View Full Version : Are there less pro boxers now compared to 50+ years ago?


Davros?
03-31-2011, 05:43 AM
I was wondering if anyone has a list of how many active boxers there were in the past in comparison to today? Say from around the 1960's and before, i was under the impression that there was a great deal more fighters active in this period compared to today but is this actually true? I was also told by someone that there was more active boxers in New York alone compared to the whole of America today. Again I don***8217;t have any facts to back this up so does anyone knows if this is true?
If this is true it must mean that the modern boxing talent pool is seriously degraded in comparison to the past.

Barn
03-31-2011, 11:38 AM
The answer to your question is yes.

It's down to the popularity of the sport, it's just been slowly degrading over time.

RubenSonny
03-31-2011, 11:53 AM
This interview with boxing historian Mike Silver pretty much confirms everything, I think hes a bit extreme but he makes some excellent points and his stats are accurate, as far as I know. http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

Davros?
03-31-2011, 12:29 PM
This interview with boxing historian Mike Silver pretty much confirms everything, I think hes a bit extreme but he makes some excellent points and his stats are accurate, as far as I know. http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

Thanks I will have a read of that. If its true the talent pool of today is seriously depleted in comparison to the past. I donít like looking back with rose tinted glasses like some people do but it must be much easier to win a title now than it was back then not even taking into account the number of titles these days.

McGoorty
07-19-2011, 02:03 AM
I was wondering if anyone has a list of how many active boxers there were in the past in comparison to today? Say from around the 1960's and before, i was under the impression that there was a great deal more fighters active in this period compared to today but is this actually true? I was also told by someone that there was more active boxers in New York alone compared to the whole of America today. Again I donít have any facts to back this up so does anyone knows if this is true?
If this is true it must mean that the modern boxing talent pool is seriously degraded in comparison to the past.

I related to this topic on another thread, Emphatic YES, I'd lay odds of 599 to 1 on that one, I think confusion due to Alphabet Titles is another thing that degrades the talent, there will always be great boxers but never as many as 1900 to mid 50's Glory days. In the years 1900-17 in Australia there were 20 round main events EVERY Friday and Saturday night in All Six Capital Cities and they paid fighters multiple times as much as in America, There were Hundreds of Pro's in most divisions. The average Australian fight fan was rabid, when Jeff Smith fouled Les Darcy in the first fight to force the fight to be abandoned in the 2nd round, the crowd of thousands RIOTED and tore up the seats and wrecked the place and many tried to tear Smith to bits but You DID NOT mess with those coppers that Sydney had in "The Razor Era". Australia's Total population was 3 million and 2 and a half million loved boxing, and I cann tell you that Boxing rating in Aus. would rank down at somewhere near 20th. :drive: