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

**

No, I don't want you to examine a lot of records - that won't be necessary. The numbers are already there for all to see on BoxRec.

For example, in 1930 (the busiest year ever), we find that the boxers listed as active in their database, had an average of 3.3 fights during that year. This is for all boxers! So if it includes all those with a very busy schedule (some of which have already been mentioned here), imagine how few fights the average journeyman must haver had, to bring the number down to 3.3.

My point with all this is, that I don't bye into the myth, that back in the day most boxers had a ****load of fights... in which they accumulated the kind of experience, modern boxers can only dream of. This simply isn't true!

 

And there it is, the reason for steering everything to the so called journeymen. You're going to awfully cunning lengths.

The fact of the matter is the top 10's and champs fought far more often on the whole then the top 10's of today. They did indeed accumulate the kind of experience modern boxers can only dream of, for better or worse health wise. One only needs to look at the number of fights they had vs years.

Let's look at the number #1 rated guys from your chosen year of 1930.

Jack Sharkey - 2 fights
Maxie Rosenbloom - 13 fights
Mickey Walker - 15 fights
Jackie Fields - 13 fights
Mushy Callahan - 1 fight (lost and retired for a while)
Sammy Mandel - 13 fights
Benny Bass - 15 fights
Battling Battalino - 16 fights
Bushy Graham - 9 fights
Black Bill - 13 fights

This trend would continue all the way thru the top 10's on the whole. The simple fact of the matter is that the top fighters had far more fights than the guys of today. You can go back to the year pre covid too. If you want to look at some silly stat of average fights per year across all pro's as something disproving the claims of guys like TWE you're just not going to come out looking very good.

 

Where do you get the average of 3.3. fights from? Even if correct, I suspect it's influenced by the incomplete records on Boxrec of low profile fighters, particularly from countries with less than stellar record keeping back in 1930.

Either way, when asking the question in the thread title, I suspect the OP was referencing at the elite level.

World class fighters in 1930 demonstrably fought substantially more frequently that their counterparts do, today.

Here are the Top 5 ranked fighters by the NBA in 1930 & the number of fights they had in 1930, compared to the Top 5 fighters as currently ranked by magazine & the number of fights they had in 2022. Fighter on the left is always from 1930:

Heavyweight:
1) 1930 Max Schmeling = 1; 2022 Oleksandr Uysk = 1
2) Young Stribling = 11; Tyson Fury = 2
3) Primo Carnera = 26; Deontay Wilder = 2
4) Jack Sharkey = 2; AJ = 1
5) Tuffy Griffith = 11; Zhilei Zhang = 2
Average - 1930 = 10.2; 2022 = 1.6

Light Heavyweight:
1) Maxie Rosenbloom = 13; Dimtri Bivol = 2
2) Jimmy Slattery = 6; Arhtur Beterviev = 1
3) Larry Johnson = 9; Callum Smith = 1
4) Lou Scozza = 7; Gilberto Ramierez = 2
5) Pete Latzo = 8; Anthony Yarde = 1
Average - 1930 = 8.6; 2022 = 1.4

Middleweight:

1) Dave Shade = 12; GGG = 2
2) Rene DeVos = 5; Zhanibek Alimkhanuly = 2
3) Len Harvey = 6; Carlos Adames = 1
4) Harry Smith = 19; Liam Smith = 2
5) George Courtney = 11; Erislandy Lara = 1
Average - 1930 = 10.6; 2022 = 1.6

Welterweight:
1) Tommy Freeman = 11; Errol Spence Jnr = 1
2) Young Corbett III = 7; Terrence Crawford = 1
3) Jimmy McLarnin = 4; Jaron Ennis = 1
4) Jackie Fields = 13; Virgil Ortiz Jnr = 1
5) Young Jack Thompson = 10; Eimantos Santos = 1
Average - 1930 = 9; 2022 = 1

Lightweight:
1) Al Singer = 8; Devin Haney = 2
2) Louis Kaplan = 8; Vasyl Lomachencko = 1
3) King Tut = 14; Gervonta Davis = 1
4) Justo Suarez = 9; Isaac Cruz = 2
5) Billy Petrolle = 16; Ryan Garcia = 2
Average - 1930 = 11; 2022 = 1.6

Featherweight:
1) Battling Battalino = 16; Luis Lopez = 3
2) Kid Chocolate = 12; Rey Vargas = 1
3) Fidel LaBarba = 11; Leigh Wood = 1
4) Earl Mastro = 6; Brandon Figueroa = 1
5) Eddie Shea = 20; Robeisy Rameriez = 3
Average - 1930 = 13; 2020 = 1.8

