Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Number of active (at least one fight during the year in question) pro boxers, that can be found in BoxRec's database for the 1940s:
    1940 11387
    1941 10164
    1942 9227
    1943 9207
    1944 10340
    1945 11320
    1946 17500
    1947 16841
    1948 14533
    1949 13439

    Number of active boxers in the 2010s (2018 is the last year, where these numbers are available):
    2010 18615
    2011 19603
    2012 19843
    2013 20529
    2014 20291
    2015 22086
    2016 23537
    2017 23683
    2018 23535


    Since we're talking about "Robinson's time", it might be interesting to take a look at what the welterweights looked like in the 1940s (the division and decade, where I believe most people agree, he was prime). Looking at The Ring's end-of-year Rankings, we find that for the whole decade, a total of 59 WWs made it into the Top-10 at least once. Of these, 55 were North Americas (which here, besides the US, include Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba).

    The 4 men not originating from North America were:
    Ron Richards, Australia (#9 in '41)
    Arthur Danahar, UK (#6 in '45)
    Charlie Fusari, Italy (#10 in '46)
    Aldo Minelli, Italy (#9 in '47)

    Fusari, by the way, came over with his parents to the US as a child, and never fought in Italy (or outside the US for that matter) - so he was not really a "foreigner", with regards to his boxing career.


    "It doesn't make sense to you that boxing centralized to a few giant markets produces better fighters than where boxing aficionados are spread between 3 continents." That does indeed make a lot of sense, when we're talking about the 1940s - because back then everything was more or less happening in the US, with very little of importance going on in the rest of the world.

    But surely the same thing doesn't apply today - with top boxers from all over the world making an impact. Imagine if everything was still centered in the US, and non-Americans (because of war, less intercontinental travelling, or whatever) hadn't been able to mix it up with the best boxers in the last 10 years or so... where we would never have heard about Pacquiao, Loma, GGG, Usyk, Inoue, etc.! I don't think, that would have resulted in a better era.

    Comment


    • #82
      Does avaiable population affect this interpretation?

      __________________________________

      World Population

      1940 --> 2.5 billion --> fighters 11,387 = 0.0045%


      2010 --> 6.9-billion --> fighters 18,615 = 0.00027%

      ___________________________________


      American Population

      1940 --> 132 million

      2010 --> 309 million

      Does anyone know the # of American fighters?



      Slugfester Slugfester likes this.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
        Does avaiable population affect this interpretation?

        __________________________________

        World Population

        1940 --> 2.5 billion --> fighters 11,387 = 0.0045%


        2010 --> 6.9-billion --> fighters 18,615 = 0.00027%

        ___________________________________


        American Population

        1940 --> 132 million

        2010 --> 309 million

        Does anyone know the # of American fighters?


        I can't see how the frequency could have an effect. To me its a numbers game in absolute terms.
        Last edited by BattlingNelson; 07-04-2023, 04:51 AM.
        Willie Pep 229 Willie Pep 229 likes this.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Willie Pep 229 View Post
          Does avaiable population affect this interpretation?

          __________________________________

          World Population

          1940 --> 2.5 billion --> fighters 11,387 = 0.0045%


          2010 --> 6.9-billion --> fighters 18,615 = 0.00027%

          ___________________________________


          American Population

          1940 --> 132 million

          2010 --> 309 million

          Does anyone know the # of American fighters?


          Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe there's anywhere, where we can find the annual number of active American boxers. Unless, of course, you want to go through every fight in a given year and count the Americans - which would be an absolutely monumental task.

          We can find the number of promotions, that took place in the US in a given year: 2,807 for 1940 and 607 for 2010... so even though the worldwide number of boxers have increased, there can be little doubt, that the number of active Americans have decreased considerably over those 70 years.


          Willie Pep 229 Willie Pep 229 likes this.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by Bundana View Post
            Number of active (at least one fight during the year in question) pro boxers, that can be found in BoxRec's database for the 1940s:
            1940 11387
            1941 10164
            1942 9227
            1943 9207
            1944 10340
            1945 11320
            1946 17500
            1947 16841
            1948 14533
            1949 13439

            Number of active boxers in the 2010s (2018 is the last year, where these numbers are available):
            2010 18615
            2011 19603
            2012 19843
            2013 20529
            2014 20291
            2015 22086
            2016 23537
            2017 23683
            2018 23535


            Since we're talking about "Robinson's time", it might be interesting to take a look at what the welterweights looked like in the 1940s (the division and decade, where I believe most people agree, he was prime). Looking at The Ring's end-of-year Rankings, we find that for the whole decade, a total of 59 WWs made it into the Top-10 at least once. Of these, 55 were North Americas (which here, besides the US, include Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba).

