How good was Sam Langford?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

So you don't actually have evidence you are just stating your opinion and by the way the talent pool in boxing was far larger during the first half of the century. Comparing records in athletics to boxing is very ******ed.

Not to interject into your debate but i will,,,

I do think the level of boxing has gone up and then back down over the decades,

I think from 1900-1940s it was pretty crude for the most part, once and awhile you would see someone amazing like willie pep or armstrong, but essentially 95% of the fighters were just brawlers looking for the ko, like jimmy wilde and dempsey type guys, that was the norm, but slowly new tactics were developed and guys like archie moore or pep would bring something new to the game, and slowly others copied and then by the 50s and 60s it was being taught and coached, and the sport in general became much more wide open as the mafia influence waned and tv coverage improved public awareness of the sport,,, I think 60s-early 90s were the best because everyone was fighting each other, no more mob influence, purses rose, coverage rose, techniques of all styles improved,, yes we still had big punchers like dempsey in the form of zarate or foreman, and we also had tactical guys like pep in the form of benitez, and everything that was utilized in the 1900s-1950s was kinda melded together, and pretty much every strategy had a counter strategy and many different styles arose, and more importantly there were alot of boxers, and with more competition comes better results,, once ppv took over, and guys started trying to protect their "0" in the 90s to today, you have seen a drop off in coverage, and more importantly caliber of fighters especially in the US.. Amateur tournaments are way down in size of number of fighters, and without great competition we are getting substandard guys compared to generations passed,,, A guy like wilder would have never been on the 88 olympic team,,, most of the prospects i see arent really that good anymore,,, No offense to danny garcia, or broner, or lucas etc but there is not one roy jones, oscar, hearns, foreman, lennox, pernell around,, Guys that are champs today would never be champs in other eras except for the absolute elite like floyd, jmm, manny, ward,,, those guys could compete in any era, but they all grew up in the 80s adn 90s learning how to box when competition was still very high,,, now that competition has gone down, you are seeing weaker and weaker prospects,,, So i do think boxing went up in the caliber of fighters since 1900 and peaked from about the 60s-90s but then has gone downhill since the mid 90s to present,, and really the past 5-10 years has not produced many great prospects that turned into great champs,,, and its caused by lack of competition in the current amateur ranks

[BattlingNelson]

The talent pool is not primarily the number who actively box, it is the entire world population. Since 1950 the US population has doubled, the world population has trebled.

So if there was 100 people on Earth BITD and 50 of Them where boxers, then they would be worse than if the population on Earth was 300 and only 5 of them where boxers? Not only would there be fewer fighters, they would also fight fewer rounds and fewer fights and yet you claim that those 5 fighters are better than the 50 fighters of yesteryear?

You will have to elaborate, because that doesn't Sound logical at all.

I don't think it is even debatable that boxing standards have improved since the days of 45 rounds, what is more debatable is whether it has improved since the 30s,40s,50s.

So you think that fighters of today would excel in 45 round finish fights? I dont.

I think you underestimate the level of toughness and mental fortitude in many other sports.

No.

[Humean]

So if there was 100 people on Earth BITD and 50 of Them where boxers, then they would be worse than if the population on Earth was 300 and only 5 of them where boxers? Not only would there be fewer fighters, they would also fight fewer rounds and fewer fights and yet you claim that those 5 fighters are better than the 50 fighters of yesteryear?

You will have to elaborate, because that doesn't Sound logical at all.


So you think that fighters of today would excel in 45 round finish fights? I dont.

No.

There are of course many different factors beyond what I mentioned, economic and social for example but with such a big increase in population then I think it is likely to see improvements in the mastery of any kind of skill, whatever it might be. That is, more people with same or higher degree of mastery of skill compared to previous generations.

I don't think anyone excelled in 45 round fights. I think you adapt to the circumstances, if you fought a 45 round fight then you'd probably fight at a very slow pace.

[BattlingNelson]

There are of course many different factors beyond what I mentioned, economic and social for example but with such a big increase in population then I think it is likely to see improvements in the mastery of any kind of skill, whatever it might be.

That's a pretty illogical way of looking at things. Take for instance the skill of making roofs of hay (I dont know the english word sorry). There where thousands of these craftsmen in the 19th century. Today there is hardly a handful in my country. But in your view that handful of craftsmen is better than than the Best of the 19th century simple because there's more people on Earth altogether?

That's ridiculous!

That is, more people with same or higher degree of mastery of skill compared to previous generations.

I don't think anyone excelled in 45 round fights. I think you adapt to the circumstances, if you fought a 45 round fight then you'd probably fight at a very slow pace.

There where definetely fighters who excelled in finishfights. And no. The pace wasn't slow. In fact I read some historian (probably Monte Cox), who made a punchcount of the famous Wolgast-Nelson fight. As I recall it, there where just as many punches on the average in that fight as there was in the 80s. On the average mind you. And that fight went 40 rounds, so you are wrong.

