What was the third best era for heavyweights?

[Willie Pep 229]

Accept my apology. I didn't mean to come out rude. I may have faultily taken offense to what I read as mocking and ridiculing of european sports and fans.

OK thanks - I was not mocking them I was trying to understand why that stand-up straight forward style ( sometimes called the Olympic style) is so popular in Europe.

When I made the comparison of Wald to soccer please note I suggested that they ( the audience) were maybe easier to please or possibly more "sophisticated" - that certainly was not meant to be an Insult.

Thanks for getting back to me.

[BattlingNelson]

OK thanks - I was not mocking them I was trying to understand why that stand-up straight forward style ( sometimes called the Olympic style) is so popular in Europe.

When I made the comparison of Wald to soccer please note I suggested that they ( the audience) were maybe easier to please or possibly more "sophisticated" - that certainly was not meant to be an Insult.

Thanks for getting back to me.

No question about it. I was too hard in my reply. That was unneccesary.

[billeau2]

1. I think a few of the very old-timers fought many, many times more individually than modern fighters that's for sure. A lot of those fights was against the same men over and over again though and by looking at the whole picture, you'd see that there's a gigantic leap in number of fights and professional rounds fought today than 50 or 100 years ago and that's without counting AM. That's not a debate.

2. Whatever. Basically your claim is, if I understand correctly, that fighters long long ago were better than modern fighters because they fought more often and the fights where longer?

If you are indeed correct, say the top 10 HW's of a certain era fought more times (or rounds?) than another era then the era with the most yearly fights (regardless of opposition), would be the better era. Is that your claim? If so that can be calculated.



3.Yes, but you claimed that there was more gyms in the old days than today. I beg to differ.



4. Clearly wrong. The fact that the eastern bloc didn't turn pro meant that the pro ranks didn't know the style of those fighters and they went on to pay for that lack of knowledge later.



5.In the capitalistic world we know that competion ensures better products than lack of competition. I see no reason why it isnt analogue to sports.



6. It's about tradition. If these countries have no tradition for a particular sport these countries have no chance of dominating. Take badminton for example. Nobody plays in the US. In denmark it's a huge sport and denmark would whip the best yanks any day of the week. That's simply because there is a tradition for that sport.



7. Hmmm... Are you now saying that its what you see that determines which era is the best? Your eye-test? Really?

1. If you are averaging rounds per all the fighters then yes... because there are more fighters today more rounds are fought. If you are looking at the top echelon of professional fighters, then no... the top professional fighters fought much more than a champion today. Just look at how many fights were fought by the average top 20 in each division or so. But an average of rounds fought only speaks to quality when we consider some measure of excellent fighters. its hard to come up with a cut off point here...A point where we decide what fighters to look at. Obviously if we average out a professional career, we need a cutoff if we are trying to average rounds. That is a bit of a rabit hole frankly.

There is nothing wrong with fighting the same opponents often... different factors come into play, but it is equalized: both opponents know each other better. the best fighters arguably were the Black fighters like the Johnson era fighters and Murderer's row... and they fought each other plenty!

2. Experience is always the best teacher. its not boxing per se. If a fighter fights more under a set of conditions (professional prize fighter) they will have more experience and be better. Calculated? How so? Maybe like, We are talking about taking a period... oh lets say from Johnson to Louis, and having a cutoff, maybe top 20 fighters for each division and seeing how many fights they had compared to a period from maybe the 1970's to the present... That might work.

3. There were more gyms per the amount of professional fighters. Not more gyms total. And I am talking boxing gyms. Not gyms that have a boxing trainer on hand.

4. Don't know what is "wrong" but the Eastern Bloc fighters fought in an Ammy style, it was, and is well known. The analogy is not wrong so much as misappropriated. Just like when people took the work of Charles Darwin and tried to make it a social commentary.

5.Is boxing purely a function of athletic prowess? innovation? Or is it a function of hardship, the mastery of that which is longstanding... We have been punching each other in the face a long time... by comparison we have been playing field sports (soccer, football, etc) maybe for 500 years or so... So when we change football,make it a professional money maker, attracting better athletes, learn different ways to create plays, alter the athletes who play the sport, then actually your analogy about capitalism holds true... as it does for Most sports. When I was a kid, to throw a baseball 75 MPH, in high school was amazing... I caught a collegepitcher as a 14 year old who threw about 80-85... Catfish Hunter, one of the best pitchers in the game threw average about 85... Now? lets just say people can throw a baseball a lot harder!

Boxing is different because it does not have big money and institutions that support it... Stamford, harvard, Berkely, all the major universities make a fortune being a farm system for the NFL. Boxing money does not even show unless one is very very good. this has the effect of limiting the talent pool. So, we may get more fighters but we are getting less of the top percentage of athletic talent that goes instead to better paying sports... It also has the effect of limiting training opportunities. Boxing gyms are hard to maintain financially. The effect of this is to draw more talent through the amatuer ranks. The amatuer style takesless training and is less comprehensive than traditional professional prize fighting. We are, in effect getting more, less talented fighters... there are more of them, and more competition among them, this is true.

