Can someone explain to me how boxing has "evolved" since the middle the last century

[Bundana]

That may be true.

Since the middle of the last century, the talent pool in boxing has become very, very shallow.

Do you find the best swimmers by judging them in water that they can stand up in? .................Rockin'

Boxrec lists 12233 active fighters for the year 1950.

For 2018 (last year they reported the numbers) they have 23535.

[Rockin']

Boxrec lists 12233 active fighters for the year 1950.

For 2018 (last year they reported the numbers) they have 23535.

Simple numbers don't mean a thing in boxing.

Does the man who punched his opponent more times than he was punched always win the bout, with honest judges?

The key word in all of this is talent.

How many pros do we have today with trainers that don't know sheet?
.................Rockin'

[Bundana]

Simple numbers don't mean a thing in boxing.

Does the man who punched his opponent more times than he was punched always win the bout, with honest judges?

The key word in all of this is talent.

How many pros do we have today with trainers that don't know sheet?
.................Rockin'

This question has nothing to do with talent. It's about whether your claim that today's talent pool is shallower than back in the 50s, is correct or not... which it clearly isn't!

[Rockin']

This question has nothing to do with talent. It's about whether your claim that today's talent pool is shallower than back in the 50s, is correct or not... which it clearly isn't!

Ok, whatever you say..................Rockin'

[Slugfester]

Boxrec lists 12233 active fighters for the year 1950.

For 2018 (last year they reported the numbers) they have 23535.

For what it's worth, 1950 had 31% of today's world population. The number of active boxers has only almost doubled in that time. Proportionately, 1950 had more active boxers.

[Willie Pep 229]

For what it's worth, 1950 had 31% of today's world population. The number of active boxers has only almost doubled in that time. Proportionately, 1950 had more active boxers.

Agreed but we need to acknowledge a couple of qualifications regarding the tripled World population count.

In 1950 Chuck Conners quit playing NBA basketball because it didn't pay enough and jumped to baseball, that didn't pay all that much better so he then jumped television. (Which thanks to a back-stabbibg Ronald Reagan didn't pay so well either.)

There are many opportunities for big money in sport today, that didn't exist in 1950.

Baseball was wealthy but wouldn't share with the players, and only held 16 total teams of 25 players each. Baseball owners were as cheap as they were purported to be.

The NFL and NBA were both also small in team numbers and some teams were even poor.

I think we have to take some of that tripled population identified by the 31% and ask if a doubling in number of boxers today may actually be an increase.

I think the numbers need to be squeezed more.

Then again, thinking the other way.

What about the Communist Block fighters. They are factored into the world population of 1950 but not avaiable to be counted as active fighters in 1950.

Also how much of the WP increase has come from the virtually non-partcpating Africans?

The number is too sweeping in its generality to make the point. (IMO)

[Slugfester]

Agreed but we need to acknowledge a couple of qualifications regarding the tripled World population count.

In 1950 Chuck Conners quit playing NBA basketball because it didn't pay enough and jumped to baseball, that didn't pay all that much better so he then jumped television. (Which thanks to a back-stabbibg Ronald Reagan didn't pay so well either.)

There are many opportunities for big money in sport today, that didn't exist in 1950.

Baseball was wealthy but wouldn't share with the players, and only held 16 total teams of 25 players each. Baseball owners were as cheap as they were purported to be.

The NFL and NBA were both also small in team numbers and some teams were even poor.

I think we have to take some of that tripled population identified by the 31% and ask if a doubling in number of boxers today may actually be an increase.

I think the numbers need to be squeezed more.

Then again, thinking the other way.

What about the Communist Block fighters. They are factored into the world population of 1950 but not avaiable to be counted as active fighters in 1950.

Also how much of the WP increase has come from the virtually non-partcpating Africans?

The number is too sweeping in its generality to make the point. (IMO)

I didn't speculate at all. I gave numbers. There are undoubtedly other numbers that make fine adjustments, but I don't think they would bring down the castle.

[Slugfester]

Continuing with Willie Pep...

In other words, it is easy to adjust methods. Use the the same idea country by country. Non-participants and even barely-participants need not be included, since their weight is negligible. This removes almost all generality. I do not know where the statistical information on registered boxers is kept, scattered around or gathered in one place. My preliminary searches yielded nothing useful.

[QueensburyRules]

For what it's worth, 1950 had 31% of today's world population. The number of active boxers has only almost doubled in that time. Proportionately, 1950 had more active boxers.

- - Proportionately a giraffe loses a stomping competition vs an elephant, you could bet the farm!!!

[DooGee#33]

This question has nothing to do with talent. It's about whether your claim that today's talent pool is shallower than back in the 50s, is correct or not... which it clearly isn't!

It's not that he is claiming it. It's more or less common knowledge.