What's Your Opinion On "Modern Day Boxing ''?

I became a fan in the early 60s - where I could only follow what was going on in the boxing world, through the various magazines I subscribed to. I remember reading about boxers such as Olivares and Locche, fantasizing about how great they must have been - knowing only too well, that I would never be able to actually watch them (or other world class boxers) in action.

Now, more than half a century later, all major fights around the world are only a couple of clicks away! No matter what one thinks of today's boxing - isn't that a whole lot better than being completely in the dark, and not be able to watch anything at all?

 

One could watch fights on TV, and if it would mean missing some fights I would rather not watch a once rich sport slowly decay in front of me, no, I would rather miss a few and see it healthy and thriving. Its actually sad to look back to what it once was to where it is now, no matter how much I enjoy the old fights.

 

The first several decades as a fan, I could not watch ANY fights on TV - and there was nowhere where I could talk boxing with fellow-enthusiasts, like I can here today. You can not understand, why I feel lucky to be a boxing fan in this era?

 

Today, You've got a muscle bound British, black racist bum, a 900 lb Mexican slob who trains on Snicker bars, a friggin Looney Tunes, Mike Tyson wannabe (btw, I like Mike Tyson more than ever and wish him great happiness with his pot smoking tigers) ghetto jackass that can't get it through his thick, imbecilic head that he's a loser has been, thanks to a totally superior (he's proven it already) Tyson Fury...and I'd name even more, but I don't know any of the other bums. There aint a Norton, Young, Foreman, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Mike Tyson, anywhere in that sorry bunch, and that just about says it all for me! Like I said before, it's only Fury and Bivol for me!!

 

That's good for you, then. I'm sure you can understand the basis for our dismay, however.

 

Some things have changed irrevocably now that have to be taken into consideration imo.

1) weigh ins. Given a 24 hour weigh in, a lot of fighters are two classes heavier than their contemporaries of yesteryear.

2) proliferation of titles. This actually has 2 points to it, but the first is it has devalued the title of a titlist. Which by extension makes resune comparisons difficult.

3) proliferation of titles part 2. Being undisputed is like the ultimate achievement right now, which means long term meaningful title reigns are non existent because once achieved people leave the division.

4) Usyk. Once again proving size isn't all that matters.

 

If you read a lot of the ND fight descriptions, they are loaded with furious, violent, bloody and sometimes foul-filled brutal affairs. Sure, there were a lot of boring stinkers, too - but no more than average, from what I've read.

So rather than just assume what 'makes more sense' (and really, boxing very often makes no sense whatsoever lol), why not just read a bunch of them?

 

So what do you think happened in the following fights, all from 1920?:

01-01, Harry Wills vs Jack Thompson
01-08, Mickey Nelson vs Joe Colletti
02-13, Al Young vs Charles Doyle
02-16, Charlie Bergen vs Freddie Siegel
02-27, Mike Paulson vs Mel Stevenson
03-01, Harry Hulin vs W. O'Neill
03-18, Buddy Lane vs Billy Smith
03-20, Al Ross vs Frankie Daniels
03-24, Patsy Rubino vs Kid Kansas
03-28, Antoine Acencio vs Constant
04-05, George Shade vs Dick Doolin
04-05, Frank Oldrich vs George Eagel
04-09, Larry Jones vs Dave Shade
04-15, Tommy Lang vs Eddie Stencil
04-26, Jack Stroud vs Pascal Colone
04-27, Frankie O'Neill vs Young Mahoney
04-28, Leo Patterson vs Eddie Carver
04-29, Babe Herman vs Charley Moy
05-03, Bill Reed vs Willie Keeler
06-10, Frankie Webb vs Leo Houck
07-04, Willie Doyle vs Bobby Ward
07-07, Del Howard vs Bud Taylor
07-08, Joey Reilly vs Frankie Pitcher
08-05, Frank Carbone vs Silent Martin
08-26, Battling Stanley vs Eddie Marks
08-30, Buddy Josephs vs Chick Hayes
09-08, Harry Wills vs Sam McVea
09-13, Pinky Lewis vs Battling Norfolk
10-14, Jack Davis vs Frank Oldrich
10-15, Steve Dalton vs Andy Palmer
10-25, Young Fyne vs Young Molson
10-25, John George vs Jimmy McDonough
11-01, George Sollis vs Jay Solomon
11-06, Calvin Respress vs Gunboat Smith
11-08, Charlie Cole vs Billy Hone
11-13, KO Jaffe vs Silent Martin
11-16, Jimmy Werner vs Eddie Brown
11-19, Jimmy Bradley vs Mickey O'Donnell
11-26, Tonto Lloyd vs Nipper Walsh
11-29, Cyclone Taylor vs Burrhead Scott

