coaches can learn from and improve afterwards.

However, the economics don't seem to support that type of experience anymore, so the best option is probably a long amateur career.

 

Being from Denmark, my English is far from perfect - and today I certainly learned a new word! "Interlocutor", which I had to google... so thanks for broadening my vocabulary!

 

Great article...Mike Silver told it like it is....Perfect!!!

 

I've been watching boxing since 1963...after reading some of your answers to Silver's article....dumbing down seems to be rampart here! Amazing!