Rocky Marciano is very overrated IMO

[Bundana]

Stephen "Breadman" Edwards on why he thinks the 1940's were the best:


"Overall the 1940s is the best decade in the history of boxing in my opinion. Henry Amrstrong ended his reign in the 1940s and Armstrong was considered the best fighter of the 1930s. Joe Louis was the heavyweight champion. Billy Conn the light heavyweight stand out with Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles emerging as even better light heavyweights. Black Murderers Row had about 7 or 8 great contenders with Charley Burley leading the way. Marcel Cerdan, Jake Lamotta, Tony Zale and Rocky Graziano were all top middleweights. Sugar Ray Robinson was the best welterweight and fighter of the decade. Kid Gavilan was a top contender. Ike Williams was the best lightweight of the decade with Beau Jack , Sammy Angott and Bob Montgomery being almost as great. Willie Pep had a great decade, as did emerging Sandy Saddler at featherweight. Manuel Ortiz was a HOF bantamweight. There is NO decade greater or better than the 1940s."

I would respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Edwards here!

Are we forgetting, that WW2 raged during the first half of the decade - sending the number of active boxers (worldwide) plummeting to 1/3 of what it had been in 1930, in the early part of the decade? Or that several of the world titles (HW, LHW, WW) were "frozen" for about 4 years, with no defenses taking place during that time?

Also, it was a decade of practically no international competition! Everything of interest took place in the US, with very few outsiders joining the mix - primarily because of the war, of course. Sure, some of the the best boxers ever fought during this decade, but of the 18 men Mr. Edwards mentions, only two (Cerdan and Gavilan) originated from outside the US... which I think should tell us something?

This is also reflected in the world rankings at the time, which were completely dominated by Americans. Looking at the HW division (for example) we see, that of a total of 44 different men, that can be found in The Ring's end-of-year lists for the whole decade - only 4 (Godoy, London, Wood**** and Argamonte) came from outside the US. A completely different world from today, I'm sure we can all agree!

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1940s - BoxRec

So no, I'm sorry... but I just can't see how a decade like that, could possibly have been a time, where boxing blossomed like never before (or since)!

[them_apples]

I would respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Edwards here!

Are we forgetting, that WW2 raged during the first half of the decade - sending the number of active boxers (worldwide) plummeting to 1/3 of what it had been in 1930, in the early part of the decade? Or that several of the world titles (HW, LHW, WW) were "frozen" for about 4 years, with no defenses taking place during that time?

Also, it was a decade of practically no international competition! Everything of interest took place in the US, with very few outsiders joining the mix - primarily because of the war, of course. Sure, some of the the best boxers ever fought during this decade, but of the 18 men Mr. Edwards mentions, only two (Cerdan and Gavilan) originated from outside the US... which I think should tell us something?

This is also reflected in the world rankings at the time, which were completely dominated by Americans. Looking at the HW division (for example) we see, that of a total of 44 different men, that can be found in The Ring's end-of-year lists for the whole decade - only 4 (Godoy, London, Wood**** and Argamonte) came from outside the US. A completely different world from today, I'm sure we can all agree!

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1940s - BoxRec​

So no, I'm sorry... but I just can't see how a decade like that, could possibly have been a time, where boxing blossomed like never before (or since)!
​

the 30's would have produced the strongest era, and out of it did come the greatest fighters ever. it was before the war, old world ethics (lets just say its only more recently that not everyone's dad is an army vet) and poverty from the depression plunged many into unemployment and took up fighting. Iron sharpens iron.

those trainers from that era continued to train guys up until the late 90's. by then most of them were gone or dead (or not soon after).

All the great trainers are gone - hence all the good fighters are gone.

[QueensburyRules]

I would respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Edwards here!

Are we forgetting, that WW2 raged during the first half of the decade - sending the number of active boxers (worldwide) plummeting to 1/3 of what it had been in 1930, in the early part of the decade? Or that several of the world titles (HW, LHW, WW) were "frozen" for about 4 years, with no defenses taking place during that time?

Also, it was a decade of practically no international competition! Everything of interest took place in the US, with very few outsiders joining the mix - primarily because of the war, of course. Sure, some of the the best boxers ever fought during this decade, but of the 18 men Mr. Edwards mentions, only two (Cerdan and Gavilan) originated from outside the US... which I think should tell us something?

This is also reflected in the world rankings at the time, which were completely dominated by Americans. Looking at the HW division (for example) we see, that of a total of 44 different men, that can be found in The Ring's end-of-year lists for the whole decade - only 4 (Godoy, London, Wood**** and Argamonte) came from outside the US. A completely different world from today, I'm sure we can all agree!

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Heavyweight--1940s - BoxRec

So no, I'm sorry... but I just can't see how a decade like that, could possibly have been a time, where boxing blossomed like never before (or since)!

- - Bread getting intoxicated on the names, but at any rate Robby primarily a post WW2 fighter making his best strides and most $$$ past his best in his middlewt free for alls.

