I'm going to deny that most fighters, allowed to fight 3000 fights would peak at "30 or so fights." As obvious as your lack of engagment with my post.
Totally agree. Modern fighters learn there craft in their extensive amatuer careers anyway. There is no difference here, and if anything fighting more often mean more injuries and burning out faster. If it were effective then modern day fighters would be looking to fight in similar fashion.
My only issue would just be that it's difficult to say what exactly constitutes a "pure boxing match". For instance, if they're just jabbing and throwing straight rights and left hooks from range, sure, Hearns has a great shot. Still, though, I would consider someone pressuring as still pure boxing. I understand what you're saying though, that trying to work behind a crisp jab all night wouldn't get Robinson far.
You can't get to what ought to be from what is. The reason these guys aren't fighting as much is because a loss means jeopardizing a massive payday. This often means millions of dollars. Why risk that to stay active, when you can be happy fighting twice a year and making enough to retire subsequent generations of your family?
Burley and Robinson, for example, had more amatuer fights than almost any modern fighter. So you're wrong. Or fighters succumbing to injury less and fighting through injury more. It did happen. But it's a mental issue meaning we had more greats back then, not less. :huh
There is nothing to be gained from that high number of fights for any human athlete that couldn't otherwise be gained from sparring. That ridiculously high number only has potential for a negative effect. Fighting so frequently would interefere with the training cycles of todays seasoned fighters, making peaking for individual fights more difficult.
They learn the basics in the amatuers. They hone their skills as pros. WHy do you think beginners start off in 4 rounders against palooka's and not 10 rounders fighting contenders? Today's fighters don't fight as much because they don't need to. The top guys get paid very well just to fight twice, maybe three times a year.
This ignorance is so perfect I refuse to illuminate it. Given the number of points you've failed to engage with, i think few could criticise me for it. Which ridiculously high number? You've specificed a few... It's a matter of class, but in a general sense I can agree to a degree. But the sharpness of this degree would be lost on you. Very generally, four 8 round fights in 6 months followed by a proper training camp followed by a big fight might be right for one man. For others, it would be different. Your original point (which you seem desperatley to be trying to bury) is ridiculous.
Frequent fighting does serve a purpose early in a fighters career, hence many modern fighters do fight frequently early on, during the intensive learning phase of their career. Once seasoned it is basically pointless.
Not at all. I was merely claiming peaking after 100 pro fights was in no way benificial to peaking after 30 pro fights.