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

It depends entirely upon the reasoning and analysis that leads people to that conclusion. People who actually watch a lot of fights from different eras, and understand boxing well enough to assess skills, technique, and physical talent, etc., will naturally tend to conclude that some eras appear to be superior to others. It seems almost inevitable.

A powerful argument for what, exactly? If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying "I assume that any fighter who did well in one era would do well in any other era," which in my opinion is the most purely ideology-driven position possible.

 

No, you can conclude that certain fighters are superior to certain others.

Establishing that the era as a whole was superior, would be a somewhat harder assignment!

I am not saying that.

I am saying that we have to evaluate the evidence available to us.

Accomplishments within an era, are at least consistent between eras, and at least measurable.

The head to head game can be played both ways!

If I claimed that James Braddock would have demolished Lennox Lewis and Wladamir Klitschko, head to head, then you could never definitely prove me wrong.

I could bluster, and say that it was obvious.

Now if I claimed that Braddock had a better resume than them, then you could quickly find the holes in the argument.

 

HW division is a disaster...fat slobs whom are exhausted after a couple of rounds. Although it’s probably better now then say five years ago. I’m gonna agree with the undefeated lachbusted and say boxing needs a popular head figure. It also needs to be one primary league with one belt per division. But those are other arguments for another day.
There are so many greats that came out of the 40s and 50s...but other eras also have their greats. I personally think mw up was on the decline since the mid 90s talent wise. Feels like every fighter is a cookie cutter fighter...no unique styles with the exception of Wilder and should have retired Manny. Unique wins and there is a complete and utter lack of originality in today’s fighters. Needs a Tyson, Marciano, Frazier, Dempsey swarming animal or a speed demon like Ali or RJJ or a defensive wizard (although not crowd pleasing I love those guys) like Mayweather or Byrd. Needs something with Mayweather gone.

 

We have to remember too the thread is just about "technique".

 

Are you saying that being "cookie cutter" makes today's boxers inferior, or just that you would find them more entertaining to watch if they weren't? And what exactly do you find to be so cookie-cutter about today's guys?

 

"ideological concept"

I agree. It is usually just seems an attempt to devalue this or that fighter and his record or his era. While I certainly think sports progress, the this or that era was weak compared to what came before or after premises generally are unconvincing. One I've seem is saying WWII caused the 1950's to be weak. But the same folks don't seem to have any problem with WWI and the even more destructive Spanish Flu epidemic of the 1917-1920 era. It strikes as just fishing for a justification to declare a weak era.

Another justification for declaring an era weak is an old champion or some old contenders. The problem is if the old man can beat the young men, why does this make the era weak? Perhaps the old fellow was just great.

 

"I can't imagine someone like Charles getting shut out from the title in his best division today."

Yes, but would he and the other best fighter actually fight each other or just be separate alphabet champions? plus your "shut out" is really 3 years at the most (1946-1948) with Charles then becoming the champion of the most lucrative and prestigious division.

There is no question that with four or five champions per division around, most get to be champs. Hard to see anyone being totally frozen out.

I think it just as likely that Charles and Moore wouldn't have fought three times, nor Moore and Johnson five times. They would simply have gone into different organizations to become and remain champion in that organization.

"Zale"

Had lost four years of his prime to WWII. Where exactly was Graziano rated? I think pretty highly. Would it be that unusual today to take the by far biggest money fight with a highly rated contender?

"Lesnevich"

A better case than Zale, I think, especially the rematches in 1948. Fox though was actually the #1 contender when Lesnevich defended against him the first time.

 

I think you have things, backwards. In today's world, there are no champs, only contenders.
Unless, of course, there is one champion in the division who has defeated all the other "champions" to unify the title of his division.
That's why boxing is a fringe sport today. There are so many champs that the public doesn't know who to recognize, so they lose interest. So really, in the mind of the average sports fan, there are no real champs. There is nothing for them to focus on. If you have one real champ rather than four or five phonies per division, boxing would take on greater meaning. The public could focus on one guy and get excited about him. In other words, in the minds of average sports fans, even real fans who are fully engaged in other sports, THERE ARE NO CHAMPEENS! And I sympathize with them with them to the extent that I have lost interest in post-Tyson boxing. [

 

I agree and so have I … When the boxing format is being used today to allow a guy to make 300 million vs a guy with zero boxing ring fights, you know things are bad … Boxing has basically turned into a reality TV show in a lot of ways … Sad days for boxing

 

So boxing is a fringe sport today, because there are so many champs, that the average fan has nothing to focus on, and therefore has lost interest? And we need another household name like Tyson to rekindle the interest?

I wonder if Tyson was ever bigger in Mexico, than Canelo is right now? Or as big in the Philippines as Pacquaio has been for the past 10-15 years. Though we of course knew about him, Tyson was certainly no bigger here in Denmark than Brian Nielsen (yes, believe it or not!) was 20 years ago or Mikkel Kessler 10 years ago.

The thing is, the average fan couldn't care less about lineal kings, alphabet pretenders or unified "real" world champions. No, what interests them, is to be able to root for their local favorites. I bet 99% of all boxing fans have absolutely no idea, that there is a place like Classic, where these things are being debated so vigorously.

Looking at BoxRec's latest update (April 9, 2017)... for the year 1988, when a peak Tyson ruled the heavyweights, 12,533 fights can be found in their database. In 2016 they list 26,873 fights. I don't see, how this can be translated into a waning interest in the sport.

 

Even in the alphabet era, outstanding fighters in the same division do unify. And they don't have a much worse fighter recognizes as they real champion.

Graziano was rated 6th or something like that I believe. Zale had been back a year and skipped all the Williams, Burley, LaMotta, Lytell etc who had been waiting around for a loooong time. Then he waited another full year to defend - to the guy he had defated and who didn't deserve a shot in the first place!

I'm not saying it's inconceivable that that would happen today, but if it did it certainly would be used as an example of boxings "sad decline".

Fox received that status through fixed fights. Not Lesnevich's fault, but it says something about the times that a nobody could jump the queu on outstanding fighters like Charles and Moore through fixed fight.

And there was absolutely no valid reason for Lesnevich to give him a rematch the next year. And after that he skipped Moore again, for Mills.

 

But we are apparently getting a bit derailed from the thread question, which was about the technical level and if that has declined.

I don't necessarily think so, even though there were some really technically gifted fighters through the 40's and 50's and a case could be made that it was a high point for boxing in that regard.

 

Personally, looking at just technical skill I'd probably go to the 80's and 90's. Duran, Arguello, SRL, Benitez, Hagler, Pea, Holmes, Tyson, Holy, Kalambay, McCallum, Toney, DLH, Mosley, Ricardo Lopez, JCC... So many excellent technicians during these decades.

 

Because they are nostalgic old timers who have an emotional investment in "their era", and like to believe that everything from the past is better than today.

Like the Ali riders of today, its only temporary as once they pop their clogs, the ratings of the previous eras can be done in a cold and calculated manner.

 

The difference is those guys would have all been fighting each other once or twice a year. Now yr lucky if they fight 2 times a year total. It's disgraceful.