[ShoulderRoll]

Also, it was a decade of practically no international competition! Everything of interest took place in the US, with very few outsiders joining the mix - primarily because of the war, of course. Sure, some of the the best boxers ever fought during this decade, but of the 18 men Mr. Edwards mentions, only two (Cerdan and Gavilan) originated from outside the US... which I think should tell us something?

This is also reflected in the world rankings at the time, which were completely dominated by Americans. Looking at the HW division (for example) we see, that of a total of 44 different men, that can be found in The Ring's end-of-year lists for the whole decade - only 4 (Godoy, London, Wood**** and Argamonte) came from outside the US. A completely different world from today, I'm sure we can all agree!

It seems like your criteria for having a great era is that the US not be so dominant. Instead of how many great fighters the era actually produced.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion but I think it's a little misguided.

[Bundana]

It seems like your criteria for having a great era is that the US not be so dominant. Instead of how many great fighters the era actually produced.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion but I think it's a little misguided.

No, that's not my criteria. I'm simply explaining why the US was so dominant back then. I have nothing against American boxers - or boxers from any other country, for that matter.

[ShoulderRoll]

No, that's not my criteria. I'm simply explaining why the US was so dominant back then. I have nothing against American boxers - or boxers from any other country, for that matter.

There are more fighters from outside the US today yet the current era isn't anywhere near as stacked as the 1940's. Nor are there any fighters as great as Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles or Willie Pep.

[them_apples]

Usa was the most dominant because the purses were the largest. Money rules the world, the best fighters made their way there. As did the scientists, doctors etc at least for the time

[Bundana]

There are more fighters from outside the US today yet the current era isn't anywhere near as stacked as the 1940's. Nor are there any fighters as great as Ray Robinson or Ezzard Charles or Willie Pep.

You are right... as I've already said, some of the best boxers ever were active back in the 40s.

But have you studied the world rankings from that decade? Look at (for example) the HWs... once we get past Louis, Conn, Walcott and Charles, what is there to write home about?

And looking at the other end of the scale... could we today imagine flyweight or bantam world rankings without boxers from Thailand, Japan, Phillipines, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.?

The bottom line is this: If Mr. Edwards had picked the extremely busy 30s, with more active boxers than ever before (or since!), that would have been just fine. Or a later decade (like maybe the 80s?) would have made sense also.

But he didn't... he picked a decade where the number of active boxers plummeted, compared to the decade before. A decade ruined by war, with no (or hardly any) input from Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America.

So to say, that today's era isn't anywhere near as stacked as the 1940's, really makes no sense, imo.

[ShoulderRoll]

You are right... as I've already said, some of the best boxers ever were active back in the 40s.

But have you studied the world rankings from that decade? Look at (for example) the HWs... once we get past Louis, Conn, Walcott and Charles, what is there to write home about?

And looking at the other end of the scale... could we today imagine flyweight or bantam world rankings without boxers from Thailand, Japan, Phillipines, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.?

The bottom line is this: If Mr. Edwards had picked the extremely busy 30s, with more active boxers than ever before (or since!), that would have been just fine. Or a later decade (like maybe the 80s?) would have made sense also.

But he didn't... he picked a decade where the number of active boxers plummeted, compared to the decade before. A decade ruined by war, with no (or hardly any) input from Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America.

So to say, that today's era isn't anywhere near as stacked as the 1940's, really makes no sense, imo.

But the world rankings aren't important in determining the greatness of the era, its the quality and quantity of great fighters that matter. When it comes to that the 1940's take a back seat to no decade.

[them_apples]

You are right... as I've already said, some of the best boxers ever were active back in the 40s.

But have you studied the world rankings from that decade? Look at (for example) the HWs... once we get past Louis, Conn, Walcott and Charles, what is there to write home about?

And looking at the other end of the scale... could we today imagine flyweight or bantam world rankings without boxers from Thailand, Japan, Phillipines, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.?

The bottom line is this: If Mr. Edwards had picked the extremely busy 30s, with more active boxers than ever before (or since!), that would have been just fine. Or a later decade (like maybe the 80s?) would have made sense also.

But he didn't... he picked a decade where the number of active boxers plummeted, compared to the decade before. A decade ruined by war, with no (or hardly any) input from Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America.

So to say, that today's era isn't anywhere near as stacked as the 1940's, really makes no sense, imo.

The usa wasnt actively involved in ww2 for its entirety. Just a few years of real man power was used, many returned before the war was even over. Man power was used up (to a certain degree) but at the same time many of these soldiers were already back in the usa and in the fight ranks while ww2 was still on going.

i think you make a very good point concerning the rest of europe, the usa may have benefitted from it though, since so many soldiers took up boxing in the army.

europe needed all its men and the casualties were much higher, infrastructure at risk - they would have had thinned ranks for sure.

so I guess overall I think you make a good point, likely from 1943-1945 is my guess where the USA may have felt it.

11 million served in a period of 2.5 years, 9 in 1000 were KIA and the population was 130-140 million at the time. How many were young men? Not sure. Some of the servicemen were women as well and not all front line infantry.

world war 2 started from 1939 - 1945 but the usa really only got seriously involved at the tail end of it.

The usa would have also had a flux of immigration that could have further swelled its ranks. Because you are all about numbers, I am curious if the local boxing population within usa at the time.