Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Humean]

Below is a comparison between the same date 68 years apart.

Friday 12 July 1946

Australia; 3 cards; 12 bouts
Ireland; 1 card, 7 bouts
Italy; 1 card, 1 bout
Panama; 1 card, 1 bout
Spain; 1 card, 4 bouts
USA; 18 cards; 79 bouts

Total Cards: 25
Total Bouts: 104
Total Boxers: 208


Saturday 12 July 2014

Argentina; 4 cards; 6 bouts
Australia; 1 card, 5 bouts
Chile; 1 card, 1 bout
Colombia; 1 card, 4 bouts
Georgia; 1 card, 12 bouts
Hungary; 2 cards; 14 bouts
Mexico; 2 cards; 7 bouts
New Zealand; 1 card, 3 bouts
United Kingdom; 3 cards; 35 bouts
USA; 7 cards; 40 bouts

Total Cards: 23
Total Bouts: 127
Total Boxers: 254


As the date fell on different days, I did a quick count for the correct day.

Saturday 13 July 1946

Total Cards: 22
Total Bouts: 69
Total Boxers: 138


Friday 11 July 2014

Total Cards: 19
Total Bouts: 85
Total Boxers: 170


Which produces the following totals;

1946 2 Day Total

Total Cards: 47
Total Bouts: 173
Total Boxers: 346


2014 2 Day Total

Total Cards: 42
Total Bouts: 212
Total Boxers: 424

I suppose the most notable thing about that beyond that 2014 is not far different from 1946 in terms of the totals is that there is less than half the number of US shows. Also something that I have noticed before which is that there seems to be more fights on each card these days than there were in the past. As those numbers indicate, 5 more shows in 1946 yet 39 fewer fights and 78 fewer boxers.

[StAlbansBoxing]

Its quite likely that many shows in the past weren't recorded unlike today where everything is recorded.

I will not accept that boxing today is as strong as it was in years past. the sport has declined dramatically in the level of skills we see among many top fighters. Its why Floyd is so dominant and can make fools of top fighters. His ring craft is a product of a bygone era. Its why a fat old james toney could stand in front of top 10 HWs and not get stopped.

[them_apples]

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.

[joeandthebums]

Ezzard Charles

BORDERLINE WORLD LEVEL
Teddy Yarosz, Kid Tunero, Sam Baroudi, Joe Kahut, Cesar Silverio Brion, Bob Satterfield, Charley Norkus, John Holman, Pat McMurtry, Harry Matthews

WORLD LEVEL
Ken Overlin, Anton Christoforidis, Charley Burley, Jose Basora, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, Oakland BIlly Smith, Elmer Ray, Joe Baksi, Jersey Joe Walcott, Gus Lesnevich, Pat Valentino, Joe Louis, Nick Barone, Lee Oma, Rex Layne, Nino Valdes, Harold Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Paul Andrews, Tommy Jackson

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.

[Humean]

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.

I'll forget for the moment the borderline fighters that I have that you do not have and focus on the fighters that each has that the other does not.

You

Booker Beckwith - I almost put him on my borderline but thought against it. He may have been ranked #1 at 175 the year before yet that ranking didn't seem accurate or deserving. Ostensively he seemed to get that ranking from defeating Solly Krieger and Red Burman. Looking at it again though he is at least as deserving of being in my borderline as some others that I have.

Coley Wallace - Was ranked #10 the year he lost to Charles. That ranking seemed very generous to me, being managed by Blinky Palermo may have had something to do with it. So I didn't think he was genuinely a 'world level' fighter.

Me

Jose Basora - Did you miss him? Basora seems pretty clear cut to me.

Nick Barone - Was ranked at light-heavy for two years in row, 1949 and 1950. Those rankings do seem generous though, I think the Jimmy Beau victory is what diminished my doubts . Think i'm mistaken though, at most he should be on my borderline

Nino Valdes - Again this seems fairly clear cut to me.

Paul Andrews - Ranked #2 at 175 previous year to Charles fight, I think his results bare out that he was 'world level'.

[joeandthebums]

You

Booker Beckwith - I almost put him on my borderline but thought against it. He may have been ranked #1 at 175 the year before yet that ranking didn't seem accurate or deserving. Ostensively he seemed to get that ranking from defeating Solly Krieger and Red Burman. Looking at it again though he is at least as deserving of being in my borderline as some others that I have.

