Today's talent pool is considered by most to be rather shallow. Wlad Klitschko is by far the best heavyweight, and few people rate him above B+. The Middleweight division has two decent fighters by most people's standards, and other divisions fair little better. But is this really the case or are we just deluded by nostalgia? Sports nostalgia, in which fans believe the current talent pool is awful and contains few or zero all time greats, seems to occur in every popular sport. Many of these sports, such as baseball, basketball, and boxing had their golden ages between 1960 and 2000. I just find it hard to believe that consistently across nearly all non racing sports the talent pool is poor. Aren't our training methods today better than in the past? Don't we better knowledge of nutrition? Can't fighters have longer careers now? Can't modern fighters build of the mistakes of previous greats by looking at footage that didn't used to exist? With all these modern advantages, it doesn't make much sense for our decade of boxing to be worse than the previous 6 decades.
Poor talent pool in boxings case, sports nostalgia in most other sports. Training hasn't changed much, still gotta run, spar, and throw straight punches. Nutrition has changed, but its not like old boxers didn't know the basics of healthy and not healthy, all its really done is move fighters into lower weight classes and made HW's bigger. # of participants in boxing in 1960 > # now # of particpants in most other sports in 1960 < # now.
This comes from the horses mouth. Matchmakers who have been in the game for twenty and thirty years are saying that the talent pool is much more shallow. There is no two ways about this. It's a fact.
What's your source for this? U.S. and Western Europe populations are bigger (e.g. so a smaller % participation could sustain the same total numbers in theory). Add in the Eastern Euros and you could have decent talent pools overall. Are there reliable statistics on the total number of amateur/pro boxers in a given year (going back historically)?
Makes sense especially at higher weights. Any really good athelete with decent size would be better served pursuing other more lucrative sports. The small guys don't have as many options (seen any 5'9 football, basketball, baseball players? not many).
There is a poor talent pool, but it's only in the USA. The bigger, better, stronger dudes with the better "genes" are all from eastern Europe, with the exception of maybe Peter.
Skills have eroded, its the reason guys in their 40's and mid thritys are still in it. In the old days there was so much talent, the young guns woud brutalize the old but with todays shallow talent pool old guys only need to be in condition and the wily veterans get to hang around. Back in the day the young guns couldnt wait to crush a has been today hasbeens go nip and tuck and get paid enormous sums for their sparring sessions examples Fenech vs Azumah or Jones vs Tito or the upcoming travesty Calzaghe vs Jones
Good post, I think the Heavyweight division is clearly the worst it's been in many years, a glimpse at the top 10 will make anyone shake there head and go back to watching old tapes from the 90's again. I think what makes it even worse for fans, is that there is also no personality at Heavyweight what so ever, aside from Haye and his antics, and a Sam Peter rant here or there, you have nothing, which any good promoter will tell you, hype is just as important, if not more important than the fight itself, guys like Tyson and even Mayweather more recently knew that and would do certain things to get the average persons attention. I just want to see a fighter with some good talent, and a mouth that could attract the average guy, only Haye seems to fit the bill at Heavyweight.