[Humean]

That's a pretty illogical way of looking at things. Take for instance the skill of making roofs of hay (I dont know the english word sorry). There where thousands of these craftsmen in the 19th century. Today there is hardly a handful in my country. But in your view that handful of craftsmen is better than than the Best of the 19th century simple because there's more people on Earth altogether?

That's ridiculous!

There where definetely fighters who excelled in finishfights. And no. The pace wasn't slow. In fact I read some historian (probably Monte Cox), who made a punchcount of the famous Wolgast-Nelson fight. As I recall it, there where just as many punches on the average in that fight as there was in the 80s. On the average mind you. And that fight went 40 rounds, so you are wrong.

You are not properly understanding the point. There are untold numbers of factors that can make the proficiency of a skill improve or decline, in terms of quality and quantity, over time but as a crude estimation it is clear that population growth is likely to improve proficiency in skill. It need not of course, your example is a case in point because few need to become proficient in that skill as few people demand thatched roofs today. However the best thatcher today might well be as good or better than the best thatcher in the 19th century. Boxing has the lure of big money.

I'm not wrong because of one case, surely it is a question of the average 45 round fight not one example? Wolgast and Battling Nelson were human, whatever they could do I imagine there are guys that could do the same today, what does that prove? You think they were better conditioned than the best conditioned lightweights of more recent decades? Is there a complete film of the Wolgast-Nelson fight or only partial/highlights?

[soul_survivor]

he was a great fighter but i agree that old-time romanticizing and a feeling of guilt at his boxing misfortunate has led to him perhaps being ranked higher than i feel he should be.

thiiiiiiiiiiiis!

/thread

[BattlingNelson]

You are not properly understanding the point. There are untold numbers of factors that can make the proficiency of a skill improve or decline, in terms of quality and quantity, over time but as a crude estimation it is clear that population growth is likely to improve proficiency in skill. It need not of course, your example is a case in point because few need to become proficient in that skill as few people demand thatched roofs today. However the best thatcher today might well be as good or better than the best thatcher in the 19th century. Boxing has the lure of big money.

Id say it is highly unlikely that the best thatcher of today is better than the best thatcher of the 19th century. And that's what you say! Why? And how? What kind of Logic is behind that?

I'm not wrong because of one case, surely it is a question of the average 45 round fight not one example? Wolgast and Battling Nelson were human, whatever they could do I imagine there are guys that could do the same today, what does that prove? You think they were better conditioned than the best conditioned lightweights of more recent decades? Is there a complete film of the Wolgast-Nelson fight or only partial/highlights?

Point is that if a 45 round fight was as fastpaced as the fights of today, some 20 round or 15 round fights would also be that.

And yes there is film of the full Nelson-Wolgast fight. A little bonusinfo: Nelson hated that fight so much, that he stole the film from a cinema that was about to show it. He went to court for grand larceny I think, but was acquitted by reasons of insanity (not totally sure of that either though. Its been a while since i read the story.).

[RubenSonny]

Opinions are either true or false.

Are you referring to boxing or other sports when you say "you don't actually have evidence you are just stating your opinion"?

you missed the point and I was talking about all sports, you don't have any proof they have all improved only your opinion. Even if they have it doesn't mean that boxing has, that's conjecture.

Even if the talent pool in boxing in terms of active boxers fighting is smaller now than lets say in 1940 or 1950 then what you say doesn't follow because what is important is the total pool which is the entire population (world population). Also the boxing pool may not actually be smaller, smaller in the USA for sure but what about the explosion of boxing throughout the world since 1940 or 1950? During the 30s, 40s and 50s about two thirds of all boxing world champions were American, that hasn't been the case for a number of decades. So there is reason/evidence apart from the eyes to see improvement in sports such as boxing where there isn't a great objective standard to measure.

That's not reason or evidence, and it shows you clearly don't know what you're talking about. There is roughly a third of the fighters today than there was in 1950's and in the 1920's there were more fighters in NYC than there are today. Try again...

Comparing records in athletics to boxing is not ******ed, boxers are athletes just like the athletes who run track, throw javelins and pole vault.

Yes it is absolutely ******ed and illogical and I have seen posters claim this all the time so I will copy and paste my usual response:

For idiots who point to better records in athletics like sprinting/high jump etc that bears no comparison to boxing. Relatively conservative movements/limited technique where you're trying to beat a record in which opponents are irrelevant is going to improve over time (objectively), is absolutely different to a range of dynamic movements and creativity exhibited over a scheduled duration in which the goal is to outpoint an unpredictable opponent, not to mention its a hugely subjective contest.

[Bundana]

So you think that fighters of today would excel in 45 round finish fights? I dont.

Are you saying, that boxers of the early 20th century were genetically better suited for long distance fights, than present day boxers?

[BattlingNelson]

Are you saying, that boxers of the early 20th century were genetically better suited for long distance fights, than present day boxers?

No. Not genetics. Rather training and toughness achieved through harder upbringing and and generally tougher times.

What do you think Bundana? You are one of the most knowledgeable posters I know. And what is your opinion on Langford, which after all is the threads subject?