If I had one of those "Easy" buttons, I would bring back the 70's in every way. You'd have so many boxing fans...watching 15 round title bouts with the true Greats of boxing on free tv that you'd never hear or care about this thing called "MMA".
You made nothing but excellent points here. Size does matter, and I not only would pick Pulev to beat Harris, I think he might well defeat Patterson, even as indifferent as he looked in his shot at Klitschko. Patterson fought no one anywere near Pulev's size. I never thought about how few fights (other than Rademacher, of course) Patterson's title opponents had. They were not an extremely experienced group. He was widely criticized for not defending against Machen, Folley, Valdes, and Williams. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Except I was responding to the claim that "The public gets a better product." I suppose that if the issue is could Klitschko and Pulev handle most of the much smaller champions and contenders of the past. Yes, they could. But, if the issue is if their fight was interesting at all, my answer would be no. It was a boring, clinch-filled fight enlivened only when Wlad landed a big one here or there. Harris, and even Rademacher, put on a better show, and frankly showed more. They at least could move around and box against an admittedly smaller opponent. My guess is the problem is that size matters a great deal, so much so that size more or less by itself can vault a rather mediocre heavyweight into contender status. Size wins their fights for them. But when they run into a opponent who matches them in size, but also has skill, they turn out to be pretty much hapless. The officiating didn't help. The referee was hollering "stop" the minute they got close. I think it might help if fighters were allowed to fight inside as they used to. I have seen some of Pulev's other fights, and I wasn't impressed there either. Unless old age caught up with Wlad quick, Pulev didn't have a shot. He isn't much of a boxer and isn't much of a puncher. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As for Patterson, he was not very well respected as a champion back in the day, and indeed some sportswriters were saying that he was worse than Carnera. His challengers were an unimpressive lot (Harris being one of the better ones) other than Ingo, until he fought Liston--and we know what happened then. In comparison, Klitschko is considered an all-time great, so a bit more is expected of him, fairly or unfairly.
"if the top men of 50 years ago had more fights than they do today--then there must have been more fights back then? And that fewer total fights that make up a career today is the result of fewer fights/fighters now? Really?" Sort of. What I would say that if the top fighters have many more fights, and the fighters who fought the top fighters have many more fights, and the fighters who fight the fighters who fought the top fighters, and on and on, have many more fights, it is a logical deduction that there were more fights. Now I think everyone agrees that the amount of fights which old timers had--let's say the 143 for Kid Gavilan--is probably fairly accurate. In other words, these stats are basically solid. Where do the stats which say there are more fights today actually come from? Can we see them to judge if they stand up and the proper conclusions are being drawn from them? I'm not saying they are wrong, only that I remain skeptical until I can study them. But there is a second, and perhaps more important point. If true, these stats appear to me to be meaningless. The key stat is how many fights there are between the top men. If it is true that the top men are not having very many fights but there are many more fights, then the issue is who is fighting whom? And does such a stat mean anything. I can only use an American an-logy--there are a lot more high school football games played than college games and there are a lot more college games played than professional games, but which is the best team is utterly determined by only the pro games. The pro teams play each other. If your stats are correct, they seem to be pointing to a system in which the pro teams generally avoid each other and pad their records by playing college and even high school teams. That would make it impossible to tell which is the best pro team. "I don't think, scarcity of possible opponents is one of them." I agree. The top men could be fighting other top men a lot more. This would certainly improve the current situation. And s--t in the past, such as the color line or the mob, if really no excuse for s--t today.
"if the top fighters have many more fights, and the fighters who fought the top fighters have many more fights, and the fighters who fight the fighters who fought the top fighters, and on and on, have many more fights, it is a logical deduction that there were more fights." I can certainly follow this line of reasoning! But with pro boxing spread to just about every corner of the world today, there must be thousands of boxers taking part in thousands of fights every year - without ever coming close to the top men. As I said, I can see your point - but, then again, I don't believe the number of fights engaged in by a group of champions/contenders will tell us anything about the activity - worldwide. The stats of course come from BoxRec's database. Are they correct? I have no idea! "Can we see them to judge if they stand up and the proper conclusions are being drawn from them?" You can of course study every fight they have listed, but how that will tell you whether or not the numbers are correct, I don't know. Are they missing some fights from the old days? Undoubtedly! And the further back in time, the more they are likely to be missing, I would ***ume. However, for there to have been more fights (than today), on an annual basis, in the 60s and 70s... more than half the total pro bouts back then would have to be missing from the database. Is this likely? Again, I don't know (though I doubt it!). Anyway, as you point out, those numbers don't say anything about the quality of boxing... whether one era was better or worse than another era. All they tell us, is the number of fights registered by BoxRec at a given time. Nothing more!
