The evolution of boxing

So you don't think that in the old days when someone who knows talent when they saw it wouldn't try to steer a obvious physical specimen towards boxing ??? of course they did.... but of course this means the guy needs to have cahunas. There are certainly less americans and Australians boxing now.... Listen to what Burt wrote earlier mate, he knows his stuff

 

Greg, some posters who spout out such wrong nonsense that there are more fighter today than in the 1930s,1940s and 1950s are so damn wrong...They should research, before they post utter rubbish. I truly cannot respond to such false utterances...Before TV in America and England, Canada and Australia, there were at least 5 times the amount of pro fighters, averaging a bout a month in hundreds of fight clubs scattered in every state in the USA.
The top pro fighters averaged from 125 bouts or more in their careers...
And doubters who know zilch about the glorious history of boxing, try reading about boxing's great past. And if experience is not important to ultimate boxing skills acquired in the old days, well why is their 4 years of college
instead of but ONE year ???. ciao...

 

Bradman.... he is still the record holding batsman and he has held that record average for over 65 years now....as AC/DC once sang..... Shot Down In Flames.

 

And the bigger the man the more advantage he has.

They need the extra weight to compete, that's why they bulk up.

The gloves are a non issue for me. The tempo could be something but when you think of how big Willard was for 20 rounds I'm not sure it's as big an issue as you make out, but I could be wrong on this.

Because when Lewis had it all on the line against Tyson and Rahman he was in the best shape he could physically get in. I don't see why he would be much lighter half a decade earlier.

My point about Tucker was more that in an era with prime Tyson and prime Holy hardly anyone would succeed consistently.

Yes I think Lewis would be as big as he was in the 40's. Whether he would have a trainer who knew how to utilise his strengths is another matter.

 

Yes, I do think they would do that. The problem is, there are many more top athletes to do that with now, as opposed to before. Think of it this way, if you have a small school, they are usually grouped athletically with other small schools, while larger schools are grouped with larger schools. Its because by sheer size alone, they have a great talent base, and it wouldn't be fair to make the smaller school compete with them, they would almost always lose.

 

Maybe more amateurs, that stats I saw were about professionals. What you ask will take more hours than I have tonight, my information was from a 1950 boxing magazine that had every name of every single registered pro boxer in Australia at the time. You just don't get the fact that boxing was way BIGGER back then, now die to pay per view very few people even see the sport compared to the old days. Ray Robinson vs La Motta for instance was free tv so more watched it. I rarely watch boxing today because I refuse to pay through the nose for it. I repeat.... Marciano... ALI, ... Louis were household names.... Klitschko are far from that.

 

Uh, no. I don't claim to now that sport, but I know enough to guess that would be like saying Marciano has the ko record for HW champs. Its based off of competition, it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

Uh, no. You are making the completely irrational claims. You should therefore do the research.

 

There you go. Doesn't matter about how many professionals. Like I said, the cream rises to the top.

And Marciano and Ali were household names in the US and Australia, Wlad is in Germany and Ukraine. But that's neither here nor there as far as this conversation goes. Jesse Owens has a way bigger legacy than any other sprinter since his time, but Bolt would run laps around him

 

I've explained above why its better than in 1940

 

Thanks Burt, thing is I, like you are saying that what guys like andrew claim is wrong... he made the claim but wants me to do his research for him, it usually is up to the claimant to prove his case... You are so right, I know it and you know it, maybe cos we have been around for a long time although you have been around longer than me, as for myself, I listen to those who were there before me, I don't dismiss what they say as readily as these youngsters do. I have made enough posts on this thread.

 

Andrew I am starting to find you insulting, to Burt and to me, you have proved nothing except the fact that you value your opinion so high you can't listen to reason. This quote above of yours to Burt is unacceptable.

 

Once again you are not proving or debating anything, just making statements.

 

The problem is all you and he are doing is "saying" I am wrong. You don't have valid rational arguments to back your assertions up. You make the claim, that despite the massive growth of the worlds population, despite the greater penetration of boxing into markets its never had, there are fewer people participating. That puts the impetus on you to back it up.