            The 4 men not originating from North America were:
            Ron Richards, Australia (#9 in '41)
            Arthur Danahar, UK (#6 in '45)
            Charlie Fusari, Italy (#10 in '46)
            Aldo Minelli, Italy (#9 in '47)

            Fusari, by the way, came over with his parents to the US as a child, and never fought in Italy (or outside the US for that matter) - so he was not really a "foreigner", with regards to his boxing career.


            "It doesn't make sense to you that boxing centralized to a few giant markets produces better fighters than where boxing aficionados are spread between 3 continents." That does indeed make a lot of sense, when we're talking about the 1940s - because back then everything was more or less happening in the US, with very little of importance going on in the rest of the world.

            But surely the same thing doesn't apply today - with top boxers from all over the world making an impact. Imagine if everything was still centered in the US, and non-Americans (because of war, less intercontinental travelling, or whatever) hadn't been able to mix it up with the best boxers in the last 10 years or so... where we would never have heard about Pacquiao, Loma, GGG, Usyk, Inoue, etc.! I don't think, that would have resulted in a better era.
            Thx for posting this.

            It’s not a tiny difference. It’s very significant. Many more fighters today than in yesteryear. Ofc this makes a difference.
            Bundana Bundana likes this.

            Comment


            • #86
              Don't forget, that the down trend of the world's Amateur boxing programs which peaked in the 1970s and plummeted in the 21st century has effectively pushed more fighters into the pro ranks. There is an offsetting impact there.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by Bundana View Post
                Number of active (at least one fight during the year in question) pro boxers, that can be found in BoxRec's database for the 1940s:
                1940 11387
                1941 10164
                1942 9227
                1943 9207
                1944 10340
                1945 11320
                1946 17500
                1947 16841
                1948 14533
                1949 13439

                Number of active boxers in the 2010s (2018 is the last year, where these numbers are available):
                2010 18615
                2011 19603
                2012 19843
                2013 20529
                2014 20291
                2015 22086
                2016 23537
                2017 23683
                2018 23535


                Since we're talking about "Robinson's time", it might be interesting to take a look at what the welterweights looked like in the 1940s (the division and decade, where I believe most people agree, he was prime). Looking at The Ring's end-of-year Rankings, we find that for the whole decade, a total of 59 WWs made it into the Top-10 at least once. Of these, 55 were North Americas (which here, besides the US, include Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba).

                The 4 men not originating from North America were:
                Ron Richards, Australia (#9 in '41)
                Arthur Danahar, UK (#6 in '45)
                Charlie Fusari, Italy (#10 in '46)
                Aldo Minelli, Italy (#9 in '47)

                Fusari, by the way, came over with his parents to the US as a child, and never fought in Italy (or outside the US for that matter) - so he was not really a "foreigner", with regards to his boxing career.


                "It doesn't make sense to you that boxing centralized to a few giant markets produces better fighters than where boxing aficionados are spread between 3 continents." That does indeed make a lot of sense, when we're talking about the 1940s - because back then everything was more or less happening in the US, with very little of importance going on in the rest of the world.

                But surely the same thing doesn't apply today - with top boxers from all over the world making an impact. Imagine if everything was still centered in the US, and non-Americans (because of war, less intercontinental travelling, or whatever) hadn't been able to mix it up with the best boxers in the last 10 years or so... where we would never have heard about Pacquiao, Loma, GGG, Usyk, Inoue, etc.! I don't think, that would have resulted in a better era.
                I love your letter. Those numbers were the only thing I asked for. I never challenged the assertion, I just wanted some kind of proof.

                Where did you obtain those figures?

                My new question is: Are the newer fighters so good, then, that backed by their numerical advantage in sheer bodies, they are already disproportionately represented on ATG lists? Big giants have dominated let's say about 10-20 years, the flagship division. A lot of neophytes already put Fury at number one AT. ATG lists come and go and change so fast they are not a stable indicator.

