Why has boxing regressed when every other sport in the world has advanced?

If you look at the Klitschkos they are arguably the strongest and fittest champions ever, so maybe it hasn't regressed as much as we think.

 

Answer is in your question, other sports have moved up, and take away athletes who might be boxers. Other reason is poverty decreased.

 

From a fitness/conditioning point of view, it hasn't regressed. If anything, boxers today fight at peak mental and physical fitness, mostly because they have adequate time between fights to rest and regroup. Boxers are also a lot more careful with what they eat and their general health these days.
Old-timers fought too often to continually be at absolute peak mental and physical fitness for every fight, and a good deal of them really didn't look after themselves between fights either.

But here is a good example of the problem with modern boxing:

Seth Mitchell. I like Seth. I consider myself a fan, although I don't know what sort of future he has, but that's not the point.

People are talking about a title shot for the guy, but he hasn't even gone ten rounds yet. The kid is still very green, and they want him to fight for the title. He has just two name opponents on his ledger, but they're looking for a title shot.
He hasn't learned his craft properly yet. You can see he's still learning some quite basic elements about the sport.
Yet, with a bit of luck, he could hold a belt within a year or two.

It's not that he's physically inferior to fighters from the past. It's just that he's just not an artisan. He's an apprentice. Same could be said of a guy like Naseem Hamed. Formidable talent, but completely lacking in some basic fundementals, and badly exposed by an experienced fighter with proper ring craft.

There are too many belt holders and fighters in general that haven't really graduated from the school of Boxing 101. That is in part due to diminished knowledge base from trainers and reduced quality of sparring, but also because, as has been said, modern fighters are just too protected.
They're lacking in experience that only being in the ring and fighting can teach you.

Nobody wants to risk losing that '0', or being matched with a dangerous opponent. In days gone past, a loss was not seen as a disaster like it is now and hence, the best fought each other, and often.

 

They are strong, but fittest champions ever ? Ludicrous...Years ago an old Jack Johnson at 37 years old went TWENTY SIX rounds with a young and fit Jess Willard in the 105% hot Havana sun, before being kod. A Max Baer and Paolino Uzcudun went 20 rounds in the humid Reno sun in 1931. Max Baer also fought a 20 round bout against King Levinsky one year later in Reno, 1932...Heavyweights fought 15 round bouts throughout their careers
in those days and they fought OFTEN...The Klitschkos are big weight trained behomiths yes indeed, but they were not as fit as the heavyweights of yore who trained for long distance fights and fought more often at leaner weights...

 

Boxing is a sport steeped in nostalgia (and a rather storied history).

I think you'll find something similar in baseball.

Myself, I view fighters in the context of their times.

 

Great fighters are great fighters no matter when they fought nobody ever disputes this! But when comparing era/periods, you have too dispute. Some era's are better than others, of this we are sure, No dispute!

So, Past was better because ___________, fill in the blank... with many of the reasons already presented. No dispute!!!

 

>How about 5-6 'world champions' at every weight?
>How about shrinking the divisions and having a 'champion' every 4-5 pounds?
>I remember Dad taking me to the barbershop circa 1960-61 where there was always a Ring magazine on the waiting table. We knew Patterson was HW champ. We knew Jofre's championship brilliance. We knew the middleweight champ, etc...its a shame you youngbloods weren't around at that time to appreciate how beautiful the sport was then. It was straight FlyW champ, BW champ, FW champ, LW champ, WW champ, MW champ, LH champ and HW champ.
>How about my reading the top 10 heavyweight contenders about ten years ago? In the five alphabet bodies?
Out of 50 'top 10 contenders' only (read this!) only 6 'contenders' were on every list??? So, in other words, we have 44?? top ten contenders???
I'll still watch the occasional big matchup but, for the most part, **** on boxing!
Boxing's movers and shakers have ruined the sport IMO. It all boils down to (duh) MONEY!
It's why that UFC bull-s**t has taken such a hold IMO.
Well, at least I can contine to expand my library of 40-50 hours of boxing tapes (roughly 1920-1985) to enjoy and show to my friends.

 

Garrincha is better than ALL of them.

 

It's absurd isn't it?

 

The age of MMA and the glorified street fight in the octagon has brought an impatient, "knock out or nothing," somewhat lazy attitude to professional sports.

MMA has affected pro sports for the worst IMO. There's more headhunting, cheap shots and a lot more intent to injure in a lot of the team sports, not just the individual ones.
People don't have the patience or the intelligence to appreciate a 12 round boxing contest anymore. What I find interesting is seeing a ton of young MMA fighters and MMA wannabees with the poorest of the poor basic skills of defence and positioning. Sooner or later they all get their a$$es knocked out.

I don't watch MMA as much anymore because the sport has become like a Friday
the 13th movie. The only difference is I predict who's gonna get knocked out first rather than who's gonna get killed first.

 

PELE IS THE MOST OVERRATED PLAYER EVER.............
1958 worldchampion.. but.. with a great team around him. garincha, didi, vava
1962 worldchampion.. but.. played only 2 matches then got injured and garincha carried the brazilian team.
1970 worldchampion.. but with a great team around him. rivelino, jairzinho etc etc.
second... pele was undoubtly good but never played in europe where also in the 60ties and 70ties the best players played. and the compettions where much tougher. the reason pele is so hyped is when he came on the worldcup state 58 and 62 it was the beginning of the television era so it made a big impact. i consider him better then mesi (who also has a great team around him) but players as eusebio, puskas, maradona, cruyff where better. and alfredo di stefano was way better

 

agreed and nowadays they fight once or twice a year and the rest is training, well training is great but it can never beat the real thing as far as experience goes. and in a sport like boxing experience counts for a lot

 

It wasn´t !
And brazilians were the best players in the world in the time Pelé was in his prime (58 until 1970) and this was proved in four World Cups, Brazil won 3.....coincidence ?
If the europeans were so good at the time why there were 4 World Cups at that time and Brazil won 3 ???
You are being a "modernist fan" now !

 

it is almost impossible to talk with a brazilian about football they are way to nationalistic to be logical hahaha. common man lets be reel is the worldcup the only thing that counts ??
second : the best players in the world from 58 to 70 hmm lets see there where george best , puskas, alfredo di stefano, eusebio, bobby charlton to name a few.. you're star player from 58 didi went to madrid where he failed he played with kopa, di stefano, gento and puskas and failed. the tempo of the games was much higher in europe then in brazil.
last : winning the worldcup there is also luck involved. we dutch had bad luck in the 70ties and the hungarians in 54 so you see the best don't always win.
i am not saying pele wasn't great. he was truely great but not the greatest. one most be true. maradona made argentina champion almost on his own. it where all modest players except him. and pele had some very good players with him like i said garincha, rivelino etc etc

 

Maybe if they stuffed their schedule with .500 fighters and middleweights they could be busier.