I hear this a lot. People talk about how such-and-such an era had inferior fighters, terrible rewards for athletes, poor training, a scarce talent pool, etc. etc. These claims don't even discriminate temporally: you hear it about modern times just as much as you hear it about Jeffries' era. So I invite you all to prove it. For whatever eras you consider weak or strong, PROVE IT using data rather than your impression of a few top contenders. Give me the number of active boxers, the number of boxing gyms, the quality of exercise advice in training manuals, the technique in training manuals, your impression of the journeymen caught on film... ...in short, anything that DOESN'T boil down to your assessment of the champ and a couple contenders.
LONGEVIETY at the TOP, NUMBER of Fights among fellow TOP MEN FIGHTING UP in weight against the TOP MEN, competing well -win or lose Stronger Era's had this criteria as "the norm"
Most of that stuff you mention would be largely subjective opnion or of debatable relevance as well as opinions on champs and contenders.
Some would, some wouldn't. Larger talent pools generally mean better competitors in any sport. The number of boxers is a pretty good measurement of the sport's competitiveness.* A lot of the other stuff is more "subjective", but when multiple indicators point in the same direction, an era is more likely to be strong. I'm suggesting that looking at the entire picture makes more sense than looking at the outcomes of a couple fights between a few top guys. I don't see how artificially restricting our analysis to a single factor (top contenders and champs) would give us a better answer than looking at a bunch of different things. * EDIT: Quality of training advice is also an objective criterion, since sports scientists today know a lot more about exercise and nutrition.
I think that there are verry few eras that can be proven to be genuinely weak. One instance where I could make a strong case is the period when Paddy Ryan held the title. The fact that the era was dominated by older versions of fighters who were not the best or brighters of the previous era, when they were probably better than they were then, makes it hard to mount a counter argument.
the 1870's were an awful decade for boxing. the british moral society had driven the sport underground or overseas. australia still had not developed enough good fighters to merit any lasting historical appreciation (name one active australian fighter in the 1870's other than foley) and in the us, repeated shenanigans and an inactive champion in mace who beat easily the heir apparent in allen left the sport confined to sporadic big interest bouts, usually ending in disappointment. the only saving grace was that exhibitions were becoming more common and getting people used to the idea to going to see boxing in a arena type setting instead of traversing miles from nowhere to watch the fights.