6. Of course it is about tradition. Tradition means that there is a system in place to develop talent. Tradition dictates that there will be better facilities, better trainers, etc. This is why even today, Eastern Euro and other fighters fight out of places like Nevada and New York City. That is my point. You canhave more people, more average stronger, faster, smarter people because of numbers... but a funnel effect happens when we get to the top prize fighting prospects. So, your assertion that there are more fighters now, means very little IMO when discussing very talented prizefighters.

7. I have always said look at film and watch what fighters are doing. If I watch a 1956 Colts football game and compare it to a 1990's 49's game... and watkch a few series of plays this is what I will notice: The Colts are doing very basic plays... the quarter back is looking for one reciever. By comparison Steve young has multiple recievers running patterns, quickly! he may shoot pass to secondary reciever...etc etc. its pretty easy to see form an eye test that one team is doing a lot more, with a lot more sophistication than the other team.

This also applies to boxing. If I watch a typical heavyweight fight there is little to no body punching, movement, both guys are squared up, they throw few punches, not much counter punching going on... usually amatuer style...Simple linear footwork jab step jab step, etc. If Icompare that to a typical fight in the 50's a relatively weak era as well, I see fighters going to the body, countering punches, more shoulder and head movement, etc etc.

What is wrong with this? lol

[billeau2]

What about that quality opposition. Please elaborate so I can understand your point.

When people discuss titles, etc... they are all relative to the general quality of the opposition at the time. In a weak era a mandatory, or a title fight can be against a very poor opponent. This is one reason why it is great to have a general consensus on fighters that are at, or near ATG status. Especially in the heavyweight division there are many periods where we are better served with an eye test, to see how good the general opposition was, than a measure of title holdings, etc. Many times there just are not a lot of ATG heavyweights around...in fact, most times! For example Joe Louis' reign which had a lot of weak title defenses.

[billeau2]

- -Sweet species bonding to see U resident swine coalescing for a good wallow in U sty, but I'd add Big George was 12-3, 8 KO for the 90s from ages 41-48, a 53% KO%, a better overall record than Tyson.

The Boxrec world. Ever hear of it amidst U grunting and squealing and soiling U wallow?

Speak engrish!!!

[billeau2]

No question about it. I was too hard in my reply. That was unneccesary.

I do want to say: I think that the Klitchkos, as individuals, were fantastic. They are well spoken, intelligent and compassionate. And I think European fans in general are great fans... they tend to support their fighters through thick and thin.

[JAB5239]

Plenty of top fighters didnt fight rematches to avenge losses, so I don't put much weight on it myself. I cant remember the timeline and cannot be arsed to check out whether a return made sense or not at any particular point in their careers. Furthermore it's not relevant to the topic at hand.

Unless of course you somehow see this lack of a rematch as a proof of a weak era. But surely you dont?

No, I see it as a weak era because the talent level wasn't there overall, and most of the top 10 fighters at that time came and went with little more the a mouse peep. That Vits never sought a rematch with Byrd surely hurts this era more than helps it. Do you not agree? And yes, there have been many losses that were not avenged. But you would figure VK would have wanted it, especially since there was so much money to be made off of it, and clearing up that black mark against him up until the Lewis fight. Just seems TO convenient the brothers not rematching their worst losses, but passing it on to the other brother.

[JAB5239]

I do want to say: I think that the Klitchkos, as individuals, were fantastic. They are well spoken, intelligent and compassionate. And I think European fans in general are great fans... they tend to support their fighters through thick and thin.

Agreed with this. And I'll go a step further ( I know you diagree) and say Wlad is an all time great. His longevity and reign are impressive as it takes great focus to stay on top that long even in an era not seen as very strong by most.

[QueensburyRules]

- -Old line informed history forum seems now mostly dominated by hysterical sopranos.

Wlad immediately beat Byrd for the WBO, and not long after DKing signed Byrd to fast track the IBF title that Lewie sold to King. The Ks and Steward steadfastly refused to do any biz with DKing fighters after the Wlad drugging in the Brewster fight. There was no $$$ in a Byrd/Vitali rematch anymore than Wlad could rematch Sanders for his title when Sanders was obligated to fight his WBO mandatory that he was ditching to fight Roy Jones that was the Glory Fight every heavy not named Field was after. Roy ditched King and the IBF to fight a ****** trilogy with Tarver who in spite of being such a mediocre boxer managed make out with Roy's invincible mojo that made him an nonentity in the heavy div.

Wuz anyone here watching boxing then

[ShoulderRoll]

So Klit was drugged against Brewster? Any evidence for this excuse?