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

That is a very glamorized way of looking at it. Th fact is that some of the most dangerous contenders at WW, MW and LHW were shamelessly ducked for easier pay days. I can't imagine someone like Charles getting shut out from the title in his best division today. Nor guys like Burley and Williams getting so little taste of the big time.

Zale, Lesnevich et al did stuff that would make fans scream to high heaven today. I mean Fox getting two shots at the undisputed title through fixed fights? Ffs. Can't we some time become a bit real about the 40's?

It is true that pros fought a great many fights, though, and you can make an argument that this really honed their skills to high levels.

Ps. I know you know all of this JT. My rant is aimed at those that don't want to acknowledge it.

 

I just read an article in Boxing News 1940 trying to both defuse the complaints & crumbling about fixes and unsavoury managers, referees & promoters, as well as to encourage fighters and managers to Report to the BBBofC, however it goes on to say that fighters fear such reports would 'further' hinder their careers and livelihood, which of course is true... everybody KNEW, Promoters, Money Men and paid Media ensured the advancement of 'many' fighters.

there was an interview on youtube with 40s & 50s British contender Jock Taylor who stated all of the above in mentioning some of his proposed fights stating "you can't win" including a fight with Don C ockell.

the BUSINESS of Boxing was/IS polluted and threaded in such money making, securing practices. it's No Secret.

 

TV came along and killed the small fight clubs. That eventually led to less fights. A guy back in those days wasn't considered ready for a title shot until he lost a fight. The thinking was you learn from it and become a better boxer. No protecting the 0. Guys seemed to fight in the pocket more skillfully without resorting to using their legs. There were more good fighters around. The #15 or 20th guy in a division was dangerous.

 

Your right there was injustice in those days racial and the mob. I was referring to the boxers themselves and the skill level that they displayed. There is always politics and dont kid yourself there still is corruption.

 

I think the 50s is when it starts to decline.

 

Great example!

 

Boxing was far better when it was 100% mob controlled, when the spindly, unshredded practitioners fought a dozen times a year so they were always stale and injured, when we still had refs as the sole arbiters of the score, when ancients and lilliputians ruled the big boy division... Man, those were the days!

 

That bias goes the other way too, and at least as often.

 

Hmm... I don't know about that. And what exactly is bias?

If the "modernists" believe that we can't really compare the 1890s with today - is that bias?

If someone claims that Corbett would beat Tua, and that Burns should be favored over Wilder... am I being biased if I disagree with this?

Some posters here don't believe, Marciano would stand much chance against many of today's SHWs. Is this unreasonable "old-timer bashing"... or is it simply common sense?

And there are also posters here, who don't bye into the popular premise that boxing is at an all-time low, and is a dying sport. Is it wrong if they point out, that while boxing isn't what it used to be in the US, the sport has been growing, worldwide, over the past several decades?

Just these past few weeks I've read that Gassiev and Briedis don't have even an ounce of skill between them, that Conn and Maxim would both flatten Usyk… and if anyone today looks good, it's because the competition is so poor. Lomachenko has beaten nothing but bums - and his amateur record counts for nothing, as even there he faced no one that was any good. Now THAT is what I call unreasonable bias!

​

 

"Hmm... I don't know about that. And what exactly is bias?"

Bias, in the sense I'm using the word, is a certitude that is unmatched by the strength of the evidence or argument behind it. Even if not necessarily mistaken, it's unwarranted.

"If the "modernists" believe that we can't really compare the 1890s with today - is that bias?"

You can compare literally any two items that are conceptually coherent, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

"If someone claims that Corbett would beat Tua, and that Burns should be favored over Wilder... am I being biased if I disagree with this?"

That would depend almost entirely on how strongly they disagree and what their reasons are. In assessing how "rational" someone is, the reasoning leading up to their conclusions is almost always far more informative than the conclusions themselves.

"Some posters here don't believe, Marciano would stand much chance against many of today's SHWs. Is this unreasonable "old-timer bashing"... or is it simply common sense?"

Sense is far from common, and no one, so far as I have seen, has proposed a plausible mechanism that even comes close to explaining why heavyweights were smaller in Marciano's time. Literally every time I've seen someone confidently (as opposed to tentatively) propose an explanation, they attempt to make their pet hypothesis do far more explanatory work than it can possibly perform. There is little to no statistically significant difference between the size of the American population in Marciano's time and today, and there is currently quite a bit more variation than that from one European nation to the next.


"Just these past few weeks I've read that Gassiev and Briedis don't have even an ounce of skill between them, that Conn and Maxim would both flatten Usyk… and if anyone today looks good, it's because the competition is so poor. "

I don't know who said these things, but while the first and third are obviously unjustified hyperbole, the second is far from self-evidently absurd -or to my mind even implausible- unless it was stated with excessive confidence.

 

HOW DO YOU GET TO CARNEGIE HALL?

 

Practice, practice, practice!!!!

 

La Motta said it in his book. As opposed to him fighting every day, the only things kids who have 1 or 2 fights learn isto get their ass kicked...bbwwwwwaaaaahhhhhaaaaahhhhaaaaa

 

There's been doomsayers predicting the death of boxing from the time it was born. I think it's interesting and actually kind of cool that, at any given point, there were boxing people (not just fans, but the writers and fighters too) lamenting that the fighters of the day weren't what they used to be. In that sense, those fans doing it today are just the latest in a long line.

 

I personally don't get why you have to compare eras with the passion we frequently do here. The 40's and 50's gave us some fantastic fighters like Robinson, Louis, Armstrong, Charles, Pep, Moore etc - and I can personally enjoy that without the need to put subsequent eras down.

I think we have a pretty exciting scene today. Loma and Garcia both look absolutely superb to me and hopefully they'll face off next year. The WW and MW division also look quite deep with Crawford, Spence, Thurman, Canelo, GGG, Jacobs, Saunders etc and while LHW seems to a bit in a transition period, CW are producing some very interesting fighters, foremost Usyk, that hopefully will go up and challenge the winner between Fury/Wilder/Joshua.

There are bound to be some disappointments, big fights not coming off when they should or not at all, but right now there's reason to be excited about the coming years, I think.