Bantamweight:
1) Panama Al Brown = 15; Jason Maloney = 3
2) Kid Francis = 7; Emmanuel Rodriguez = 2
3) Gregorio Vidal = 7; Nonito Donnaire = 1
4) Harry Fiero = 8; Gary Russel Jnr = 1
5) Pete Sanstol = 12; Alejandro Santiago = 3
Average - 1930 = 9.8; 2022 = 2

Flyweight:
1) Frankie Genraro = 13; Sunny Edwards = 2
2) Widget Wolgast = 15; Julio Cesar Martinez = 2
3) Black Bill = 14; Artem Dalakin = 0
4) Phil Tobias = 6; Jesse Rodriguez = 3
5) Frenchy Belanger = 9; Angel Ayala Lardizabal = 2
Average - 1930 = 11.4; 2022 = 1.8

Do you still believe it's a "myth, that back in the day most boxers had a ****load of fights... in which they accumulated the kind of experience, modern boxers can only dream of"?

 

Yes, of course the top boxers back in the day, fought more often than today. But my point is, that we have always been told, that the old-timers (not just the top men) were so much more experienced than today's boxers. And why have we been told this? Obviously in an attempt to make the old-timers look like these tough, hardened fighters - compared to today's sissies. I guess, I'm just getting tired of this biased view of things.

But you, John, I have always seen as a pretty sensible, fair poster. Does it not bother you in the least, to see modern boxers routinely being ridiculed/belittled? Stuff like today's boxers being "fancy dancing prima donnas", "having asthma attacks going 10 rounds"... not to speak of the ridiculous idea that Lomachenko would have been "just an opponent in the old days". Or do you actually agree with sentiments like these?

 

So John & Greg have done what I couldn't be arsed to do & nailed down some facts & you still continue to talk out of your little brown hole. Give it up son your making a right tit of yourself.

 

No computer or cell phone distractions.

 

You're right. It was Davey Day that started the lightweight follies in 1940 when Lou Ambers refused to fight for the Ltwt title. The NBA stripped Ambers of his title. The NYSAC stayed Ambers title. The NYSAC with Mike Jacobs, chose Lew Jenkins a 4th rated fighter to be matched with Ambers. Lew Jenkin's manager was Hymie Caplin, who was Mike Jacobs fight promoter. Al Weill manager of Lou Ambers said "Let Jenkins fight Dav first. Caplin replied we fight better at night than Day. The NBA selected Angott 2nd rated fighter to be matched with Day for the NBA lightweight title. Jenkins and Angott were the lightweight champs. Day beat Angott prior to his match in Louisville for lightweight title.

 

It doesn't worry me to the point of where i go off on what is a pretty disingenuous route. You've intentionally skewed things in an extremely biased way. I get your frustration, you're a modernista on a forum dedicated to the old timers. It's the nature of the beast. Normally you use a lot of common sense and cruise along quietly but on this occasion you've taken on an established fact and tried to not only run against it but run against it hard. You went at TWE quite strongly which is why i had the inclination to join the discussion. You admit it's (TWE's view) 100% true in your first sentence above. You will also find an in depth analysis will put the massive majority of guys just under and quite a bit under top level much busier as well. There's just no going against it. You will get plenty of guys pushing that today's fighters have it easy compared to yesterday and in most ways they are dead right. I personally subscribe to the notion that the amount of times they fought made them extremely good at it and gave them an advantage on the whole. You can watch oodles of boxers today and see a lot of them lack the skills of many of the guys from yesteryear. Some don't, there's some very skilful fighters about at the top like Fury, Loma, Canelo, GGG. Inoue etc. There's some big bangers too of course.

It doesn't really. I mean, many times i have chuckled to myself at some of the posts that come out (some will indeed give ZERO quarter) but then i see loads and loads of ridiculous posts favoring the moderns too. So there's silly views both ways and again, it's the Classic forum so there's going to be a bit of skewing toward the past.

Lomachenko would be a fine fighter in any era as would plenty of others. He certainly wouldn't have been an opponent. Would he have been as successful as he has been? Probably not one would think. There are also plenty of fighters today showing very ordinary stamina. On the flipside there are quite a few showing good stamina. Canelo does have a habit of tiring a bit but he also went well earlier over 12 against GGG.

A question back at you, to in turn, gauge where you yourself sit. So tell me, how many of today's guys do you see beating the below under some sort of idealised scenario regarding weights. I am pinpointing the start of 1982 and exactly what career stage the below guys were at i.e. i am not picturing them 3 years forward or 3 years back etc i am picturing them as they were at the start of 82. Hell, i could give you the last 5 years to choose from.

