More competitive bouts in the past because of the big bets they drew?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Gunboat, Nov 13, 2016.


  1. Gunboat

    Gunboat Member Full Member

    294
    16
    Oct 20, 2015
    I understand it's far more nuanced than this.

    But is it a good rule of thumb that in the past (especially first 50 years of the 20th century) gambling was more prominent—ran by the mob, maybe?—thus creating a bigger market for competitive bouts to bet big on?

    Thanks.
     
    Gunboat, Nov 13, 2016
    Gunboat, Nov 13, 2016
    #1
  2. KO KIDD

    KO KIDD Loyal Member Full Member

    31,464
    7,406
    Oct 5, 2009
    possibility

    I honestly feel the path to success has become wider and more varied.

    17 weights with 4 or so world champs really dilutes the sport

    I mean a guy winning 3 titles at 3 weights was unprecedented that was for guys like Armstrong and Arguello. Now a guy like Broner does it

    its so easy for fighters to avoid the best. 1 title and 8-10 weights would force these guys to face each other

    current hwt division has parker vs ruiz jr for the WBO title and a fight like Joshua vs Martin for the IBF belt and stuff like that. In the 60's or 70's that was a fight to get into the top 10 or move toward a title fight while a title fight would be between say Wilder and Joshua while Parker and Ruiz would be fighting to crack the top 5 and still maybe require a win over a guy like a Povetkin or a recently beaten Klitschko to earn the big fight
     
    KO KIDD, Nov 13, 2016
    KO KIDD, Nov 13, 2016
    #2
  3. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,739
    3,432
    Feb 17, 2008
    That's right. Now add the second part of the equation---once a champ you have to defend against those guys. Sure is convenient in modern times when title holders are not recognized by the other organizations.
     
    zadfrak, Nov 16, 2016
    zadfrak, Nov 16, 2016
    #3