What Advantages Did The Old Time Fighters Have, Over Todays Guys?

How on earth would I be able to know for certain, that all fighters with an active status in 1930 fought during that year. I agree, that they are likely missing a lot of fighters... but why would they add someone to the active list, who didn't belong there? Just for fun, or what?

Why would I think, that an unrated journeyman fighter with just one fight per year, would make enough money in that single outing to make a living - when most top boxers needed several fights to earn that kind of money? Why are you saying silly things like that? Obviously a low level, one-fight nobody, would have another job, besides boxing, in order to make ends meet.

And for the umpteenth time - yes, top boxers from back in the day fought much more often than today. Everybody knows that. For you to think that anyone here on Classic needs that to be explained to him... is just plain stupid.

My first post in this thread was #28. Fergy had just said, that 3 or 4 fights a year for the oldtimers would be peanuts - to which I responded, that this was probably close to the annual average for boxers way back in the day. Fergy shot back with a "Id have thought a good few more tbh".

Ever since that first exchange with Fergy my ONLY goal here has been to prove, that those 3-4 fights for the average fighter back then, weren't completely wrong. AT NO POINT have I tried to get into a discussion about the top boxers of the old days - or the advantages they might have had.

So what exactly is my crime? Where have I changed the goalposts? And what claims of mine in this thread have been "comprehensively disproved"? I'd like to know.

 

How about if you lose you just leave forever?

If you win you can still leave to.

 

Boxrec was founded in the late 90's/early 2000's. Its staff look for records of fights from previous eras and add to their site once found and verified.

You acknowledge that world rated, and just below, boxers fought with a frequency many times that of today's fighters.

My previous analysis showed an average of 10.45 fights in 1930 for 40 x rated fighters. Therefore, for the average of all boxers to be 3.3 fights that year, and assuming that data to be accurate, the number of contests recorded on boxrec for low level, unrated boxers, obviously averaged substantially less than the top, rated fighters. Bearing that in mind, i have a genuine question for you, which do you think is more likely?:

1) Low level fighters in the 1930s, earning less per fight than rated fighters, fought substantially less often, on average, than rated fighters; OR

2) The % of records of fights contested by 2 x low level, unrated boxers, that occured in the 1930s, that have been accessed and verified by Boxrec, is substantially lower than that of fights involving famous, ranked fighters?

 

What are steel leaves?

 

The blissful irony of making a typo, when trying to take the **** out of someone for making a typo

 

You fell right into the 3D chess trap that I set for delfadeel.

 

1) I think there can be little doubt, that low level fighters in the 1930s fought, on average, MUCH less frequently than the top guys.

2) I also think it's much more likely for a low level fight, between two unknowns, to never catch the attention of BoxRec - than it is for fights between famous, ranked fighters. Obviously!

 

Which resulted in more experience and seeing more styles.

 

Flawed data doesn’t mean it would skew in the direction of more fights per fighter, though.

To use small, round numbers: If tomorrow 100 more fights from 1930 were discovered, it could be that many of those participants were guys who had one fight, got the tar beat out of them and found an easier way to make a living … that seems more likely to me than finding two dozen more Maxie Rosenbloom fights that were previously undiscovered because people are much more likely to research, and have already discovered, fights by high-profile fighters. Whereas who is looking to see if Joe Smith of Toledo ever had one fight and then quit the sport.

 

Tim Witherspoon did say on the podcast that was posted here that many boxing gyms he has been too, boxing is being taught by unqualified trainers so to speak was his take on it

 

Of coorse that's troo

 

1) Why do you think that is?

2) I agree.

Anyway, many posters have postulated on this thread that boxers (all will have meant rated/accomplished fighters who made their living from the sport) in previous eras have advantages over their counterparts today because they fight far more often. I'm glad we seem to have established that you agree they did fight with far greater frequency.

 

Of course, in theory that is correct. A couple of questions, if you may:

1) Do you think the OP was referring to rated/top fighters when posing the question in the thread title? Or at least full time professional boxers? We can ask if you're unsure.
2) Do you think boxers who made their full time living from professional boxing fought far more often in 1930, than their counterparts do today?

 

In some respect it's the same as having a lot of amateur fights. You see many different styles as an amateur and have to adapt on the fly .