Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

[Slugfester]

[QUOTE=The D3vil;n31902525]Dude, we're currently watching fat, unathletic slob Nikola Jokic dominate the NBA and y'all still pushing that "today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster" nonsense.

Tyson Fury's a fat slob & dominating HWs left & right.

When are y'all gonna learn that big muscles & fast-twitches aren't everything.

Fact is 160lbs is 160lbs, so there's no reason Sugar Ray Robinson or Marvin Hagler couldn't fight 160lbers today.

Also, fighters in the past fought a lot more & fought 15 rounds which made them more conditioned

There also used to be a lot more professional fighters.

Boxing if anything, has regressed in the past few decades, which is why guys like Floyd Mayweather & Manny Pacquaio could be dominant welterweights when there's no way they would have in any other era.[/QUOTE]


Ka Ching! Ka Ching! Ka Ching!

[Bundana]

Dude, we're currently watching fat, unathletic slob Nikola Jokic dominate the NBA and y'all still pushing that "today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster" nonsense.

Tyson Fury's a fat slob & dominating HWs left & right.

When are y'all gonna learn that big muscles & fast-twitches aren't everything.

Fact is 160lbs is 160lbs, so there's no reason Sugar Ray Robinson or Marvin Hagler couldn't fight 160lbers today.

Also, fighters in the past fought a lot more & fought 15 rounds which made them more conditioned

There also used to be a lot more professional fighters.

Boxing if anything, has regressed in the past few decades, which is why guys like Floyd Mayweather & Manny Pacquaio could be dominant welterweights when there's no way they would have in any other era.

Just a couple of remarks:

I'm not sure the ridiculously busy schedule of some old-timers, made them better conditioned than today. Top marathon runners compete over the full distance only 3 or 4 (at most!) times a year... since the body needs time to recuperate in between the races. A serious fight every other week, is hardly the best way to reach peak condition.

When exactly did we see a lot more pro fighters than today?


Also... what is the name of your super-hot girlfriend?

[max baer]

You asked "Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities"

You asked an interesting question but then went right to comparing the prowess of past to present fighters.

A topic we have beaten to death on this board.

You really were not asking why fight fans are more nostalgic, were you?

You were just using the question as yet another opportunity to challenge the old timers, and argue that the current fighters are just as good as the old timers. Maybe!

Maybe they are, but did I mention we have beaten this topic to death?

How about your actual question, WHY are WE more nostalgic?

It's about Us! The posters.

The question is not about how good past and current fighters compare to each other, (or at least it wasn't until you baited me into thinking it was.)

So has anyone got an opinion on why we are more nostalgic, or are all sport fans just as nostalgic?

nostalgia just isn't what it used to be willie!

[QueensburyRules]

Hagler annihilated Mustafa Hamsho, the same Hamsho that would annihilate a prime future Two Weight World Champion in Bobby Czyz.

GGG's best win is Daniel Geale.....GTFO

- - GGG best win is getting TUE TBE to duck him for a154 defense and 155 for GGG middle belts, and then getting Wart to duck him at 164 for Wart supermiddle titles while Wart was trying to lure TBE TUE into a supermiddle catchweight at 162, none of which happened.

Hamsho tough face first fighter made for Marv and GGG. GGG beat undefeated Brooksie, and highly skilled, experienced, and always tough Danny Jabobs.

What grade they gonna make you repeat next year?

[QueensburyRules]

The weight class point, that Dempsey alluded to, is a big point. The main difference, in many sports, between modern athletes, and those of years gone by, is size. But for most boxers, size is an equalized variable.

I’d add on that boxing as a sport relies so heavily on stamina, and that older fighters had longer fights in general (15 rounds). So older boxers were preparing in a way to better prepare them for their style of fighting.

I think these two aspects allows for one to argue that boxers from different post war eras, at least in capped weight classes, could compete with modern fighters. Looking at the NFL, its hard to say that teams from pre mid 80s could compete today (linemen were too small). Ditto with NBA pre 1970s.

Though in both cases I could ser a number if individuals transitioning eras; Wilt would be a stud today or in any era. And that leads to another point: improved athleticism has done more to move the mid level athletes up, in essence creating more depth- but often times the greats are near their peak levels naturally. So when we talk about the fighters from 60 years back, we are mostly comparing the cream of the crop. Who could compete with those today.

A couple of ancillary points- I think Hagler vs GGG is a bad example. Prime Hagler was late 70s, when the Cold War competition had pressed athletic development enough that it was close to modern levels. Different from say the mid 50s.
Also, Baseball fans are just as nostalgic. Probably because for some important tasks size, strength, and speed are not required to be world class to compete. Ergo its not far fetched to argue that a prime Ted Williams could be successful in the modern game.

- - Steroid ridden NFL with all the equipment changes, rules changes, ect. None of them boys could beat Marion Motley under 40s rules and conditions where he compiled a higher rushing average than teammate Jim Brown as well as play linebacker on defense as well as block for the quarter and running backs. And he did it Converse Basketball Hightops because no spikes could be had for his gargantuan feet.

Nor could any modern divas match Jim Thorpe under his rules and conditions where he literally could play every position on the field.

OP is proving that Evolution has stopped as mankind enters into devolution.

[The D3vil]

Just a couple of remarks:

I'm not sure the ridiculously busy schedule of some old-timers, made them better conditioned than today. Top marathon runners compete over the full distance only 3 or 4 (at most!) times a year... since the body needs time to recuperate in between the races. A serious fight every other week, is hardly the way to reach peak condition.

Were there more professional fighters when Robinson and Hagler were active?


Also... what is the name of your super-hot girlfriend?

The chick is Dulcemoon



And, this is from Mike Silver's "Arc of Boxing" (great read, BTW)

The Incredible Shrinking Sport

Prior to World War II the difficulty in ranking fighters lay in selecting ten from an outstanding field of possibly fifteen or more prominent performers. Today’s headache comes from trying to find a sufficient number of worthies in any division after the first three or four have been listed.¹
Nat Fleischer, editor and publisher, The Ring magazine, 1958

In 1925 the New York State Athletic Commission’s annual report stated that 1,890 licensed professional boxers resided in the state—up from 1,654 the year before. Two years later, in 1927, the number had climbed to 2,000 licensed professionals, with over 900 boxing shows promoted throughout state. The juxtaposition of those figures compared to today is nothing short of astonishing. New York, once the center of world boxing, licensed a paltry 50 pro boxers and staged just 38 shows in 2006.

During the 1920s and 1930s approximately 8,000 to 10,000 professional boxers were licensed annually in the United States. In the 1950s the numbers averaged between 5,000 and 6,000 every year. The latest figures available from BoxRec.com—a Web site that tracks the activity of pro fighters throughout the world—indicated that in 2006 approximately 2,850 active boxers (at least one fight for the year) were licensed in the United States. The number of shows for the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico was 906. This amounts to the total for just one state (New York) in 1927.

In England, second only to the U.S. in boxing activity during the Golden Age, the number of annual shows reached a postwar peak of 1,115 during the 1948–49 season. That was the last time the number exceeded the 1,000 mark. In 1960–61 the number of shows dipped below the 200 mark for the first time. Over the past 45 years (1961–2006) they have averaged between 150 and 230 per season.

[Bundana]

And, this is from Mike Silver's "Arc of Boxing" (great read, BTW)

The Incredible Shrinking Sport
Prior to World War II the difficulty in ranking fighters lay in selecting ten from an outstanding field of possibly fifteen or more prominent performers. Today’s headache comes from trying to find a sufficient number of worthies in any division after the first three or four have been listed.¹
Nat Fleischer, editor and publisher, The Ring magazine, 1958
In 1925 the New York State Athletic Commission’s annual report stated that 1,890 licensed professional boxers resided in the state—up from 1,654 the year before. Two years later, in 1927, the number had climbed to 2,000 licensed professionals, with over 900 boxing shows promoted throughout state. The juxtaposition of those figures compared to today is nothing short of astonishing. New York, once the center of world boxing, licensed a paltry 50 pro boxers and staged just 38 shows in 2006.

During the 1920s and 1930s approximately 8,000 to 10,000 professional boxers were licensed annually in the United States. In the 1950s the numbers averaged between 5,000 and 6,000 every year. The latest figures available from BoxRec.com—a Web site that tracks the activity of pro fighters throughout the world—indicated that in 2006 approximately 2,850 active boxers (at least one fight for the year) were licensed in the United States. The number of shows for the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico was 906. This amounts to the total for just one state (New York) in 1927.

