Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[McGoorty]

I would start by stating that I believe the amount of professional boxers that are not accounted for from Fleischer's time to be far greater than the present.

If BoxRec have the capabilities to publish the figures for active boxers in any given year, then we will have a much greater base for comparison.

Fleischer would rate approximately 2,600+ boxers each year in his yearly ratings, that would equate to roughly over half of the boxers he claimed he was aware of - I haven't spent any great time looking at this area until now and I think a considerable amount of time would be needed before reaching any form of conclusion.

I have took a brief look at 1941, for which I have only a vague reference, courtesy of Fleischer that 4,000 boxers were active at that time period.

Looking at his yearly welterweight ratings, he grouped 174 boxers over 7 groups.

28 of those boxers were non-US nationalities, including the likes of Mistos Grispos who was listed as from Greece despite being based in New York.

That makes for a over-inflated total 15% of non-US nationality boxers being ranked.

The rest then becomes guess work;

On the premise that Fleischer ranked over half of the boxers he knew of, we would have to believe there were no more than 348 active welterweights worldwide in 1941.

146 US boxers had already been ranked so what remaining percentage would be US and non-US?

Only 7 English boxers were ranked among the 174, what would be the total number of active English/British boxers at welterweight in 1941?

On the premise that Fleischer ranked over half of the boxers he knew of, we would have to believe there were no more than 348 active welterweights worldwide in 1941.

Well I know for certain that in 1950 in just Australia alone which back then had a very small population of just a few millions had over 350 registered professional welterweights which is more than your estimated total of welters worldwide for 1941. I know this because I have read an Australian boxing magazine from 1950 which published at the back the statistics for all the registered professionals that were active that year and the year before. The welterweights I remember because it was the most populous division in Australia at the time with the lightweights having well over 200 and same for the middleweights...... but I remember the flyweights had like 10 or something..... which of course points to there being far more than just 350 odd welterweights in the world for 1950... there must have been many more welters in the states than Australia... the number world wide must have been over a thousand that year............ so maybe the cream of the division had a decent talent pool of at least 60 very good welters so the top ten must have been at least as good as their reputations had them be at the time.

[McGoorty]

I have never been more confident that these statistics are bogus. Small arenas across the country had regular cards for low level pros up to the 1950s.

It is typically myopic of non staticticians to compare the eras on an absolute numbers basis. The U.S. population when I was a kid was about 180 million, now it is pushing double that. Saturation was much higher then than now.

Statistics do more harm than good in the hands of people who have no idea how to handle a data set. Massaging statistics is every day business in our world. Both political parties and their minions indulge in it constantly, which is why the statistics given on the O'Reilly show will often differ from those on MSNBC, etc.

Of course no one here has an agenda. Or do they? The title of the thread suggests they do. Someone here has an agenda that boxers are better today than in the past, so bogus statistics based on absolute numbers are conscripted to prove it.

Normally i would agree with the agenda thesis when it comes to this subject but that does not seem consistent with the Battling Nelson I have known for quite a few years now, I always have help Bat in pretty high esteem so maybe he came across these stats and it prompted the thread.

[McGoorty]

I just scanned Holman Williams and counted 39 world class opponents.......on the first page of three for his record. Yet this bozo claims 19 his entire career. I'm also sure his 7 fight series against Burley is comparable to the monsters Floyd fought.

Now that is a bit harsh isn't it ? He made an attempt at finding some stats and maybe you delved a lot deeper but that doesn't make him a bozo the clown does it ?................................................. ...... .............................. ..................... and your comment about Floyd fighting "monsters" could easily prompt a far harsher response from me as Floyd fought who exactly that was in their prime ???? who ? name even two please.

[McGoorty]

yes which account for 39 fights which is what i thought his numbers indicated



that's what i read which lead me to think the numbers indicated fights not fighters. i apologize humean and yes you're classification of world level appears rather spot on.

number of fights rather than opponents would be a more accurate reflection considering how common series were as opposed to today.

Well just got to this post and it seems it is all cleared up and all a freinds again.... case closed

[Bundana]

Well I think you should find more reliable stats because these are clearly wrong, I have seen other stats that say the exact opposite, in fact I posted them somewhere. The idea that todays crap is better than from some of the other decades (some truly great) I find hilarious. I am not used to you saying stuff like this.

