The evolution of boxing

No, he has Putin in his corner !!!

 

No, as has already been explained, the 107123 was reached on October 23 last year; a couple of months shy of the halfway mark of this decade... which, at the goin rate, probably will end up around 220,000. So there's no sudden, sharp decline over the past few years! On the contrary, there has been a very clear increase since the numbers bottomed out in the 60s and 70s.

 

You cant take the records from the 60 or 70s as anywhere near indicative of the total number of fights from these decades. How many lower level fighters will have fought, but not on Boxrec. Likewise, even from 20 years ago, the internet has grown massively into the mainstream and i daresay boxing community. I doubt many fights if any slip through the net. 20 or even 10 years ago, there would have been plenty of fights not recorded on boxrec. It is a good guide to the top fighters, but this about it, it doesnt really tell us anything useful.

 

What you seem to miss andrewa1, is that 'boxing' in it's various guises throughout history has been not just a 'sport' but a life-and-death situation for some.
Regardless of the points you raise, and underlining you do, other posters come from different angles and judge footage of fighters differently.
PEDs, world records, nutrition etc are unsteady supports for your argument.

 

Thought the US population HAS increased, the NBA, MLB and NFL did not drain off athletes as they do now, nor did track, wrestling, etc. Boxing was behind only baseball in the 30's, and baseball didnt have black or hispanic players. Also almost every young boy in those days boxed at some point in their life, whether organized or not. MOST dont now. Its possible that the pool in the US is actually smaller than it was, it certainly is as a %

 

There are 320 million people in the United States, the pool of athletes for those sports only number in the thousands. There are millions of people available to choose a profession. I disagree that boxing is losing people. Even if the percentage of people going in to boxing is smaller, the raw numbers would be more.

 

??????? what are you talking about ??????? pretty sure I held the opposite view here but.... whatever

 

.............. ................ ......................

 

I am still right about there being more fighters in the 20's and 30's... and more rounds per fight:bbb

 

:hellohi:hellohi:hellohi:finger

 

Ha ha, sorry there greg, got mixed up. I've edited the above.
You are quite right.

 

Some say today's fighters use better techniques.

What they don't realize is that a lot of fighters use old-school techniques. For example, Floyd Mayweather and James Toney use the shoulder roll, which is an old shcool technique. Mike Tyson used the peek-a-boo stance, another old-school technique. Also, Bernard Hopkins has been very successful in his career by using old-school techniques.

 

the raw numbers are falling.


muhammed ali is probably the greatest advertised athlete ever - and ironically hes become the greatest incentive to avoid the sport. noone wants to end up like him. People dont want to pro box as much.

 

evolution is just fitting in with the current rules/environement best - it has NEVER meant "getting better". It just means a better fit to the way things are currently.

A human is no more evolved than an amoeba in its bestfit environment.

boxing is just the same as every other evolution/"bestfit", its not an exception. those arguing that its better than ever are the ones making the false claim and clearly dont know what evolution is. They probably see the word "evolution" in car/sports adverts that want to sell them stuff, and assume that dumbarz advertisers know what it means so they follow their meaning. blind leading the blind.

 

i think ali had a big effect on boxing's popularity to mainstream viewers but less to actual participation.