Why is there an anti-recency bias in boxing?

I think the talent pool for boxing in the old days was much larger than it is now. Nowadays, there are so many more avenues for athletes to pursue that boxing, at least in the U.S., is more of an afterthought. From 1910 to 1950, boxing was the main sport (for Black athletes maybe the only sport) in which big money could be made. Also, the country as a whole was poorer than it is now, so boxing as a way to make a living was more attractive to a much greater percentage of the population than it is now.

 

If you don't care about how many fights a fighter has had, does that in itself not mean that a lot of the 300 fights you mentioned mean nothing to you or aren't important? Sorry if I'm missing something or misunderstanding but it reads to me as if you're contradicting yourself. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

The thing about Britton in your other above post also puzzled me a bit partly for similar reasons. And it was as if you were saying that Britton is only notable for being durable over hundreds of fights? Again, correct me if I'm wrong. It is ridiculously impressive in and of itself but not what myself and a lot of others I know define him by. Personally I rate him highly and talk about him for how he fought and quite often beat an astonishing number of HOFers, how he recovered from a tough start in his career to rack up incredible numbers, how he'd just fight anybody and how he accrued a wealth of experience and used loads of fights to stay sharp and keep developing his skill set even in defeat etc.

I rate Pernell Whitaker as an example immensely highly. He had around 40 odd fights and beat Azumah Nelson, Roger Mayweather, Buddy McGirt, JC Vasquez, JL Ramirez, Jorge Paez, Juan Nazario amongst others. And was robbed against the main rival competing for the mantle of the best fighter of that generation. He looks incredible on film. Do you not think that if he'd done what he did while frequently fighting against solid journeyman or even no hopers in between while mostly not losing a fight and amassing another 40 fights in his career that it isn't harder to do or more impressive than just having those 40 fights?

 

I bet that a lot of young men in Africa, Asia, and former communist countries in East Europe grew up in just as poor conditions as young Americans did during the depression. So if poverty is a determining factor in recruiting boxers, there must be a pretty healthy non-American talent pool today... which of course is illustrated by how many "foreign" boxers today occopy the world rankings (in contrast to the "good old days", where the US completely dominated the boxing world).

 

Exactly!

 

Billy Conn was of course a very good fighter. In the clip where he tears into Louis, seemingly wobbling the Brown Bomber, he looks sensational! However, the only other fight of his I remember having seen (maybe there are some, that I have missed?), was against Melio Bettina where he looked less than sensational. Sure, good movement and a fine jab, but nothing much else really that looks exceptional. And, I'm sorry, when prople talk about how he would flatten Usyk, or how he would beat most of today's top-10 heavyweights... then I think they are going too far.

A genuine question for you... are you not impressed with Inoue? Would you be more impressed, if he had begun his pro career with 20-30 fights against nobodies with losing records - before getting down to serious business?

 

That depends though on if boxing is ingrained in a particular lesser-developed nation's culture as a popular participation sport and if the infrastructure, clubs and organizations are in place like they were in pre-60s America etc.

Also, the world's population is vastly larger than it was back then. About 6 billion more people. On the very surface that should make for a bigger talent pool if you look at it narrowly but there are other major factors.

Welfare States, the expansion of other sports where huge money can be made from not being hit in the face, the rise of the internet to expand accessibility of information and career prospects etc. You might also expect the percentage of the relevant demographic of the world's population taking part in the sport to rise in rough accordance/correlation with the rise in world population. There were less than 2 billion people a century ago and there are about 8 billion now iirc, four times the number. It doesn't mean that there will be four times as many professional boxers or even twice as many, though tbf I don't know how many there were 100 years ago. I think it might be in the region of about 20,000 in 2022? Your knowledge of stats supersedes mine, pal. But if the rise isn't a massive one, it shows imo that the sport doesn't have the pull it once did for a lot of people when viewed through that lens. I dunno. Population density might be another thing. How far you have to travel and how many participants and good trainers there are in your immediate vicinity to get you off to a good start in the sport with healthy competition and expertise around you. I'm just speculating though, it's not exactly a proven theory on my part.

 

No doubt there are thousands upon thousands of potentially great boxers from these countries. (Consider India and China alone) but there's never been a culture of boxing in these countries. Probably never will be.
Also the rise of football (soccer) in the last 40 years as the dominant world sport has played a significant role too.
Even in my country, which until recently had a great boxing culture, and has millions of desperately poor people, soccer is a million times more attractive to a youth than boxing nowadays.
The same can be said for Cricket in India, basketball, soccer and table-tennis in Asia, soccer in Africa and so on.

 

Almost every other sport is structure competition so the best have to constantly fight each other to prove themselves.

In boxing this is no longer the case. People like Adrien Broner being 3 weight champions for example.

Also boxing isn't just a sport, it's a fight. Meaning there's an x factor that can't be calculated.

But take HW for an example.

Ali spent his career fighting and beating the very best men in his division.

Fury hasn't done that.

In any other sport that can't be said. Nadal has spent his career against the very best tennis players in the world. Magnus against chess, Messi in football.

Competition drives progress, but for some reason in boxing competition isn't the main aspect of it, so progress isn't driven the way it is elsewhere.

If anything is proof of that its the Paul brothers.

 

I don't know how many people are saying he would thrash Usyk. And I'd guess neither do you mate. It's just as plausible to say that he's underrated because some people say that Canelo would thrash him. Because I've seen people say stupid stuff like that. And that's the point. Our views of what under and overrated are usually biased and distorted and based on limited impressions in my experience. Conn impresses me in what film I've seen of him, considerably so. And his record below heavy speaks for itself. But that's just me. Bettina was a fine fighter btw.