In England, second only to the U.S. in boxing activity during the Golden Age, the number of annual shows reached a postwar peak of 1,115 during the 1948–49 season. That was the last time the number exceeded the 1,000 mark. In 1960–61 the number of shows dipped below the 200 mark for the first time. Over the past 45 years (1961–2006) they have averaged between 150 and 230 per season.


Sure sounds, as if boxing is on it's last legs! However, as always, there's too much focus on what's happening in the US - as if what goes on elsewhere in the world doesn't really matter.

Since the fall of The Wall in 1989, pro boxing has spread to just about every corner of the world. In 1988 BoxRec lists 69 different countries with at least one professional promotion that year - a number that by 2018 had increased to 118.

Over the same period, the number of active boxers, that can be found in BoxRec's database went up from 10.175 in 1988 to 23.535 in 2018.

And the number of fights these boxers took part in, went from 12.608 to 27.611 over the same period.

Seems to me, that boxing isn't really dying, but is doing quite OK - worldwide!

[Anthony342]

Dude, we're currently watching fat, unathletic slob Nikola Jokic dominate the NBA and y'all still pushing that "today's athletes are bigger, stronger, faster" nonsense.

Tyson Fury's a fat slob & dominating HWs left & right.

When are y'all gonna learn that big muscles & fast-twitches aren't everything.

Fact is 160lbs is 160lbs, so there's no reason Sugar Ray Robinson or Marvin Hagler couldn't fight 160lbers today.

Also, fighters in the past fought a lot more & fought 15 rounds which made them more conditioned

There also used to be a lot more professional fighters.

Boxing if anything, has regressed in the past few decades, which is why guys like Floyd Mayweather & Manny Pacquaio could be dominant welterweights when there's no way they would have in any other era.

Exactly. And people arguing football players of the past couldn't compete with these fat ass linemen today. The players today couldn't compete with the tougher rules of back then, when teams were still actually allowed to play defense and you were still allowed to make receivers and running backs pay for going up and across the middle. When you had to completely pin a guy down to tackle him and things like grabbing of a face mask, head slaps and clotheslining were still legal. Now they don't even let corners or safeties touch receivers after they've run 5 yards until they touch the ball. Used to allow some incidental contact.

[Willie Pep 229]

Exactly. And people arguing football players of the past couldn't compete with these fat ass linemen today. The players today couldn't compete with the tougher rules of back then, when teams were still actually allowed to play defense and you were still allowed to make receivers and running backs pay for going up and across the middle. When you had to completely pin a guy down to tackle him and things like grabbing of a face mask, head slaps and clotheslining were still legal. Now they don't even let corners or safeties touch receivers after they've run 5 yards until they touch the ball. Used to allow some incidental contact.

I am kind of into early football rules.

The definition of "fairly down' once did include a complete tackle. Which brought about the problem of what was called "piling on." You had to keep the man down. As in 'tackle' him, which means to tie him up. (Think fishing and your tackle box.)

But it was early on, middle of the 1890s that they defined 'down' as it is today, any part of the body other than the free hand touches the ground because of contact is down. Thus hitting quickly began to replace proper tackling that early on.

The face mask problem was only a one season problem. They appeared in the middle '50s, and defenses grabbed them. The very next year it was illegal.

American football has never been shy about adjusting its rules and did/does it often. Baseball on the other hand is like a ***********al hoarder of tradition. They argued for ten years over the DH rule and then only half of baseball did it.

The most important change, you noted. DBs are deliberately handicap to accelerate the passing game. The very ****** XFL, if you rember them, tried to bring back the old DB rule. You could hit a WR as often as you liked until the ball was in the air. Their games were dismal, with scores of 9-3 being common.

Nevertheless today's players are too big, too fast, and too smart.

They would adjust to the old rules quickly and dominate 1960s teams anyway.

Judge greatest in its own time. The GB Packers in the 1960s won five champions in seven years. Those teams couldn't compete with today's teams. But doesn't take away from their greatness, 5 in 7 years is unprecedented.

[_Rexy_]

Probably because in literally EVERY other sport, the best teams face each other.