Rocky Marciano is very overrated IMO

[Lomadeaux]

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?

Dude... Call a boxing coach in your town and then respond to me. Thank you.

[Bundana]

Dude... Call a boxing coach in your town and then respond to me. Thank you.

What on earth has a boxing coach in my town got to do with this debate?

Not just myself, but also Bat has tried to explain to you, that since The Wall came down, the annual count of active pro boxers has gone up dramatically. If you believe this is wrong, then back up your opinion with som kind of evidence. I don't think, that's too much to ask!

[Willie Pep 229]

Would we get a different answer from a "local boxing coach" in Cleveland than one in a small (East) German city?

A reduction in the States and an increase world wide (and thus in the total number of participants) doesn't to me, sound exclusive.

[JAB5239]

Here's a question. If eastern bloc countries were allowed ro compete professionally from and in the 1920's, 30's and 40's, would there have been more boxers then or now? Personally I think it has to do with popularity. I don't know how popular boxing is in those countries now and what sports may be more popular. I do know in the US boxing was a close second to baseball for those years, hence why there were so many fighters.

[Bundana]

Here's a question. If eastern bloc countries were allowed ro compete professionally from and in the 1920's, 30's and 40's, would there have been more boxers then or now? Personally I think it has to do with popularity. I don't know how popular boxing is in those countries now and what sports may be more popular. I do know in the US boxing was a close second to baseball for those years, hence why there were so many fighters.

Even without the participation of eastern block countries, there were more active pro boxers in the late 20s/early 30s, than at any other time during the gloved history of boxing.

The annual "body count" culminated from '28 to '33. These 6 years are the only ones, where BoxRec's database shows more active pros than today!

From the late 30's a drastic decline started, which lasted for more than 50 years - until the numbers started to gradually pick up in the '90s. Slowly at first, but then faster and faster - until we are now not much behind the '28 to '33 numbers.

Total Bouts in the BoxRec Database: By Decade - Page 4 - BoxRec (see 19 May 2019 post)

For annual number of fights, see 15 May 2020 post.

[Willie Pep 229]

Here's a question. If eastern bloc countries were allowed ro compete professionally from and in the 1920's, 30's and 40's, would there have been more boxers then or now? Personally I think it has to do with popularity. I don't know how popular boxing is in those countries now and what sports may be more popular. I do know in the US boxing was a close second to baseball for those years, hence why there were so many fighters.

Not to be a spoil sport to your point I get it.

But Eastern bloc countries weren't going to bring much to the game during those decades.

For the Soviets the 1920s were consolidation of power and poverty. 1930s were the ggreat Stalin purges and starvation. 1940s were the German invasion and rebuilding.

Now if you talk about the 50s, 60s, 70s, I believe they would have had a great impact on the game.

[mrbig1]

Honestly...

This guy was not great...maybe in his era...

but he was Overrated!

Especially his fight with Joe Louis...Joe Louis was like a OLD OLD OLD Grandpa only fighting to pay off his taxes! He didn't want to fight...

It took Marciano 9 whole ****in rounds to KO him?

Damn...

Joe Louis would DESTROY Marciano his prime..

you're missing the point. you said maybe in his era. Yes, in his era. High school kids can run faster than Jesse Owens now. Does that mean Jesse Owens was overrated? how can 49-0 with 43 ko's be overrated. He is not the greatest of all time but overrated? Is Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth overrated. they were the best in their era is my point.

[them_apples]

Even without the participation of eastern block countries, there were more active pro boxers in the late 20s/early 30s, than at any other time during the gloved history of boxing.

The annual "body count" culminated from '28 to '33. These 6 years are the only ones, where BoxRec's database shows more active pros than today!

From the late 30's a drastic decline started, which lasted for more than 50 years - until the numbers started to gradually pick up in the '90s. Slowly at first, but then faster and faster - until we are now not much behind the '28 to '33 numbers.

Total Bouts in the BoxRec Database: By Decade - Page 4 - BoxRec​ (see 19 May 2019 post)

For annual number of fights, see 15 May 2020 post.

Even still though, these numbers don’t mean much. You factor in local populations and thats really all that matters. The population is higher now, and countries are more connected than ever. For example, it could be stretched out very far but grabbing from a higher population, many fighters may never even hear of eachother, this happens a lot even with belt holders sometimes.

either or, point is your looking at the small picture not the big one

thats why if you were plopped in new york, say even the 50s, you would be wondering why every corner had a gym full of fighters, and even just being the NYC golden gloves champ was a pretty big deal.

[BattlingNelson]

Even still though, these numbers donâÂÂt mean much. You factor in local populations and thats really all that matters. The population is higher now, and countries are more connected than ever. For example, it could be stretched out very far but grabbing from a higher population, many fighters may never even hear of eachother, this happens a lot even with belt holders sometimes.

either or, point is your looking at the small picture not the big one

thats why if you were plopped in new york, say even the 50s, you would be wondering why every corner had a gym full of fighters, and even just being the NYC golden gloves champ was a pretty big deal.

You're pretty much arguing that fewer gyms makes better fighters.

No common sense imo sorry.

[BattlingNelson]

What Them apples are saying is that 5 boxing gyms in one state produces greater fighters than 10 boxing gyms in 2 states.