I would be interested in seeing those more reliable stats you refer to!

[McGoorty]

boxers were way better back in the day. "modern conditioning" may have been missing from other sports like Hockey and Basketball, but boxing has always had high conditioned athletes. Oldschool boxers were hungier and tougher men, fought a lot more and were just more determined in general. They were also very practiced, they fought so damn much and worked on skills so much everything just came naturally.

THIS................................. THIS........................... THIS..................... ............................. :ANYWORD:Extravaganz .................

[McGoorty]

I would be interested in seeing those more reliable stats you refer to!

Oh those, well I see them earlier in this thread... the boxrec stats one of the guys put up which are the same I was thinking of and the clearly show there were more fights in the 40's or was that the 50's... well anyway you just need to go back to like page 3 or 4 on this thread.

[McGoorty]

Here's what I got on my first read through, very open to discussion on it;

World Level

Ken Overlin, Anton Christoforidis, Kid Tunero, Charley Burley, Booker Beckwith, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, Oakland Billy Smith, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Jersey Joe Walcott, Gus Lesnevich, Pat Valentino, Joe Louis, Lee Oma, Rex Layne, Harold Johnson, Coley Wallace, Rocky Marciano, Charley Norkus and Tommy Jackson.

Borderline World Level

Teddy Yarosz, Steve Mamakos and Joe Baksi.

Going by only the numbers, we both have 23 at World Level and a difference of 7 at Borderline.

well I actually wouldn't have Teddy Yarosz as borderline while there are some names you have in the higher level... Yarosz I believe was a better fighter than say... Oakland Billy Smith.... if you said Mysterious Billy Smith I would agree, anyway teddy won a world title and many of the above didn't. although yes some of the non title holders were probably better than old Teddles

[Bundana]

Oh those, well I see them earlier in this thread... the boxrec stats one of the guys put up which are the same I was thinking of and the clearly show there were more fights in the 40's or was that the 50's... well anyway you just need to go back to like page 3 or 4 on this thread.

Those stats you are talking about show the number of annual fights according to BoxRec's database.

The graph Bat posted shows the number of boxers taking part in those fights - again from that same database.

Two entirely different things.

[McGoorty]

no longer the noob

100%

I didn't just come up with this opinion overnight. In fact veterans of this forum can remember me as a noob of the sport who assumed boxing was like any other sport - athletic enhancements making a superior athlete.

The difference is, boxing has always been a conditioning type sport, you didn't just show up and play a game. You can see it's evident in a game like Hockey where they really turned it into a science, players stopped smoking and started working on measurable statistics.

Boxing however, is quite different. Even in the modern era we have seen throw backs win fights with sheer guts, even when every physical enhancement is in the better athletes favor. Boxing is a sport that heavily, heavily encompasses mentality and skill.

Now the big difference here, is that times have become a lot easier. Boxing used to be a poor persons sport, I'm talking way back - it was one of the bridges from the poor to the rich even in the medieval times before the mark of the queensbury. Poor people from harder backgrounds make better fighters. Even a guy like Mayweather, ridiculed for his running style, comes from a poor background.

In the 1940's-1980's boxers came from nothing. A guy like Carlos Monzon for example, came from a place where you could be killed at any given moment, life was dog eat dog, 0 education - only boxing. It's like putting a wild animal in with a domesticated animal. In fact one of the main reasons that people tend to overlook why Pacquiao was able to bust up men so much bigger than him, is simply because he's one of the last few boxers that came from nothing - you can google the shanty town he grew up in, if he wasn't boxing he would be in a national geographic photoshoot. Once again my point being, fighters with this mentality were FAR more common back in the day.


So, when you take a guy like Robinson, Monzon, Hagler or Duran...they have incredible determination and toughness, coupled with excellent athletic capabilities and skill. If you read Marvin Haglers story, the man was cooped up in his own house by sniper fire for weeks on end, that's how dangerous life was back then.

One last point, dig up a training regimen that a newer, great fighter has used - you won't find it any different than something of the past.

Well by this post I can assure you that you are no longer a "noob".... it is the best post i have read so far on the thread and it's very much along the lines of how I think, which in itself may not be an endorsement but it gives everyone an idea of where I stand on this... boxing is pure combat..... it is very much about will and desire and DESPERATION