Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Bundana]

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.

You're right, it's an interesting thread - and, strangely, one that has not been completely ruined by trolls and name-calling!

One thing I'd like to address, is the number of fights during a career.

Some people will argue, that the more times you do something, the more proficient you become. They point to the fact, that many of today's top boxers have less than 50 pro fights, and therefore can't be as good as the old-timers... who often had 100-200 (in some cases even more!) career fights.

But if we look at guys like Leonard, DLH, Whitaker, we have ATG fighters who never even reached the 50 fight mark. Do we really think, they will come up short against old-timers in dream match-ups, because they lack experience?

Today some of the leading boxers, like Lomachenlo and Usyk, have not even had 20 pro fights! Will they improve over the next 10-15 fights? I don't think so... we have probably already seen the best of them.

It's all about how good you are - not how many fights you can cram into a pro career!

[JAB5239]

You're right, it's an interesting thread - and, strangely, one that has not been completely ruined by trolls and name-calling!

One thing I'd like to address, is the number of fights during a career.

Some people will argue, that the more times you do something, the more proficient you become. They point to the fact, that many of today's top boxers have less than 50 pro fights, and therefore can't be as good as the old-timers... who often had 100-200 (in some cases even more!) career fights.

But if we look at guys like Leonard, DLH, Whitaker, we have ATG fighters who never even reached the 50 fight mark. Do we really think, they will come up short against old-timers in dream match-ups, because they lack experience?

Today some of the leading boxers, like Lomachenlo and Usyk, have not even had 20 pro fights! Will they improve over the next 10-15 fights? I don't think so... we have probably already seen the best of them.

It's all about how good you are - not how many fights you can cram into a pro career!

I think there will always be exceptions to any rule. But fighters like Loma had extensive amateur careers and didn't turn pro until later on when many boxers have already crafted their professional style. Imagine if Loma had taken 100 less amateur fights and turned pro earlier? He may not have fought for a world title in his second fight, but is there any doubt he would have never lost to Salido?

[Bundana]

I think there will always be exceptions to any rule. But fighters like Loma had extensive amateur careers and didn't turn pro until later on when many boxers have already crafted their professional style. Imagine if Loma had taken 100 less amateur fights and turned pro earlier? He may not have fought for a world title in his second fight, but is there any doubt he would have never lost to Salido?

We also have someone like Inoue, who wasn't a highly decorated amateur, who turned pro as a teenager - but after just 20 fights is already a 3-division champ, and arguably one of the top p4p boxers in the world today.

My point is, if you have the talent, it doesn't take more than 50 pro fights to bring it out. And I don't see, how fighting every other week (like some of the old-timers did back in boxing's "Golden Age", the 20s and 30s) would be beneficial in any way.

[ShoulderRoll]

We also have someone like Inoue, who wasn't a highly decorated amateur, who turned pro as a teenager - but after just 20 fights is already a 3-division champ, and arguably one of the top p4p boxers in the world today.

My point is, if you have the talent, it doesn't take more than 50 pro fights to bring it out. And I don't see, how fighting every other week (like some of the old-timers did back in boxing's "Golden Age", the 20s and 30s) would be beneficial in any way.

Doing anything frequently, for a long time, allows you to reach levels of mastery that you can't get any other way.

Lomachenko is still lacking in some areas for example as proven in the Teofimo Lopez fight. He isn't fully seasoned.

[Bundana]

Doing anything frequently, for a long time, allows you to reach levels of mastery that you can't get any other way.

Lomachenko is still lacking in some areas for example as proven in the Teofimo Lopez fight. He isn't fully seasoned.

So after more than 400 fights, amateur (at the highest level) and pro, Loma isn't fully seasoned? How much seasoning does a guy need?

[ShoulderRoll]

So after more than 400 fights, amateur (at the highest level) and pro, Loma isn't fully seasoned? How much seasoning does a guy need?

Amateur fights are 3 rounders.

He would have needed to replace some of those 400 fights with more pro seasoning instead.

[Bundana]

Amateur fights are 3 rounders.

He would have needed to replace some of those 400 fights with more pro seasoning instead.

Once he had adjusted to the longer distance, he very quickly reached his peak - probably after only a handful of pro fights. He's likely on his way down now - probably thanks to too much seasoning!

[ShoulderRoll]

Once he had adjusted to the longer distance, he very quickly reached his peak - probably after only a handful of pro fights. He's likely on his way down now - probably thanks to too much seasoning!

There's still things he could have learned.

In no way does his experience compare to the ring savvy of someone like Chavez who had over 80 fights at his peak.

Let alone someone like Sugar Ray Robinson who had over 120 fights at his peak.

[DeeMoney]

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.

I agree with your principle, and in general believe that modern fighters tend to get shafted when compared to 'the good ol days,.

I would argue though, that as boxing's place in society has decline over the past few decades, boxing has possibly taken a hit by no longer getting the best athletes.

So lets get rid of the platitudes that, 'boxers are born and not made' and accept that boxers are athletes too; and being a better athlete helps make one a better boxer. Now, working with round numbers, just to make things easy, lets assume 1 out of 1,000 people are elite athlete level. 70 years ago you'd have 2.5 million elite athletes, now you have 7 million.

As youve pointed out, a bigger pool creates a greater chance to have a better product. But lets look at the rise of other sports and their impact. In the US alone the NFL and NBA have had meteoric rises in popularity during that time (baseball was already big), not to mention the growth of Hockey, and recently other combat sports. Of course due to the nature of those team sports they are most likely recruiting possible middleweights and above.

Assume that 20% of those who would have earlier gone into boxing now go into football, an additional 20% into basketball, and 20% into those other sports. You've essentially countered the increase in population as an advantage.

Now, as you've shown, there are more fights taking place now. But since other sports have begun to poach more of those top line athletes it is feasible to assume that some of those who are now fighting on a pro level would not have been in a previous generation.

[billeau2]

Doing anything frequently, for a long time, allows you to reach levels of mastery that you can't get any other way.

Lomachenko is still lacking in some areas for example as proven in the Teofimo Lopez fight. He isn't fully seasoned.

Great post and example, agreed.