When did Heavyweight stop using 8oz gloves?

[joeandthebums]

May I ask where these statistics are from and maybe you can give your take on the validity.

The fatalities statistics are from The Manuel Velazquez Collection and the contest statistics are from BoxRec.

I believe both to be the most accurate sources at present available, though I believe their still be to unaccounted for fatalities and contests that hopefully with time will become known.

Unfortunately BoxRec whilst publishing the amount of contests by year and decade they have in their database have yet to do likewise with active boxers.

It seems odd that the number of bouts in 2004 is twice that of 1964 where one would think there would be more fighters and that they where fighting more often. If the validity is compromised the statistic as base of decisionmaking goes Down the drain as the number of deaths most likely is correct (but the number of bouts is not).

That is a good point and I don't have a suitable explanation either for or against the statistics.

The only figures I have on file are those given by Nat Fleischer;

1944 - 4,382 boxers on file
1964 - At least 5,000 professional boxers

Unfortunately I do not have data on the other years but can add that at present BoxRec lists 18,424 boxers as active.

Again I can't ensure absolute accuracy of that figure with regards to how BoxRec list and deem a boxer to be active - but I presume that given current technology very few boxers worldwide are missed today in comparison to the potential for oversight using the system Fleischer was forced to use as record keeper.

[Bundana]

As always some good insights from you.

May I ask where these statistics are from and maybe you can give your take on the validity. It seems odd that the number of bouts in 2004 is twice that of 1964 where one would think there would be more fighters and that they where fighting more often. If the validity is compromised the statistic as base of decisionmaking goes Down the drain as the number of deaths most likely is correct (but the number of bouts is not).

BoxRec's last decade update (October 23, 2014) showed these number of pro fights:

1850 2
1860 15
1870 339
1880 4607
1890 16503
1900 41984
1910 94008
1920 269461
1930 287746
1940 202824
1950 156486
1960 105133
1970 104888
1980 130861
1990 141126
2000 185882
2010 107123

So on October 23 last year, a couple of months shy of the halfway mark of this decade, BoxRec had already registered more pro fights than in each of the 60s and 70s decades.

This is hardly surprising, as the world population har doubled since the 60s, and so many more countries now allow pro boxing (since the Iron Curtain came down). So the global talent pool is obviously much larger today than 50 years ago.

[BattlingNelson]

The fatalities statistics are from The Manuel Velazquez Collection and the contest statistics are from BoxRec.

I believe both to be the most accurate sources at present available, though I believe their still be to unaccounted for fatalities and contests that hopefully with time will become known.

Unfortunately BoxRec whilst publishing the amount of contests by year and decade they have in their database have yet to do likewise with active boxers.



That is a good point and I don't have a suitable explanation either for or against the statistics.

The only figures I have on file are those given by Nat Fleischer;

1944 - 4,382 boxers on file
1964 - At least 5,000 professional boxers

Unfortunately I do not have data on the other years but can add that at present BoxRec lists 18,424 boxers as active.

Again I can't ensure absolute accuracy of that figure with regards to how BoxRec list and deem a boxer to be active - but I presume that given current technology very few boxers worldwide are missed today in comparison to the potential for oversight using the system Fleischer was forced to use as record keeper.

BoxRec's last decade update (October 23, 2014) showed these number of pro fights:

1850 2
1860 15
1870 339
1880 4607
1890 16503
1900 41984
1910 94008
1920 269461
1930 287746
1940 202824
1950 156486
1960 105133
1970 104888
1980 130861
1990 141126
2000 185882
2010 107123

So on October 23 last year, a couple of months shy of the halfway mark of this decade, BoxRec had already registered more pro fights than in each of the 60s and 70s decades.

This is hardly surprising, as the world population har doubled since the 60s, and so many more countries now allow pro boxing (since the Iron Curtain came down). So the global talent pool is obviously much larger today than 50 years ago.

Thanks Guys.

I knew a bit about the statistics, but it's nice to have them here. It's a topic that deserves a thread of it's own IMO.

What I think is one of the major implications of these numbers is that it turns the way we view boxing history upside Down. It's popular to say, and I do so myself very often, that boxers of yesteryear was better and past eras where better. Now we are present with a statistic pretty much showing that the talent pool is bigger today and the competition is much harder. Let that sink in for a while before discussing the state of HW boxing.

Mindboggling.

Maybe you Guys can comment on that observation?

[BattlingNelson]

I have made a thread for the above points so as to not highjack this thread.

Please go there.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=672200

[The Old LefHook]

No I am not, nor do believe I came across as such.


It the above an opinion or a form of humour?

Unlike other sports the basic intent in boxing is to produce bodily harm in the opponent. Boxing can result in death and produce an alarming incidence of chronic brain injury and eye, ear and nose damage.

The evidence indicates that boxing not only causes acute brain injury but also chronic brain damage, which is sustained cumulatively in those who have a career in boxing, regardless of monetary status. It may take many years before boxers and ex-boxers find out they are suffering from brain damage.

We as fans should be aware of the dangers, the same as all boxers; amateurs and professionals should be aware of the repercussions - but there is being aware and then there is making statements such as this;

How can anyone take fome of thofe ftatements at face value? Maybe you honeftly believe I want brains hanging out the ear like Humean's already do.

I have a hygroma on the right fide of my brain incurred from a childhood boxing match in the backyard with huge gloves. My coufin had a natural lefhook. I never developed feizures, but the doctors faid there was a chance I would. The hygroma is ftill there.

Refearchers did some tefts of highfchool football players' cognitive abilities. Following games, it turned out that all the players who played in the game, not juft thofe with concuffions, difplayed temporarily diminfhed cognitive abilities, there being a direct correlation between level of dimifhed capacity and level of contact for the particular player. Look on YouTube. It is eafy enough to find. I am not pofitively infpired that thefe refults were temporary

I am not for banning boxing. I am, however, for doing away with highfchool football entirely, fince it affects our youth directly and in huge numbers. The focus in this fports-mad country is too much on fports and too little on education. I laugh at the notion that football builds character. There are many documented cafes of kids as young as the eighth grade taking fteroids to improve their athletic performance. In the large fcheme of things athletics is not important, education is.