Inoue quite impresses me, he's a very good fighter who I like and an interesting example as it turns out. Formidable speed and power and a very good chin thus far, which is always a good start. In terms of his overall skill set and talent I find him to be basic by the top end historical standards of other fighters his size. Fairly straight up and down in terms of his approach and not an expansive talent with a wide array of technical tools compared to the likes of Jofre, Olivares, Wilfredo Gomez and many others. He hasn't beaten anyone who really impresses me and none of his wins imo stand up to the better wins of a lot of other very good bantam sized fighters from the past, which is becoming a problem for him at this stage. He hasn't shown any inclination to fight most of the better fighters through the weightclasses he's fought in, and the fights were there to be made. His best opponent thus far is the old Donaire who was a shade of his former self, and he still gave Inoue a brutal fight. His career is passing him by a bit imo and he's already fought enough no hopers without adding the extra twenty you mentioned, so he hasn't truly got down to business anyway as you phrased it. I know that sounds harsh for a four weight titlist, but that's what he's been at every weight other than bantam. A splinter titlist making small jumps in weight. The junior/super weights below bantam are largely pointless to me. Just a couple of pounds difference that mostly serve to dilute the talent pools in each class.

Which brings me to your other question. All fighters are different and require different levels of exposure and activity to develop and improve their skill sets. I'm not sure why you seem intent on framing extra experience as being pointless. Who's to say that Inoue wouldn't have learned how to fine tune his approach, develop new tools or incorporate extra dimensions into his game? Based on fighting a variety of journeyman and gatekeeper types in between fighting more challenging opponents if his schedule allowed for it as the older ones did? He has plenty that he could have improved upon technically or added to his existing repertoire, having such a good foundation of physical ability to build on. The opponents don't all have to be no hopers ffs. Just solid fighters who keep him busy and sharp, reduce ring rust or are geared to pose a specific challenge etc. It was possible to build a resume with lots of fights that aren't too packed with filler and cannon fodder, loads of fighters have done it if the opponents of a certain standard were on the scene. You're phrasing in a way that makes it seem like all the extra fights would be of no use and that you have a sort of mild contempt for the very idea. Most fighters aren't natural wizards or born fighters like Whitaker or RJJ who are so innately brilliant that they needed far fewer fights to hit their peak. Inoue certainly isn't of their calibre by a country mile and not of the calibre where he could have come into the pros with no extensive amateur experience and not need to fight those extra fights to gain experience and develop accordingly. Considering his relatively average skill set I'd have thought it would have benefited him to add it to his impressive speed, power and decent punching form. His opposition has been mostly pish anyway imo.

 

What I'm trying to say, is that I don't automatically rate a fighter with 300 fights higher than someone with only 30 - just because one had 10 times as many as the other. There are other things to consider - not least the strength of the opponents.

As for Britton, he had an awful lot of losses in between his many wins. But maybe I'm being too hard on him, maybe it's not fair to hold that too much against him, as times were different back then. Purses were often small, and many boxers (even some of the best) needed to fight often to put food on the table. That was also the case for Britton - but I have to wonder, if some of those many fights weren't more like exhibitions, than serious fights?

Regarding Whitaker... I too think he looked fantastic! Even in some of his last amateur fights, he boxed like a consummate professional. So as an Olympic champion, with more than 200 amateur bouts, he was already well-schooled and ready to go, when he turned pro.

Would you really have liked him to have an additional 40 fights against journeymen or no-hopers, sprinkled in between those fights he actually had? How would that have made him a better fighter, or made his record look more impressive? Not to mention... who on earth would be interested in such fights?

 

I do get where you're coming, of course. Obviously quality of opposition is important. My point with Whitaker was that it's easier and less of a challenge to fight the 40 odd fights that he did than it is to fight 80 fights even if some of those 80 fights were easy ones provided that there are still the likes of Nelson, Chavez, McGirt etc being defeated as part of the 80 odd. Especially if there a few extra respectable names in there even if they aren't world beaters. It's just harder to do and increases your chances of losing a fight just on sheer probability. Just one night here or there where you have a bad night, aren't prepared, get cut, don't feel 100% well ,an unfancied opponent has a blinder and fights the fight of his life or a judge produces a dodgy scorecard etc. You get my drift, I'm sure. Fighting ten times the amount of fights is harder as long as you're fighting enough good fighters to offset the guy who is fighting ten times less but all very good fighters (though the latter never happens). The focus, discipline and ability to adjust in the ring or deal with on short notice dozens and dozens of opponents whom you've never seen fight before and can't always prepare for is not to be underestimated. The main flipside I can see with fewer fights being tougher than more fights is if you fight a swathe of gruelling fights against atg great opponents in short succession and it drains your prime or permanently diminishes you. It's happened to fighters in the past but doesn't really happen these days. Or if you get thrown in the deep end too soon maybe.

Whitaker wasn't the best example to be fair, because of his immense amateur background, freakish talent and atg trainer moulding him. He was just the first elite great fighter I thought of with few fights compared to older greats with deeper CVs.

 

In terms of who'd be interested in watching a great fighter beat up a nondescript, I'd wager that most fans of the great fighter would watch as long as they aren't being ripped off by ppv or some ****. And the underdogs fans would love the chance to cheer him on vs a great (maybe )

 

On the "it's a fight, and therefore at some level unpredictable" point -- Look at the frequency of upsets in MMA. That's a sport where the best fight the best regularly, and it sometimes feels like the entire sport is an exercise in dice rolling.

 

Yep borderline unprofessional one might say