Rocky Marciano is very overrated IMO

[BattlingNelson]

Bat's argument that more fighters means more great fighters is logical and also probable but not certain.

It matters where the new numbers come from; it's effected by other circumstances such as: available investment money; opportunities to learn, i.e. availability of great trainers; availability of outside opportunities that shorten careers; shorter routes to championship fights and big money and thus earlier retirements, ETC.

In other words the baseline is number of fighters ie. the era with most fighters produces the best fighters aka is the best era. That's the baseline! So it's up to you to argue deviations around that baseline imo.

[Lomadeaux]

Can you please stop with the tournament talk! We're obviously talking about pro boxing... and Bat has already explained to you, that the number of active boxers has increased by many thousands since the fall of The Wall. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

What are you talking about?! Fighters are fighters! The more amateur fighters there are, the more pro fighters there are. Jesus Christ dude you're not in the game! Where do you live? In the USA the number of active boxers is significantly lower that it was in the past.

I don't know where you're from but give a local boxing coach a call and ask him. He'll tell you.

It's so ****ing funny how people just don't understand what amateur boxing is. They literally have no idea what it is. Yet your favorite pro had over 100 plus fights... but you never saw him fight at National or International competition? Why? ****ing hilarious.

[Lomadeaux]

In other words the baseline is number of fighters ie. the era with most fighters produces the best fighters aka is the best era. That's the baseline! So it's up to you to argue deviations around that baseline imo.

Everyone wants their era to be the best.

Take the greats of all time and imagine coming up in the gym they trained in. Do you think the other fighters in the gym would be BETTER or be WORSE with him and a few other top dogs in the gym?

[BattlingNelson]

Everyone wants their era to be the best.

Take the greats of all time and imagine coming up in the gym they trained in. Do you think the other fighters in the gym would be BETTER or be WORSE with him and a few other top dogs in the gym?

I'm thinking the baseline is that the fighter coming from the most competitive era would be best. That would be the start of such a fantasy thought experiment.

[Lomadeaux]

I'm thinking the baseline is that the fighter coming from the most competitive era would be best. That would be the start of such a fantasy thought experiment.

Right. Why do you think the 80's was packed with talent? Look at all the greats that came out of that era. It just boosted the talent. Look at what's going on now in boxing. No one is fighting each other and the fighters just aren't that good anymore. Culture gets a hold of them and they think that's the cool thing to do. Men vs boys.

[BattlingNelson]

Right. Why do you think the 80's was packed with talent? Look at all the greats that came out of that era. It just boosted the talent. Look at what's going on now in boxing. No one is fighting each other and the fighters just aren't that good anymore. Culture gets a hold of them and they think that's the cool thing to do. Men vs boys.

I don't know why. I don't even know if the decade of the 80s had more talent than other decades. What makes you say that the 80s stand out?

Regarding your statement that 'no one is fighting each other'... do you have a source? I'm not sure, but I think I saw a statistic that fights between ranked contenders was as frequent now as in yesteryear or at least no significant change. I think there was a decade by decade statistic. Maybe it was Cliff Rold or Bundana who posted it. Whatever. I'd like to see the statistic you use to back up your claim. If there's a significant decline in the frequenzy of fights between ranked contenders, you may be on to something interesting.

[Willie Pep 229]

In other words the baseline is number of fighters ie. the era with most fighters produces the best fighters aka is the best era. That's the baseline! So it's up to you to argue deviations around that baseline imo.

Yes that is what I was saying. I think, or was trying to say.

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't know why. I don't even know if the decade of the 80s had more talent than other decades. What makes you say that the 80s stand out?

Regarding your statement that 'no one is fighting each other'... do you have a source? I'm not sure, but I think I saw a statistic that fights between ranked contenders was as frequent now as in yesteryear or at least no significant change. I think there was a decade by decade statistic. Maybe it was Cliff Rold or Bundana who posted it. Whatever. I'd like to see the statistic you use to back up your claim. If there's a significant decline in the frequenzy of fights between ranked contenders, you may be on to something interesting.

In practice rank contenders has another problem set to it. How do we even define a ranked contender today? Multiple SBs have expanded and distorted that number.

Maybe a comparison to Ring contenders over the decades might work. Or possibly Boxrec today and Ring back then.

We can't use the damn SB rankings there are just too many "ranked" fighters today.

IMO comparing these decades is something we can speculate (and of course argue lol) about but not actually draw any real conclusions.

[BattlingNelson]

In practice rank contenders has another problem set to it. How do we even define a ranked contender today? Multiple SBs have expanded and distorted that number.

Maybe a comparison to Ring contenders over the decades might work. Or possibly Boxrec today and Ring back then.

We can't use the damn SB rankings there are just too many "ranked" fighters today.

IMO comparing these decades is something we can speculate (and of course argue lol) about but not actually draw any real conclusions.

AFAIK ring magazine rankings are the best for pre-internet eras. Yeah we can speculate and argue, but having the statistic would add some substance to just ‘like’ or other biased opinion based conclusions.

[Bundana]

What are you talking about?! Fighters are fighters! The more amateur fighters there are, the more pro fighters there are. Jesus Christ dude you're not in the game! Where do you live? In the USA the number of active boxers is significantly lower that it was in the past.

I don't know where you're from but give a local boxing coach a call and ask him. He'll tell you.

It's so ****ing funny how people just don't understand what amateur boxing is. They literally have no idea what it is. Yet your favorite pro had over 100 plus fights... but you never saw him fight at National or International competition? Why? ****ing hilarious.

Wow, It's not every day you see someone this arrogant and ****y... especially when he has absolutely nothing to be arrogant and ****y about!

How long will you keep going on with this BS about how boxing is doing in the US? Who cares, if the number of active boxers is lower now than in the past. We're talking worldwide, where the picture is the exact opposite! How many times do we need to tell you this, before you get it? But then again, you're probably one of those Americans who don't know, and don't care, about what goes on outside the US:

Can You Name a Country? - YouTube

And for the umpteens time: No, the period where the annual number of active pro fighters peaked was not between the 40s and 80s! Why do you refuse to understand this? Is it because it's important for you to believe, Robinson was part of this "most active pros" period?