How did older fights last so long. ????

nobody can do anything if they arent taught to do so but they question is are the phyically capable and the answer is hell yes. Sure it wouldnt be wise to just take an already older establised guy and now tell him to go fight 6-10 times per year but it also wouldnt have been wised to tell one of those past guys to only fight once per year. If they did then I bet anything there performances in the ring wouldnt be nearly as good as a fighter today. However if they had to do it and got use to it then they could adjust just as a fighter today could easily adjust if he had to do so. Its just not what they were doing at the time. Nothing special about it. You definitely have to give those guys credit for being able to do that but I never have and never be with the crowd who calls todays atheltes weak sissies. I think thats what fans tend to do nowdays and its bs. Dont tell me that someone who trains as hard as Floyd couldnt do that. These guys spar hundreds of rounds anyways. Its not a real fight but again, the past guys arent fighting all top guys. People only remember the big names but if those guys had 100 fights then you will see about 80 average guys or bums on the list. No one remembers that though. Its all the same. It averages out I have a feeling that the old timers would find it far easier to adjust than current fighters. Take Mayweather for example, we already know he has bad hands and has had difficulty getting up to even 40 professional bouts. With an additional 100 professional fights to add to that record, he would have definitely lost a handful of pro fights due to his injuries (he almost did lose the first Castillo fight) and may have been forced to retire earlier. Especially if you consider that the old gloves were no pillows. Fighting a hundred times is difficult, even if much of them are against "bums", after all even a "bum" can get lucky if you get injured. One of Mayweather's toughest fights was against a journeyman in Emmanuel Augustus. Overall the old timers did fight against more quality competition to add to the tune-up fights they had in between when you count the top 10 ranked fighters that they competed against. Even Pernell Whitaker with his 40 professional fights fought opponents who didn't belong in the ring with him, so record padding and tune-ups take place even in more recent times. It's not something to be taken for granted and is worth all the respect that are given to the old timers. They only did it out of necessity as there was not enough money in it to fight 1-2 times a year. Obviously current fighters could potentially fight with the same schedule but not with ease. There would be far less unbeaten records and many more early retirements.

If boxing continues to decline, that is what will be recognized. Because the sport has been in decline for over 50 years, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Go do research then come back with a more educated opinion. I watched big fights on ABC Wide World of Sports as a kid at my daddy's knee in the 70s...that's 40 years ago. Ali beat Liston in 64 and avenged his loss to Spinks in 78. Sugar Ray whupped Benitez in 79 then came the 80's with the Motor City Cobra/Marvelous(my personal fav)/Manos de piedra, etc...RJJ and BHOP started in the late 80's. 90's had Tyson and Lewis and Holyfield...2000+..cmon u know the drill... You just wanna' sound like the wise old sage... Boxing is and will continue to be healthy til long after we're pushin' up daisies...:boxing: Fuggin' drama queens...

I dont necessarily agree. I think guys could do it today. For every ATG they fought, they also fought 10 guys who were average to bad. It could be like instead of Floyd sparring, he fights Cotto but then after that he has like 4 fights against Matthew Hatton, Cotto's lil brother, Jesse Vargas, and guys even lesser than that This is true right here.

Keep in mind we really only hear about the ones who could. Not everyone could, but the ones that could are the ones that we remember. Not the other thousands. I bet some modern fighters could pull it off. But things changed

Bump......

I mean they fought damn near every weak in vicious fights sometimes theyd fight ATg fighters a couple times in a year. How is this possible? By today's standards most guys would lose there prime and be shot to hell. Is it just a testament to how good they are? Was it ped's Or was them fighting so much a benefit that there body's could just take that punishment? I shoulda put this in the history section. If they had the same medical guidlines that they have today, I'm sure those guys would not have been able to fight soo much. Back then a guy could go in with half his vision and nobody would know, but today you have to pass physicals

If boxing continues to decline, that is what will be recognized. Because the sport has been in decline for over 50 years, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Go do research then come back with a more educated opinion. 50 years? So the sport was on the incline when race halted Jack Johnson's initial attempts to fight for a title or when the mob openly influenced the outcome of fights? Within these 50 years you speak of, we've witnessed the most popular figures the sport has ever seen. We've put together some of the most notable Olympics teams the USA has ever seen. What about these 50 years that has made the sport decline? The only difference now is that the downtrodden of society who usually thrive in boxing have options now. That's why track and field has seen a shift in popularity. Because most of the greats that dominated these low resourced sports find bigger pots of gold at the end of the basketball or football rainbow.

btw the super six tournament at super middleweight that we just had, says it all: suddenly the best fight the best in every fight, and tons of injuries occur and pple pull out of fights left and right: Dirrell, Kessler and so on. here I got a screenshots of a part of Willie Pep's boxing record: Pep fought over 200 fights as a pro and in the 7 consecutive fights in the screenshot you see a prime Willie Pep fighting Ray Famechon (good fighter), then 5 "bums" (or average fighters), then another good fighter in Sandy Saddler: http://s14.postimage.org/v4miz6agx/peppie.jpg

They can't if they aren't taught to do so. I bet Andre Berto could do whatever Mayweather does but he does not. I think Mayweather and Pacquiao have shown that being bigger and stronger is not all there is to it. They are far from as big as even the welterweights from the 1980's, whose average height was 6 feet. nobody can do anything if they arent taught to do so but they question is are the phyically capable and the answer is hell yes. Sure it wouldnt be wise to just take an already older establised guy and now tell him to go fight 6-10 times per year but it also wouldnt have been wised to tell one of those past guys to only fight once per year. If they did then I bet anything there performances in the ring wouldnt be nearly as good as a fighter today. However if they had to do it and got use to it then they could adjust just as a fighter today could easily adjust if he had to do so. Its just not what they were doing at the time. Nothing special about it. You definitely have to give those guys credit for being able to do that but I never have and never be with the crowd who calls todays atheltes weak sissies. I think thats what fans tend to do nowdays and its bs. Dont tell me that someone who trains as hard as Floyd couldnt do that. These guys spar hundreds of rounds anyways. Its not a real fight but again, the past guys arent fighting all top guys. People only remember the big names but if those guys had 100 fights then you will see about 80 average guys or bums on the list. No one remembers that though. Its all the same. It averages out

I mean they fought damn near every weak in vicious fights sometimes theyd fight ATg fighters a couple times in a year. How is this possible? By today's standards most guys would lose there prime and be shot to hell. Is it just a testament to how good they are? Was it ped's Or was them fighting so much a benefit that there body's could just take that punishment? I shoulda put this in the history section. I think those old school fighters had sometimes an agreement to not hurt each other too much. I read that in interviews, but that doesnt apply for all fights of course. the other thing is that they were not fighting the best competition in every fight. they were fighting a good fighter, and then 5 bums, then another good fighter, and another 5 bums. know what I mean? thats why they lasted so long. they were not super human or anything like that

What are both of you talkin about? What does what the TS asked have to do with the decline of the sport? Its 2 totally seperate things. Also, the sport in decline doesnt tell the full story. Its not just about fighters. When boxing came along, there were no other pro sports at all besides Baseball. Football & Basketball werent around. Now Football is by far the #1 sport in the US. There are also things about PPV as opposed to basic TV but none of that has to do with what the TS asked. A decline in the sport has nothing to do with weather a guy could fight a ton of fights like they did in the old days or not. That is about a era and an individual boxer. Guys cold do it today if thats what they had to do. You say its a decline in the sport but its a huge incline in the athelete. In all of pro sports guys are way bigger, stronger, & faster than in the past. There is no disputing that. It might not show as much in boxing because they have weight classes but dont tell me that todays atheletes who are naturally much more bigger, stronger, & faster cant do anything that guys in the past could do. It makes no sense They can't if they aren't taught to do so. I bet Andre Berto could do whatever Mayweather does but he does not. I think Mayweather and Pacquiao have shown that being bigger and stronger is not all there is to it. They are far from as big as even the welterweights from the 1980's, whose average height was 6 feet. The likes of Thomas Hearns, Milton McCrory, Mark Breland and Maurice Blocker would tower over today's bunch of welterweights.

If boxing continues to decline, that is what will be recognized. Because the sport has been in decline for over 50 years, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Go do research then come back with a more educated opinion. It is the trend of history. Societies tend toward decline, particularly after they peak. The myth embracing person is actually the one that assumes that "things will always be as they have been". If you want to avoid the cycle you have to work at it, but the only thing that is automatic is decline. This is not what the TS was talkin about? What does what the TS asked have to do with the decline of the sport? Its 2 totally seperate things. Also, the sport in decline doesnt tell the full story. Its not just about fighters. When boxing came along, there were no other pro sports at all besides Baseball. Football & Basketball werent around. Now Football is by far the #1 sport in the US. There are also things about PPV as opposed to basic TV but none of that has to do with what the TS asked. A decline in the sport has nothing to do with weather a guy could fight a ton of fights like they did in the old days or not. That is about a era and an individual boxer. Guys cold do it today if thats what they had to do. You say its a decline in the sport but its a huge incline in the athelete. In all of pro sports guys are way bigger, stronger, & faster than in the past. There is no disputing that. It might not show as much in boxing because they have weight classes but dont tell me that todays atheletes who are naturally much more bigger, stronger, & faster cant do anything that guys in the past could do. It makes no sense

You didn't have to train 3 months to lose weight. Most fighters were always in fighting condition and learned the necessary skills to pace themselves for 15 rounds of action. Those who continually had to train to lose weight had shorter careers and were usually less skilled than those who used their training camps to hone their boxing skill. On the other hand you still had guys like Archie Moore who could compete at 200 pounds and then 175 pounds the next month. It was his incredible level of skill and experience that allowed him to do so. I just don't think it's possible for a fighter today to learn as many skills as Archie Moore did in a mere 30-40 pro fights compared to his 220, spent fighting against the very best year after year. The likes of Hopkins and Mayweather come the closest.

There's still fighters that have runs of impressive opponents (Froch for example) but I agree even in those cases they only normally fight 2/3 times a year. But like the chap above said, the preperation for fights is totally different nowadays. Fighters will embark on a 12 week camp and have all kinds of nutritionists, conditioners etc to get them to the pinaccle of what their body can achieve. Mind you, if you fought every 6-8 weeks then you wouldnt need a 12 week training camp as you'd always be in good condition and cutting weight wouldnt have been such a big issue (partly because of the constant activity and partly because there werent so many weight divisions back then). We moan about fighters but really its all about the TV dates. Think how many top fighters there are, there's no way they could all get TV coverage for 6+ fights a year unless pay expectations were drastically changed.

I see we are back to the thinking of everything in the past is much greater then the present? I wonder what people 30 years from now will be saying about this era It is the trend of history. Societies tend toward decline, particularly after they peak. The myth embracing person is actually the one that assumes that "things will always be as they have been". If you want to avoid the cycle you have to work at it, but the only thing that is automatic is decline.

They were like corley

I see we are back to the thinking of everything in the past is much greater then the present? I wonder what people 30 years from now will be saying about this era If boxing continues to decline, that is what will be recognized. Because the sport has been in decline for over 50 years, and that is a fact, not an opinion. Go do research then come back with a more educated opinion.

I see we are back to the thinking of everything in the past is much greater then the present? I wonder what people 30 years from now will be saying about this era

Life was harder, so men had to be too.

/in before move to history section. Because the sport was all around more competitive then. That means you now notice how the sport has been in decline all these years. Fighters today are babied, fighting once, twice a year if they are the top fighters. In the old days, you had to defend your title almost monthly, and to even fight for a title you had to have way more than 20-something fights. more like 50 or 60. It was a harder sport, and there was more talent. You had two people boxing each other for 15 rounds, today you have early round KO's and high KO ratios, due to lack of talent and poor levels of instruction.