registered boxers. bigger numbers, better fighters?

That's a no brainer :think

 

If Australia was in dreary cold/freezing Russia would we still be so dominant at swimming ? Of course we wouldn't. The more people competing then the higher chance that better people will come through at the particular sport.

 

I think regardless Darcy would probably clean out jnrmiddle-supermiddle, even if the talent pool was that big today...He was just a great natural fighter.

Russia still goes alright in swimming actually Francis, they have been right at the top or winning the European championships over the last few years...Alexander Popov, Pruilkov, Kuznetsov, Prozumenshchikova come to mind.

 

Take a look at the books.... In the past, having guys with career fights totalling 50+ bouts, yet winning a state title at best, suggests better schooling, better matches, higher competition, and the chance for guys to fight for pay as a career. Guys would often fight 2 times in a particular week, 20-30 times in a year... just making money.

The greater numbers of fighters would allow for a greater number of promotions. The greater number of promotions doesn't affect the number of champions, just ensures CHAMPS have to genuine champs, in order to retain their belts against contenders with true ring craft.

 

After my first 6 fights I was only beaten once by Lawrence Austin on points yet I found my self rated a class 4 fighter and number 168 in Australia at lightweight.

 

The 25 pro bouts it took for the right to fight for the Vic title speaks volumes for the fighters of your time also.

25 bouts is a career today.

:good

 

Wow...there wouldnt be anymore then 35-40 dedicated lightweights in oz today I reckon.

Really puts things into perspective.

 

In the early 70s they had boxing on TV 3 times a week.
TV Ringside on 7
Channel O fight niight on channel O.
Fight of the week on TCN 9 in Sydney we would get a delayed telecast on GTV9
I was lucky enough to fight on 3 of them but
I never achieved what one fighter did and he was the only boxer to achieve it.
He fought on all 4 stations.[thats all there were in the 70s]
A bit on trivia here.

Who was the only fighter who fought on all 4 TV stations?

 

A pot shot.... Mundine snr.

 

You are wrong there WAR.
I do the victorian ratings and there is only one lightweight rated in Victoria and his name is Bhaskar Sinha... and that should tell you how wrong........

 

The quality/ability level of boxing title-holders across the board has diminished for a few reasons IMO:

1/ Less fighters competing (particularly, but not only in Oz).
2/ Relatively easy modern life-styles mean there's less people with no other alternative in life than to pull on the gloves in the hope of fortune & fame, and leave poverty behind.
3/ People (on average at least) are 'softer' than in earlier times when you commonly had to roll up your sleeves and bust your butt for long days in the sun in order to earn a living. Compare that to sitting at a computer screen all day - not exactly the best cross-training available for boxers.
4/ There are such an abundance of alphabet titles available these days if you don't hold one or two you ought to be ashamed. As highlighted by Old Man earlier, in days gone by you actually earned rankings & titles. These days there's a belt or two for everyone who pulls on a glove!

There will always be needles in the haystack that bob up regardless of all of the above. But just not in as plentiful numbers as in days gone by.

 

Sorry Flamengo but No.......and it will be No to your first 4 answers.