Im talking about the older guys who had records of like 251-31.. did they have amateurs back then? because if you look at a guy like yuriokis gamboa or floyd mayweather (First guys to come to my head) they had tremendous amateur records.... im pretty sure they both had 200+ fights.. if you added those fights to their regular records they would have similar records to those old guys... just a question and some food for thought..
Yes, they did have amateurs back then, but there are other reasons for the differences in the common comparison between records of past and present fighters. One of the main differences was the regularity with which they were fighting in comparison to their more pampered modern day counterparts. Fighters weren't getting protected on the way up, they were generally getting thrown to the wolves in order to build up in-ring experience. They weren't relying on months of sparring and gym work for a single fight, they were actually doing the deed, fighting multiple times per month (and sometimes per week) in order to stay in shape and fighting form. That's also a reason you'll see classic fighters criticized for fighting so many bums, without taking into consideration that the vast majority of them were just tune-ups to stay active.
They had amateurs. Most fighters back then had it hard coming up and needed the money that the pros provided. Mayweather only had 70 or 80 amateur fights by the way.
Yes, they had amateurs. Though a lot of those older guys didn't have that many amateur fights and were still learning the trade when they turned professional, and therefore have a lot of losses including at the beginning of their careers, and obviously they fought ridiculously often.
Alot of them back in the old days were fighting to eat...so they fought more often.. fight game has changed..
