Why do people say that boxers of the 1940's and 50's were so much better than boxers today?

Yes, the former communist block now allowing pro boxing is naturally the biggest difference between now and 50-60 years ago. One only has to take a look at the top men in the heavier divisions over the past decade, to realize what a huge impact boxers from those "new" countries, have had on the boxing scene in resent years.

It makes me wonder: Imagine if pro boxing had never been banned in the Soviet Union and the rest of Eastern Europe (and Cuba as well)! How much would that have changed boxing history? For example, would Louis still reign supreme for almost 12 years… or would the Soviet Union have produced someone, who could have given him serious trouble?

We will of course never know, but it's something to think about!

 

"Imagine if pro boxing had never been banned in the Soviet Union and the rest or Eastern Europe (and Cuba as well)! How much would that have changed boxing history?"

"would Louis still reign supreme for almost 12 years"

I admit that this sort of alternative history, while interesting to think about, is way too abstract for me.

Here are the countries producing Olympic gold medal winners in the heavyweight division since the Eastern bloc countries began competing in 1952:

1952--USA
1956--USA
1960--Italy
1964--USA
1968--USA
1972--Cuba
1976--Cuba
1980--Cuba
1984--USA
1988--USA
1992--Cuba
1996--Cuba
2000--Cuba
2004--Cuba
2008--Russia
2012--Ukraine
2016--Russia

Super Heavyweight Division:

1984--USA
1988--Canada
1992--Cuba
1996--Ukraine
2000--GB
2004--Russia
2008--Italy
2012--GB
2016--France

and also because we're talking old times, the light-heavies

1952--USA
1956--USA
1960--USA
1964--Italy
1968--Soviet Union
1972--Yugoslavia
1976--USA
1980--Yugoslavia
1984--Yugoslavia
1988--USA
1992--Germany
1996--Kazakhstan
2000--Russia
2004--USA
2008--China
2012--Russia
2016--Cuba

I would conclude from this list that the impact from Eastern Europe would have been negligible prior to probably the 1990's. Cuba might be a different matter, but it did have pro boxing in the Louis era.

I think it fair to say there is a total lack of evidence that the Soviet Union having pro boxing would have changed pro boxing. Even arguing the potential talent pool I think runs up against the far greater population in the Western European countries (GB, France, Germany, Italy) as a whole, so if they failed to compete with the best Americans during that era, why would the Russians?

We are dealing with the difference between the supposed potential talent pool, and the actual real world talent pool. China has I assume an enormous potential talent pool. It hasn't really been tapped so far. Let us assume it is in the future, and China begins producing more champions than anyone. What would be the exact point of extrapolating that Greb, Robinson, Cerdan, Duran, Klitschko, etc. would never have had the same careers if the Chinese became obsessed with boxing sooner.

Just too abstract. Drawing too heavy a conclusion off a lack of evidence. One would never know if the Chinese dominance was due to the supposed widening of the talent pool, or from a declining interest in the older boxing countries.

 

I'd really like to know how Teofilo Stevenson would have done against Ali and Foreman.

 

I have no idea, what impact eastern Europe/Soviet Union would have had on boxing history, if pro boxing had never been banned in that part of the world. Of course we have no evidence (how could we?), that it would have changed anything. I was simply thinking out loud, concluded nothing… and even added that we of course will never know.

You, on the other hand, are prepared to conclude (based on some Olympic results), that early pro boxing in those countries would have negligible effect "prior to probably the 1990's".

You may be right... but given the impact the old Eastern Block has had, after their boxers were allowed to turn pro, I think it's bold of you to conclude anything like that!

 

Probably the fact those guys were fighting to eat and racked up so many wins and eventually the good ones prevailed through all that suffering and work. It would be hard to beat a guy like that.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say we have no evidence. We have imperfect evidence. The Olympic performance of eastern block fighters during that time is significant - if far from conclusive - evidence.

 

"some Olympic results"

The "some" is the heavyweight, light-heavyweight, and Super-heavyweight results from the time the Soviet Union began to compete. I chose these divisions because these divisions are where the pro heavyweight champions come from if they win in the Olympics. I, or we, could go through all the divisions, but I just haven't got time now. I was only trying to see what I could learn about the heavyweights during this period.

"Olympic" because I take for granted that this is the ultimate goal in amateur boxing, and the Soviets were trying to win golds. What else is there for evidence of potential pro champions?

What do the Olympics tell us?

Between 1952 and 1988 these three divisions saw these countries win these medals:

USA-----12
Cuba-----3
Yugoslavia----3
Italy-----2
Canada-----1
Soviet Union-----1

Between 1992 and 2016 these three divisions saw these countries win these medals:

Russia-----5
Cuba-----5
Ukraine-----2
GB-----2
Italy-----1
France-----1
Germany-----1
China------1
Kazakhstan-----1
USA-----1

So the old Soviet Union as a whole would have 8. The communist (or former communist countries) together have 14. The rest only 6.

The big difference I see is what happened to the USA, going from 12 gold medals out of 22, to 1 gold medal out of 20.

I don't think the coming of the old communist countries is an adequate explanation, as the USA has also faded versus its "western" or non-communist opposition, going from 12 of 15 golds, to 1 of 6.

This is only evidence, and any conclusion hopefully consistent with the evidence. As for a conclusion that the Soviet Union would not have dominated heavyweight boxing if their best had turned pro, I think there is pretty strong evidence here that they wouldn't have prior to the 1990's and no contrary evidence.