Clearly boxing has declined more in the US than anywhere else. *Part of it is probably due to fewer big American fighters but I think for the most part, as long as a fighter is exciting, it doesn't matter where he's from. * I remember being excited to see Nigel Benn for the first time because he was so hyped. Same with Prince Hamed. * I have an old boxing magazine from 1973 I think & it mentions how most of the champions are from countries other than the US & that's a "golden age". *I think most fans don't care as long as there are good matches. *A few great American talents would help though.* I think fear of the aftermath of a boxing career looms large today. Too many boxers showing up with slurred speech & other issues. *I remember seeing Bowe right after one of the Golata fights & I couldn't understand him. That was really jarring because he'd been fine not long before. It probably makes some fans uneasy & is on the minds of the fighters. *Thus you have an emphasis on defense like never before. Not many straight ahead sluggers anymore. The Kltichko's wouldn't be so boring if they had opponents that pressured them. EVERYONE stays on the outside looking to place their punches. It's similar to the 80's when you had plenty of good boxers but until Tyson, few sluggers. The difference is boxers today are more cautious I think. *Even when Wlad has completely outclassed his opponent, he he rarely opens up & goes for the kill. He sticks to the gameplan & wears the guy down. I watched a fight months ago where a boxer hurt his guy in the 2nd & had him staggering in the 3rd & he never went after him. The game is too cerebral now. Nobody unloads on anyone hardly. * Lack of network exposure hurts. I can find a fight online if I want to look but many won't bother. I don't want to work for it. I want to turn the tv on & it's just there. I used to watch up & coming boxers & mid level veterans on ESPN & USA. Top contenders & a some title fights were on the main networks. The champs & superstars fought on HBO. * I used to follow a guy on his way to the title. That's tougher to do now. I remember one week in 89 or 90 where I watched boxing on USA & ESPN, there was a fight Saturday on ABC, a Tyson fight that night on HBO, & boxing Sunday on CBS & NBC! * I don't think it's going away but boxing is a niche sport more than ever before in the US. *I grew up talking boxing at school in the 80's but never hear anyone speak of the sport today. *I could get coverage of big fights on local news. *I miss regular coverage on ESPN. The sport has evolved but I do miss the old days.*
I'm bored with and quite negative about most fighters today, but I'm impressed with Sergey Kovalev....I'm not sayinganything else about him except how impressively he ridded us of Bernard Hopkins. He was quite effective in fighting a very smart fight...one that I was almost certain that he was going to lose...ala Kelly Pavlik, and all those other mediocrities that Hopkins feasted on since then. He dumped Hopkins in that first round with one of the prettiest right hand counters that I've seen in quite a while, outside of JMM's right hand bomb that put the Pac man to sleep...It's much too soon to speculate how Kovalev would do against lightheavy greats of the past....so I'll wait and see how he does i n subsequent bouts. I don't see anyone else, even his Russian rival Berbichev (whatever)...or anyone else.
There are a lot of top notch fighters around today. One thing about having better medical care, more knowledge of the body and training, better fight selection and pacing of a career is that fighters' primes seem to last longer. Merely look at the presence of Wlad, Floyd, JMM and until recently Hop at the top of the ranks. Thus, we get more and better cross-generational fights, not just a washed up old timer against an up and comer.
You are so sour! Do football fans wish there was no basketball? Why are you so threatened by MMA? How does it effect you or the sport of boxing?
I wish there was no fighting at all and then this would be a chess forum, with Bobby Fischer ducking karpov, taking the place of Dempsey ducking Wills. We would have Carl****s, Kasporo***uals, and Anandiots. We would argue that Sultan Khan was the greatest player of his generation, and burt would insist that Jose Capablanca would beat any computer system today. Senior Pepe would spout conspiracy theories about Mikhail Botvinik. Petrosian or Karpov would be a Whitaker/Locche debate with Mante insisting that Andersson was the best defender. Senya would post about obscure western greats and be a huge Paul Morphy fan. RC would be a huge Fischer fan. McGrain would admit he's Irish. BE would make jokes in algebraic notation. You would school me in go. The world would be a better place.
Amen to the above, and their were 5 times or more the amount of fighters licensed in the USA and Britain, practicing their trade in myriads of fight clubs, where the top boxers averaged over 100 or more bouts, spawning in general greater fighters in the 8 divisions than todays alphabet champions...Little Red if I am accused of being a sentimentalist, well I wear that badge proudly. And for a slight example of the early 1940s lightweight division of fighters, most all who've I was fortunate to see ringside fighting each other monthly abouts, their were Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Sammy Angott, Henry Armstrong [still fighting], Willy Joyce, Freddie Dawson, Al Bummy Davis, Eric Boone, [didn't see from Britain],Tippy Larkin, and other top experienced lightweights ,plying their trade at the same time...So if I laud the old days when boxing was a major sport, I do so on firm grounds...cheers from ye auld oldtimer...