Larry Holmes
Michael Spinks
Marvin Hagler
Thomas Hearns
Sugar Ray Leonard
Aaron Pryor
Alexis Arguello
Cornelius Boza Edwards
Salvador Sanchez
Wilfredo Gomez
Jeff Chandler
Hilario Zapata

Virtually every one of these guys were prime.

 

A chance to recover. Most fights nowadays would be stopped before they had that luxury!

 

The old Timers were willing to fight for any amount of money to feed their loved ones, they trained as though their life depended on it. There was no whining and sniveling like today. Fighters in present times cry for millions, it is like they cannot afford anything nice, they never learned how to be practical with their money, poor money choices I would have to say. The older era fighters took pride in their work, going to the gym, sparring, getting into great shape, not relying on the almighty syringe to juice their muscles and strength. Most of the past fighters behaved like mature athletes, not these juvenile delinquent rejects always running afoul of the law. The fighters from the past were good examples to the youth of America and the world.

 

Of course I don't think a lot of today's fighters would beat your 1982 line-up. Some of the greatest fighters of all time are in that group.

So you want to gauge where I sit myself? How many times have I said here on Classic, that I see no improvement since the late 30s and early 40s - where I feel boxing had become fully "modern"? Have I not said this over and over again? And I don't believe, I have ever claimed that today's boxers are better than the old-timers. That's not what I'm arguing... I'm arguing against them being complete trash, as some people here will have us believe. I don't think that is true at all!

A few quotes of mine, from this forum:

"Skill-wise, boxing hasn't significantly changed in the last 80 years".

"Tony Canzoneri was an amazing boxer."

"Joe Louis' short, powerful combinations is a thing of beauty"

"Tommy Burns, on the other hand, is a pleasant surprise! Once again not a lot of film to go by - but he doesn't look all that bad for his time, if you ask me."

"Ross, McLarnin look very good... as do Tunney and Canzoneri, just to mention a few. In the late 30s Louis took heavyweight boxing to a whole new level, and by the early 40s we of course have Pep and Robinson, who (imo) were both the "finished product", so to speak. I don't see anyone taking boxing to another level since then."

How does the above make me a "modernista"?


By the way, I'd like to know more about this (a link to this analysis would be greatly appreciated):
You will also find an in depth analysis will put the massive majority of guys just under and quite a bit under top level much busier as well. There's just no going against it.

 

Fair call. It was a helluva era.

Mate i just wanted to see where you sat on some picks new vs old, nothing more. You are far more modernista than old timer lets get that straight. Your far far far more passionate when trying to defend the moderns. It's ok, it takes various opinions and slants to balance things.

There is no analysis. I said "will put" not "put". Isn't it disgustingly obvious enough already that this is the case? I plucked 10 guys under the top level out before and barring extenuating circumstances the lowest was 9 fights for the year and most were 13-16 fights.

I tell you what, you go and do some work of your own and dig up some numbers on current fighters under the top 10 level but still likely to get a fight with top 10 fighters and we will crunch the numbers.

 

So there isn't really any analysis? It was just something you put out there, because it fits your agenda... ok, I get it.

The bottom line is this:
For the year 1930, 30,006 active boxers can be found in BoxRec's database. They took part in a total of 49,612 pro fights... which means, that the average number of fights for those 30,006 men comes to 3.3 (3.3068 to be exact) during that year.

Now we already know, that among the top boxers there were many with a lot of fights. Also among those not in the absolute top, we can find loads with big numbers.

Now suppose we remove the top 1% (300) with the most fights - is it then not "disgustingly obvious", that the remaining 99% of the active fighters couldn't have had a very busy schedule, during the year in question? I mean, if we're gonna land on 3.3 as the average for all boxers... then it doesn't take a math genius to figure out, that the VAST majority must, on average, have had very few fights. Would you not agree with this?

 

NO, the data is INCOMPLETE the further back you go... BoxRec themselves point this out.

what is true of any Era or timeframe is, people mostly do as others do.

so in the Boom Years of Boxing, or Prizefighting, say 1910s - 60s, with Fight Clubs & Small Hall Venues everywhere, Fair Grounds, Barn fights, fields & pastures in undisclosed locations - Money, Purse and the Backers (the Moneymen), was the attraction... Fighters, good or bad, Top Fighters or Club Fighters competed often.

Money the incentive, mostly necessary and much NEEDED Money and Boxing/fighting was a way to get it.

were there thousands of men who just couldn't cut it/take it and fall away after say a few fights, of course there were, but thousands more held up the Sport Western Worldwide for the said Prize - the much needed money.

 

The only agenda is yours wanker. I've wasted enough time on you and your shifting of goal posts. Everyone else running around chasing up facts and presenting them and you sitting on your ass doing your best Andrea True Connection impersonation.

I'll eagerly await your next Ray Arcel knows nothing crusade.