Beckwith was considered a good enough contender prior to his beating of Krieger to earn a ranking, but yes Krieger was his first opponent of note.

I think Beckwith was rated and thought of so highly as a Light Heavyweight because he had to step up to get fights and did okay against these heavier opponents - Charles was one of the few opponents who he had a weight advantage over.

Coley Wallace - Was ranked #10 the year he lost to Charles. That ranking seemed very generous to me, being managed by Blinky Palermo may have had something to do with it. So I didn't think he was genuinely a 'world level' fighter.

Did not know Palermo was his manager, good information.

Not much to his record, but was thought of as a good prospect Heavyweight who went into the Bivins fight a big favourite and was considered comfortably ahead on the cards until he got stopped.

Me

Jose Basora - Did you miss him? Basora seems pretty clear cut to me.

I did, but when they fought Basora wasn't thought of the same way we think of him now.

He was coming off a draw and win over LaMotta, himself a popular "club fighter" as he was tagged at that time, but otherwise Basora had failed each time he'd tried to step up; Williams, Welch and Kid Tunero all beating him.

Nick Barone - Was ranked at light-heavy for two years in row, 1949 and 1950. Those rankings do seem generous though, I think the Jimmy Beau victory is what diminished my doubts . Think i'm mistaken though, at most he should be on my borderline

Yes he was ranked highly enough that I should of listed him, like you I thought his record at that point a bit light - even with the Beau victory in which he had a 14 pound weight advantage.

Nino Valdes - Again this seems fairly clear cut to me.

Much like Basora we now all know Valdes, but before he beat Charles in a big upset, in which Valdes was a 6-1 underdog - he wasn't thought of as much.

Valdes had a bad run in the US before the Charles fight which caused him to temporary return home and fight for the Cuban title - he'd lost to two Light Heavyweights in Moore and Johnson, then lost out to two Heavyweights in Gilliam and ranked Baker.

The perceived difference in levels at that point was helped by Charles beating Gilliam in his very next outing after the Valdes win.

Paul Andrews - Ranked #2 at 175 previous year to Charles fight, I think his results bare out that he was 'world level'.

I agree, I clearly overlooked him.

[Bundana]

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.

You really think so? Was there really a past era, where we can study the footage of the best boxers... and where it's obvious, that what we're looking at was "way" better, than what we have in the present era?

[KnockoutNed]

For the posters like OP who believe that the current era is the best in history because there just so happens to be more recorded fights in recent years would be arguing that the HW era of the last 10 years or so is stronger than at any other 10 year period in the division's history.

To these posters I would ask, "In your opinion which HW era is stronger?"


(1987-1997)
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis
Rid**** Bowe
Michael Moorer
Andrew Golota
Razor Ruddock
Ray Mercer
Tommy Morrison
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Frank Bruno
Ike Ibeabuchi
David Tua
Tony Tucker
Tim Witherspoon
Oliver MCcall
Herbie Hide
Michael Grant
Shannon Briggs
Henry Akiwande
Tyrell Biggs
Mike Weaver
Francesco Damiani
Carl Williams

or
(2005-2015)
Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Chris Byrd
Oleg Maskaev
Lamon Brewster
Sam Peter
Calvin Brock
Monte Barett
Nikolai Valuev
Hasim Rahman
Serguei Lyakhovich
Alexander Povetkin
David Haye
Bermane Stiverne
Eddie Chambers
Tyson Fury
Tomasz Adamek
Kubrat Pulev
Tony Thompson
Chris Arreola
Steve Cunningham
Alexander Dimitrenko
Juan Carlos Gomez
Sultan Ibragimov
Ruslan Chagaev

[billeau2]

You really think so? Was there really a past era, where we can study the footage of the best boxers... and where it's obvious, that what we're looking at was "way" better, than what we have in the present era?

Bundana its amazing how much one can tell from very little footage. the footage that can be studied is revealing. you can also look at the texts at the time to see what people were studying, and how it was taught. There isn't a 'way better' rather there are methods and programs.

[them_apples]

You really think so? Was there really a past era, where we can study the footage of the best boxers... and where it's obvious, that what we're looking at was "way" better, than what we have in the present era?

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.