 

Back then a fighter had to earn his way up to a title shot Today its not so much who is the more talented fighters but the ones with " connections" & big $$$$$$$$ backing them. We ALL know, if we a really honest, Floyd is not really an undefeated fighter. thanks to his "connections" his record is posted as 50 -0. Everyone knows how he was protected by officials & shielded from investigation regarding Peds accusations. Now its Canelo getting that. same "help". Some of the decisions put in by some of the so called top judges were nothing short of hilarious they should never be allowed to judge a flower show let alone a world title match Not one of them have ever been dragged up to explain their scorecards to a boxing commission. No one seems to care. I wonder why ????

 

Me too Shay If its a fair fight with no jiggery pokerey with the better man getting the win he deserves I'm happy.
That doesn't happen too much in the game today sadly

 

Are you asking me to read all of those accounts?

 

No, of course not - but someone as smart as you should quickly be able to realize, that these are all matches where the referee sent both men packing, for taking part in a sham fight. In other words, where they tried to carry each other - but where the acting was so bad, that they were found out.

You claim, that while these stinkers took place back then, they were no more frequent "than average" - by which I suppose you mean no more frequent than today? I wonder what you base that on? Is it something you have actually looked into, in the form of doing some research on the subject? Or is it just something you throw out there, without really knowing anything about it, because it fits your agenda?

But how about you select a recent year of your choice, and see how many similar stinkers you can come up with, so we can se how that year compares to 1920?

 

OK good work!
It is also fair to say that sometimes, but we know not how often, guys took it easy on each other.
Although sometimes they were just closely matched.
But even going to near max but not risking a KO is a lot more practice than what guys do for years now.
And other fights they did go to the max-& what is better for both developing quality fighters + the , guys rarely fighting & not fighting the best to keep their records intact, or what we are discussing?
To me many even exponentially more fights & not avoiding top competition is much better.
When guys are better today it is due to advantages that sheer numbers, science, nutrition & greater opportunities provide.
Better training, bigger people, PEDs (dishonorable, cheating)...

Greb had 299 fights even though he was dead before 32.5.
Although I do not subscribe to the mindless, tribal biases like my group, my times, or the old daaaze must be better.
It was recently written here how Greb would fight dirty, THREATENED referees, temporarily blinded one man through eye gouging, told one ref what he was doing...
He should have been banned from boxing for a while for the worst of these, imprisoned for a bit too...We cannot just romanticize & give a pass to behavior that easily could have permanently maimed someone-like forever bliding a victim-just because we like him.

 

Good, well-balanced post!

I just want to say, that I do not think that, generally speaking, boxers today are better than those from previous eras. Boxing has always been a mix of good and bad - now as well as in the old days.

The reason I'm doing this, is because I'm deeply interested in boxing and its history! But when I come on here, hoping to be able to exchange views and opinions with reasonable people - I find quite a few engaging in over-the-top criticism of the present, with today's boxers being called all kinds of names. I just find it sad, that it has to be like this!

 

I think it's funny that he is picking on a single year/era in boxing history to try to prove his point when he dosen't seem to realise that we would rather have that than almost every fighter being a nobody fighting hypejob, and having the paul brothers being more popular than than any current boxer (sans possibly Canelo or GGG). Why not mention '65-'85, for example? because then he would have to admit the sport has declined considerably, even when compared to the recent maypac era. He would rather spam a long list of NDs and tell us to do the work than actually make an argument, because he dosen't have one.