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

[Willie Pep 229]

So then it is not better competition a boxer should seek, it is more competition we are after? But I am not interested in more competition, I am interested in better competition. If you mean to say there is better competition now than formerly, I can understand that, though I may not believe it. I would definitely like to know why you think the competition these days is better than in Robinson's day.

You are correct in stating that 'competition' needs to be qualified.

But doesn't mere "more competition" have to result in better competition? Just because of the deeper pool of participants.

[Slugfester]

You are correct in stating that 'competition' needs to be qualified.

But doesn't mere "more competition" have to result in better competition? Just because of the deeper pool of participants.

Proposition: more participants means better competition.

That is an arguable point, but a good one. So more is better, you say, more is deeper?

In the first place, I didn't know this was a settled issue that there are more people boxing now than during the Golden Age. In absolute numbers that may very well be true. But relative to area I believe there must still be fewer boxers--per square mile, you might say. Boxing participants were denser in the old days, more packed together, because boxing took place in only a minor way in countries outside the US. It was almost all here in the US.

A compelling argument can be made, I think, that this greater density and proximity in the old days actually meant better competition for those involved. Participants can all reach each other, whereas most B and C fighters of the wider geography today ain't making the trip to where all the action is anyway and getting that wider experience in the USA, where boxers and trainers are thick and most of the best ones live. Yeah, all those obscure guys out of nowhere and their numbers exist in their remote corners, but I don't know how much any of them are contributing to increased world competition through their numbers.

I believe it may be the proximity of these numbers to one another that counts most, not their mere proliferation. Golden Age fighters would probably still do well against today's larger crop, just because they were in a Golden Age, and there was the proximity I speak of.

[Willie Pep 229]

Proposition: more participants means better competition.

That is an arguable point, but a good one. So more is better, you say, more is deeper?

In the first place, I didn't know this was a settled issue that there are more people boxing now than during the Golden Age. In absolute numbers that may very well be true. But relative to area I believe there must still be fewer boxers--per square mile, you might say. Boxing participants were denser in the old days, more packed together, because boxing took place in only a minor way in countries outside the US. It was almost all here in the US.

A compelling argument can be made, I think, that this greater density and proximity in the old days actually meant better competition for those involved. Participants can all reach each other, whereas most B and C fighters of the wider geography today ain't making the trip to where all the action is anyway and getting that wider experience in the USA, where boxers and trainers are thick and most of the best ones live. Yeah, all those obscure guys out of nowhere and their numbers exist in their remote corners, but I don't know how much any of them are contributing to increased world competition through their numbers.

I believe it may be the proximity of these numbers to one another that counts most, not their mere proliferation. Golden Age fighters would probably still do well against today's larger crop, just because they were in a Golden Age, and there was the proximity I speak of.

Agreed!

That there were noted centers of boxing, e.g. NY, Phily, NO, became magnets that drew great numbers to these centers creating that density.

Through most of the thirties and forties New York was the Mecca of boxing. Fight in New York and you where almost guaranteed to fight the best in the World, eventually.

Today there is only really Vegas left and that only draws permanent residency for the few at the top.

I guess if we want to find these densities today we need to look to Mexico and maybe the eastern European nations.

[BattlingNelson]

So then it is not better competition a boxer should seek, it is more competition we are after? But I am not interested in more competition, I am interested in better competition. If you mean to say there is better competition now than formerly, I can understand that, though I may not believe it. I would definitely like to know why you think the competition these days is better than in Robinson's day.

The argument would be that the best of 1000 fighters is better than the best of 10 fighters. It's quite simple.

[shawnkemp804]

Actually most people aren't. The only people who usually keep bringing up old time boxers are a certain type of Americans since back in the days was the last time they were relevant in boxing.

[Slugfester]

The argument would be that the best of 1000 fighters is better than the best of 10 fighters. It's quite simple.

Yes, you should statistically find more talent among the 1000 wannabes than the 10 ares. That is your argument, and it would be ****** to disagree with a mathematically sound argument.

I understand the argument. But if the 1000 guys are scattered among poor third world countries with few or no boxing programs, almost ALL of them will get their butts whipped by the 10 guys, talent notwithstanding, because the 10 guys live where boxing is dense, trainers are geniuses, equipment is marvelous and sparring is abundant, and those 1000 guys don't. That is why they all want to come here. Once they do, the 10 guys are not the favorites anymore for long.

But the point is that expert boxing takes stiffer and more educated competition to get there, not just more sparring mates.. You won't find that if you stick around the neighborhood. Where boxers are populated densely, they fight better. You probably don't want to challenge that.

I am not challenging your assertion, just pointing out a semantic difference that seems relevant in this instance.

[them_apples]

Proposition: more participants means better competition.

That is an arguable point, but a good one. So more is better, you say, more is deeper?

In the first place, I didn't know this was a settled issue that there are more people boxing now than during the Golden Age. In absolute numbers that may very well be true. But relative to area I believe there must still be fewer boxers--per square mile, you might say. Boxing participants were denser in the old days, more packed together, because boxing took place in only a minor way in countries outside the US. It was almost all here in the US.

A compelling argument can be made, I think, that this greater density and proximity in the old days actually meant better competition for those involved. Participants can all reach each other, whereas most B and C fighters of the wider geography today ain't making the trip to where all the action is anyway and getting that wider experience in the USA, where boxers and trainers are thick and most of the best ones live. Yeah, all those obscure guys out of nowhere and their numbers exist in their remote corners, but I don't know how much any of them are contributing to increased world competition through their numbers.

I believe it may be the proximity of these numbers to one another that counts most, not their mere proliferation. Golden Age fighters would probably still do well against today's larger crop, just because they were in a Golden Age, and there was the proximity I speak of.

This is a case study that I honestly think would end up not proving anything. There are way too many other factors that make up “what makes the competition better”. Any correlation that case study found probably has huge holes in it.

for example poorer countries / areas often produced the best fighters. Even in 2023 boxers often come from what we would consider poverty.

certain cities could have attracted more fighters than other cities, making it an “iron sharpens iron” situation. Or for example all the different races back then would **** heads and fight each-other all the time - once again raising competition in gyms in a roundabout way. They all had pride of some sort.

I would say an increase of the pool of fighters available does improve the odds of finding a good fighter. But there are a lot of other factors as well that decide the fate of competition. Race and country alone does. The generation would effect it, rules changes, even down to how people grew up. The last gen grew up behind ipads - I bet that factor holds a lot of weight.

[them_apples]

The argument would be that the best of 1000 fighters is better than the best of 10 fighters. It's quite simple.

But with that indeed being a fact, its also a fact that 1000 +other factors to consider also apply.

[Willie Pep 229]

Actually most people aren't. The only people who usually keep bringing up old time boxers are a certain type of Americans since back in the days was the last time they were relevant in boxing.

That may or may not be true. But why would you, expect any discussion in the History fourm not to be about old timers, regardless of who the current great fighters are?

[Bundana]

The last gen grew up behind ipads - I bet that factor holds a lot of weight.

LOL.. funny stuff!