Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Humean]

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.

Not completely convinced but I think i'll add him to my borderline.

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.

I didn't know he was beating Bivins comfortably before being stopped but i'm still not convinced. I can't help but think he was simply a talented guy with a good amateur pedigree (apparently the last man to defeat Rocky Marciano) that perhaps had a decent amount of hype but that for whatever reason didn't amount to much.

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.

You are right that he did tend to lose to the better contenders but he does have the wins and draws against top contenders to make him a nailed-on 'world level' contender for at least the three years in a row that the Ring had him ranked.

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.

Those two light-heavies were probably better than almost all the actual heavyweights at the time, I suppose people can draw their own conclusions about what that says about the heavyweight division at that point in time. You are right about the string of losses but I still think you have to have him as 'world level' or else you might be in a position to say there were basically zero actual 'world level' genuine heavyweights at that moment of time.


Now what about the borderline guys I had that you didn't?

Sam Baroudi, Joe Kahut, Cesar Silverio Brion, Bob Satterfield, John Holman, Pat McMurtry, Harry Matthews.

You don't think a case could be made for any of these?

[Humean]

100%

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.

Sadly Pacquiao is far from being one of the last from such poor backgrounds. There are plenty of fighters from parts of Asia, Africa, and South America who come from a poverty that is at least on a par, but often greater, than the poverty of most fighters during the early or later part of the 20th century.

On your last point, one thing a typical fighter has today that a fighter in the 30s or 40s didn't have, is a far greater capacity for rest. The fighter today doesn't have to fight every couple of weeks to earn a living and if he has a day job it is usually a lot less labour-intensive than what a lot of fighters from the 30s or 40s were doing. In regards to physical condition rest is every bit as important as working hard.

[joeandthebums]

Those two light-heavies were probably better than almost all the actual heavyweights at the time, I suppose people can draw their own conclusions about what that says about the heavyweight division at that point in time. You are right about the string of losses but I still think you have to have him as 'world level' or else you might be in a position to say there were basically zero actual 'world level' genuine heavyweights at that moment of time.

Take your point and for now I've moved Valdes into the borderline category.

Now what about the borderline guys I had that you didn't?

Sam Baroudi, Joe Kahut, Cesar Silverio Brion, Bob Satterfield, John Holman, Pat McMurtry, Harry Matthews.

You don't think a case could be made for any of these?

Yes after taking a better look I can see they have all have a case to be considered borderline world level.

[The Old LefHook]

Take your point and for now I've moved Valdes into the borderline category.



Yes after taking a better look I can see they have all have a case to be considered borderline world level.

Didn't Satterfield have a monster punch and a kitten chin, or am I thinking of Harold Johnson?

[Scott9945]

Didn't Satterfield have a monster punch and a kitten chin, or am I thinking of Harold Johnson?

That definitely sounds a lot more like Satterfield.

[McGoorty]

LOL this era sucks man, totally a load of alphabet soup, How can anyone take the notion seriously ? there must be 400 world champs today, how can we sort the mess out. In my country Australia there are no more free to air TV fights and I don't wanna go to a smelly pub to watch fights with the sound turned off.

[McGoorty]

Sheer numbers clearly indicate that their where fewer fighters and fewer fights in the old days. Since competition always makes quality rise how can anyone dispute that boxers, in general, are better today than they where in past eras?

I dispute the notion todays fighters are better, I am too tired right now to state my argument, I just compare film of fighters from the older times to now and I see far tougher figheters and better skills in the earlier times, I love the 50's and 40's films, just incredible stuff. As fo more fighters today ? maybe worldwide there is but there are BILLIONS more people. The stats in Australia though prove that at least here there is no comparison, in the 50's we had nearly a thousand pro boxers, today we have maybe a hundred but I doubt it. In the old days boxing was totally dominated by the USA and many guys were better from overseas but were never given the opportunity, I HATE this era as there are so many belts they have become MEANINGLESS. I respect you Bat as yoy are one of my favourite posters but I disagree vehemently on this.

[McGoorty]

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

That is some compelling evidence right there. Lets not forget that boxing back in the old days was wayyyyy more popular than now. In the old Sydney Stadium it was filled everytime a Darcy or Sands or Vic Patrick or George Barnes stepped into the ring and ALL the papers had the story on the back page even ahead of the cricket or rugby league or AFL when a big fight was on. Boxing in the 1920's and 30's was huge in America and Australia, there wasn't many sports that had the fanaticism that boxing provided. To be the heavyweight champion then was to be the most famous man on the planet, or very close to it.

[Humean]

That is some compelling evidence right there. Lets not forget that boxing back in the old days was wayyyyy more popular than now. In the old Sydney Stadium it was filled everytime a Darcy or Sands or Vic Patrick or George Barnes stepped into the ring and ALL the papers had the story on the back page even ahead of the cricket or rugby league or AFL when a big fight was on. Boxing in the 1920's and 30's was huge in America and Australia, there wasn't many sports that had the fanaticism that boxing provided. To be the heavyweight champion then was to be the most famous man on the planet, or very close to it.

How was that compelling evidence for your position? 10% fewer cards, 23% more bouts and 23% more boxers on 2014 dates compared to 1946 dates.

[Bundana]

McGoorty, you obviously see boxing today from an Australian's point og view - which is totally different from what someone like Bat is experiencing. You sound, like there used to be a lot of fights on free TV down your way, and also a lot more active boxers than today. So I can understand, if you think boxing isn't what it used to be. Guess that's what most Americans complain about too!

Now in Bat's (and my own!) country, Denmark, it's the other way around! When we started to take an interest in boxing, many years ago, we could only DREAM of ever getting a glimpse of the boxers we read about in Boxing News or The Ring - because boxing on TV was almost unheard of in Denmark on the ONE(1) channel we had up until 1988.

But over the past 25 years things have changed dramatically for us! We now have dozens and dozens of channels to chose from - several of them all-sports networks. As a result of this, we now get all the major shows from UK, USA, Germany (and lately from Macao!) live on Danish TV. And no PPV, either... it's all part of our cable package. So for us, as fans, this is the best time ever!

Now we all know, there's a lot of things wrong with boxing today. Too many "world" champions, too many alphabet organisations, the best boxers not meeting each other, etc., etc. In a perfect world, much would surely be different! But we have what we have... and how can boxing today be all bad, when you have guys like Kovalev and Beterbiev heating up the light heavyweight division? If Beterbiev keeps making progress and Kovalev holds on to his title(s)... can you imagine those two clashing in a shootout between big punchers late next year? WOW! I don't care what is wrong with boxing - something like that will certainly get my attention! As will Wilders next fights! Also, will he get a showdown with Wlad, before the Ukrainian retires (or loses his belts) - and if he does, what will happen? Also I hope to soon see more of Ward and the brilliant Rigondeaux. Oh, I almost forgot GGG - can't get enough of him! A master of cutting off the ring as he patiently hunts down his pray. Yes, lots of exciting stuff to look forward to (IMO).

As for the 40s and 50s... was that really a better time for boxing? When it was (at least to some extent) controlled by the mob, with deserving fighters being denied a title shot for years (like Archie Moore) or LaMotta being forced to take a dive before finally getting his long overdue chance. If you actually made it to the top, you often fought for peanuts, or had your crooked manager steal most of your money (see Ike Williams).

As for the old films revealing, that the old-timers were BETTER that the boxers we have today - sorry, but I just don't see that! But that is of course my personal opinion.