                There has only been 10-20 years or so of the new breed. If they are double in number to former periods, they have only gone on (let's say) an eighth as long. So they should not dominate AT lists just yet, but their might be a disproportionate representation visible. I don't keep much tab of contemporary lower divisions.
                Last edited by Slugfester; 07-04-2023, 09:56 PM.
                Bundana Bundana likes this.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Slugfester View Post

                  I love your letter. Those numbers were the only thing I asked for. I never challenged the assertion, I just wanted some kind of proof.

                  Where did you obtain those figures?

                  My new question is: Are the newer fighters so good, then, that backed by their numerical advantage in sheer bodies, they are already disproportionately represented on ATG lists? Big giants have dominated let's say about 10-20 years, the flagship division. A lot of neophytes already put Fury at number one AT. ATG lists come and go and change so fast they are not a stable indicator.

                  There has only been 10-20 years or so of the new breed. If they are double in number to former periods, they have only gone on (let's say) an eighth as long. So they should not dominate AT lists just yet, but their might be a disproportionate representation visible. I don't keep much tab of contemporary lower divisions.
                  Thanks.

                  Annual number (worldwide) of fights/fighters can be found here:
                  Total Bouts in the BoxRec Database: By Decade - Page 4 - BoxRec

                  Annual number of promotions in a specific country:
                  BoxRec: Locations

                  You probably already know about The Ring's Annual Ratings, but here's the thread (where I spend a lot of time!) anyway:
                  The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings - BoxRec


                  Does the larger, worldwide talent pool mean, that we have better boxers today than back in the old days​? That will of course always be a hotly debated issue, with some people arguing, that boxing has evolved over the last many decades... while others believe it has devolved into a sport of sissies, who would stand no chance against boxers from way back, when there were real men! There's of course no "right" or "wrong" opinion - as we can never find out.

                  As for the heavyweight division... I find it hard to imagine, that greats like Dempsey and Marciano (at around 190 lbs) would be able to trouble the giants of today. But that's just my personal opinion, and I know there are many who would disagree.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by Bundana View Post

                    Thanks.

                    Annual number (worldwide) of fights/fighters can be found here:
                    Total Bouts in the BoxRec Database: By Decade - Page 4 - BoxRec

                    Annual number of promotions in a specific country:
                    BoxRec: Locations

                    You probably already know about The Ring's Annual Ratings, but here's the thread (where I spend a lot of time!) anyway:
                    The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings - BoxRec


                    Does the larger, worldwide talent pool mean, that we have better boxers today than back in the old days​? That will of course always be a hotly debated issue, with some people arguing, that boxing has evolved over the last many decades... while others believe it has devolved into a sport of sissies, who would stand no chance against boxers from way back, when there were real men! There's of course no "right" or "wrong" opinion - as we can never find out.

                    As for the heavyweight division... I find it hard to imagine, that greats like Dempsey and Marciano (at around 190 lbs) would be able to trouble the giants of today. But that's just my personal opinion, and I know there are many who would disagree.
                    Thanks for this Bundana.

                    Regarding Dempsey and Marciano I'd also say they'd be heavy (pun intended) underdogs in head to head combat against todays giants. That goes even if the fantasy fight is to be made under yesterdays rules.

                    As far as the ATG status, it's another story, as IMO that distinction is based on resume and not performance in fantasy fights. So to me its still about hits and missis among the contemporaries, but the twist is that the best of the contemporaries belongs (generally) to the period with the most fighters.
                    Willow The Wisp Willow The Wisp likes this.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by BattlingNelson View Post

                      Thanks for this Bundana.

                      Regarding Dempsey and Marciano I'd also say they'd be heavy (pun intended) underdogs in head to head combat against todays giants. That goes even if the fantasy fight is to be made under yesterdays rules.

                      As far as the ATG status, it's another story, as IMO that distinction is based on resume and not performance in fantasy fights. So to me its still about hits and missis among the contemporaries, but the twist is that the best of the contemporaries belongs (generally) to the period with the most fighters.
                      Yes, "greatest" and "best" are two different things.

                      Greatness is about resume/accomplishments against your contemporaries. Which is why I don't really like these "greatest" lists! I mean, how can I rate an oldtimer from more than 100 years ago higher than modern boxers, against whom he would (likely - we can't know for sure!) have little chance, if we could arrange fantasy fights via a time-machine? I just can't get myself to do that!

                      Willow The Wisp Willow The Wisp likes this.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP