Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Bundana]

Oh, man... a thread started almost 6 years ago!

I have just skimmed through the 32 pages, and can see that I had strong opinions on this subject years ago - as I indeed still have today. But I see no reason to step in and partake in another heated discussion, and rehash my old arguments... as I doubt that would change anything.

Suffice it to say, that my general opinion is this (which I have previously stated both here and on other sites):

From what I have seen in available footage, it seems to me, that boxing had become fully "modern" by the late 30s/early 40s. I don't really see any significant improvement/evolvement since then.

On the other hand, I don't see any DEvolvement, either. We have fine fighters today - just like 80 years ago. IMO.

[billeau2]

Lets just remember a couple of caveats to the idea that progress is immanent by virtue of numbers:

1) The talent pool for guys who are capable of punching each other in the face has been cut into through the growth of other sports activities. This includes the obvious like MMA and other fight circuits... does anyone find it strange that fighters like Dillan Whyte, who fought competatively (not dominant) in kick boxing circuit for years, can become an excellent prize fighter? That means these other fighters are potentially part of the talent pool being pulled from prize fighting.

2) and other sports offer better rewards, nuff said.

So the bigger numbers of people exposed to fighting is offset somewhat, by other venues available. Not necessarily on a purely numerical basis, but... in times past, there was nothing more to attain for a physical specimen than to become a fighting champion, particularly a heavyweight champ... Today? not so much. Hence, the very cream of the crop are the numbers that matter, when it comes to great fighters, or, great athletes (there is a difference).

[QueensburyRules]

- -With the heavies, the sheer size growth from 50 years ago is unprecedented.

[BattlingNelson]

How dare anyone rejuvenate the thread of a ****** points thief?

[BattlingNelson]

Oh, man... a thread started almost 6 years ago!

I have just skimmed through the 32 pages, and can see that I had strong opinions on this subject years ago - as I indeed still have today. But I see no reason to step in and partake in another heated discussion, and rehash my old arguments... as I doubt that would change anything.

Suffice it to say, that my general opinion is this (which I have previously stated both here and on other sites):

From what I have seen in available footage, it seems to me, that boxing had become fully "modern" by the late 30s/early 40s. I don't really see any significant improvement/evolvement since then.

On the other hand, I don't see any DEvolvement, either. We have fine fighters today - just like 80 years ago. IMO.

The bump was courtesy of Jab. It’s not like anyone has to repeat what was already said. The bump is a spin-off from another thread.

[BattlingNelson]

Lets just remember a couple of caveats to the idea that progress is immanent by virtue of numbers:

1) The talent pool for guys who are capable of punching each other in the face has been cut into through the growth of other sports activities. This includes the obvious like MMA and other fight circuits... does anyone find it strange that fighters like Dillan Whyte, who fought competatively (not dominant) in kick boxing circuit for years, can become an excellent prize fighter? That means these other fighters are potentially part of the talent pool being pulled from prize fighting.

2) and other sports offer better rewards, nuff said.

So the bigger numbers of people exposed to fighting is offset somewhat, by other venues available. Not necessarily on a purely numerical basis, but... in times past, there was nothing more to attain for a physical specimen than to become a fighting champion, particularly a heavyweight champ... Today? not so much. Hence, the very cream of the crop are the numbers that matter, when it comes to great fighters, or, great athletes (there is a difference).

The number of people on earth today is vastly superior to the numbers of a hundred years ago and far more fighters partake in the sport and far more bouts per year is being fought today.

[Bundana]

The bump was courtesy of Jab. It’s not like anyone has to repeat what was already said. The bump is a spin-off from another thread.

Yes, I'm aware of that - I saw what you said on the other thread.

[JAB5239]

It’s not about evolution as a species to me. It’s much more simple. It’s the mechanics of competition. The more competition you have, the better the best is. The best of 100 boxers is better than the best of 10 boxers all things equal.

Great thread. I remember it now.

I respect your opinion but disagree. More people doesn't mean more top talent. In my opinion it means less chances for elite fighters to fight elite fighters. What is the old saying..."iron sharpens iron"?

Promotional wise, more fighters is great for the sport. It opens up the opportunity to create more belts, weight classes and put on more shows. As far as talent goes though, I just don't see anymore than past era's. There were great fighters then, there are great fighters now. I personally prefer fighters coming up fighting other contenders instead of padding their record until they get rated. This of course didn't happen all the time in past era's, but it is much less prevalent now that it was then.

[JAB5239]

The number of people on earth today is vastly superior to the numbers of a hundred years ago and far more fighters partake in the sport and far more bouts per year is being fought today.

It's a good bump. Interesting opinions from both sides. I may disagree about some things, but it's a thread that makes you think and take other things into consideration. Thanks for bumping it.

[billeau2]

The number of people on earth today is vastly superior to the numbers of a hundred years ago and far more fighters partake in the sport and far more bouts per year is being fought today.

And there will always be a very small percentage capable of elite athlete/fighter status. That small percentage has a lot more options...

Its a fair point Batts but it is not that simple. There are more fight venues, etc...

Here is another way to look at it: The Chinese have a lot more people than the United States... Where are all the Chinese boxers?