Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[New England]

So if pro boxing today is taking place in more countries than ever before, and the number of fights and active boxers have doubled over the past 50 years... how does this mean that boxing's popularity is trending downward?

bookeeping would have been a nightmare in the 1940's. fights would go unregulated and unrecorded much more frequently


in spite of that, here's a quote from a guy named mike silver, who has spent more time researching the subject than any of us.

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

that's from an interview on another boxing site.
just search the quote in google,a nd you should get the full text.



i understand that he was promoting a book at the time, but that's no different from any researcher trying to get people to read a paper.

[Humean]

again, you are providing no evidence. provide evidence for the bold, and demonstrate that supports the finding that boxing's historic popularity is overestimated.

the burden of proof is on you. you're the one with an opinion contrary to the consensus. let's see what you've got. i'm open to your ideas.



do you have any thoughts about why posters might be inclined to perceive boxing's popularity in the way that they do? do they make things up? are they biased?

louis vs schmelling 2 wasn't a big deal?


ray was alive. so were a lot of these guys. so were many of the historians who argue that boxing was more popular in the 50's than it is today. bert sugar is the most colorful. henry hascup is one of the best. he posts here, iirc.

1: You want me to provide evidence for that? Do your own homework, maybe you might learn some history.

2: There is a consensus? Boxing may have been more popular in the US in the 50s than it is today, but that is but one country.

3: I think there is a lot of nostalgia for the past, particularly amongst Americans for American life in the first half of the twentieth century. That probably explains part of these beliefs.

4: I never said, nor implied, that boxing wasn't popular in the early twentieth century. Louis-Schmeling was a very big deal.

[New England]

1: You want me to provide evidence for that? Do your own homework, maybe you might learn some history.

2: There is a consensus? Boxing may have been more popular in the US in the 50s than it is today, but that is but one country.

3: I think there is a lot of nostalgia for the past, particularly amongst Americans for American life in the first half of the twentieth century. That probably explains part of these beliefs.

4: I never said, nor implied, that boxing wasn't popular in the early twentieth century. Louis-Schmeling was a very big deal.

that is what i thought you would say.


we are done here.

[Humean]

bookeeping would have been a nightmare in the 1940's. fights would go unregulated and unrecorded much more frequently


in spite of that, here's a quote from a guy named mike silver, who has spent more time researching the subject than any of us.

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

that's from an interview on another boxing site.
just search the quote in google,a nd you should get the full text.



i understand that he was promoting a book at the time, but that's no different from any researcher trying to get people to read a paper.

The vast majority of fight cards were reported in newspapers, there was no shortage of newspapers then.

Seeing as you have enlightened us about strawman arguments, have you ever heard of the argument from authority? No less a fallacy than strawmen arguments.

Do you know how Mike Silver came up with that claim?

[Humean]

that is what i thought you would say.


we are done here.

Admit it, you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the history of boxing in all the major boxing countries and yet you claim that I'm somehow making dubious claims. You're completely ignorant.

[joeandthebums]

Pele is routinely considered the greatest footballer ever.

I don't wish to get into the subject but I would equate those who believe Pele is the greatest soccer player to those who believe Muhammad Ali to be the greatest boxer - a generalization, but usually it's those who do not know a great deal about the sport.

Do you mean Usain Bolt as he is now but simply running with Jesse Owen era running shoes, clothing and running track? If so then I think he would go under 10 seconds, but he'd never get close to his world record of 9.58 and I doubt he'd be able to break 9.9.

I think Bolt is close to the perfect sprinter and Owen was phenomenal in all aspects. Could Bolt go under 10 seconds? Who knows, the one weakness to him is his start, how would he fare without blocks - could Owen get out in front and evade Bolt as he strides?

A good fantasy match-up.

The improvements in strength are certainly evident in the knockout ratios.

Or possible regression in defensive capabilities.

[Humean]

I don't wish to get into the subject but I would equate those who believe Pele is the greatest soccer player to those who believe Muhammad Ali to be the greatest boxer - a generalization, but usually it's those who do not know a great deal about the sport.

Perhaps that is true, Like Ali Pele has probably the greatest fame. YOu said earlier that even the Brazilian's do not think he was the best, who do they think, Garrincha?

I think Bolt is close to the perfect sprinter and Owen was phenomenal in all aspects. Could Bolt go under 10 seconds? Who knows, the one weakness to him is his start, how would he fare without blocks - could Owen get out in front and evade Bolt as he strides?

A good fantasy match-up.

I suppose you could actually assemble a 1930s running track, and have Bolt run on it with 1930s shoes and clothing. I'd certainly be interested in the results. I did read an article once that did suggest the running track may make quite a considerable difference in running times.

Or possible regression in defensive capabilities.

Possibly, but do you see that on film? Styles have certainly moved towards power punching, wider stance for instance. Not so many of those bouncing boxing styles today that were very commonplace in the 30s and 40s etc.

[Bundana]

bookeeping would have been a nightmare in the 1940's. fights would go unregulated and unrecorded much more frequently


in spite of that, here's a quote from a guy named mike silver, who has spent more time researching the subject than any of us.

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

that's from an interview on another boxing site.
just search the quote in google,a nd you should get the full text.



i understand that he was promoting a book at the time, but that's no different from any researcher trying to get people to read a paper.

Mike Silver??? You mean that fine unbiased historian, in whose book "The Arc of Boxing" we can find quotes like:


Hagler could not beat Rocky Graziano. And believe me, Graziano was no great fighter.

Lennox Lewis was a very ordinary fighter. Luis Firpo would have destroyed him.

Tami Mauriello at 190 pounds would go out and find Lennox Lewis's chin.

I have no doubt that Tommy Loughran at 185 pounds could outpoint Mike Tyson.

It's laughable to think of Pernell Whitaker in the same ring with Lou Ambers.

and on and on and on...


So if Mr. Silver claims there were more than twice as many boxers 'back in the day', when there were REAL fighters... I should take his word for it? Is that what you're telling me?

[joeandthebums]

Perhaps that is true, Like Ali Pele has probably the greatest fame. YOu said earlier that even the Brazilian's do not think he was the best, who do they think, Garrincha?

Yes I believe it is Garrincha.

I suppose you could actually assemble a 1930s running track, and have Bolt run on it with 1930s shoes and clothing. I'd certainly be interested in the results. I did read an article once that did suggest the running track may make quite a considerable difference in running times.

Definitely more worthwhile than racing against a cheetah or similar which seems a popular thing to do.

Possibly, but do you see that on film?

No I was just playing devil's advocate in regard to the statement.

[them_apples]

Why with modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc. have modern/today's fighters not evolved to be greater fighters/boxer than Sugar Ray Robinson. It is 65-70yrs since Sugar Ray Robinson ruled the boxing world, yet we have not seen a fighter come close to matching his greatness or his incredible ability. But before Sugar Ray Robinson, we had great fighters like Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Harry Grebb who some historians even claimed could have been on a par with Robinson.

tougher times. Boxing was always a heavily conditioned sport. Others sports never utilized stuff like that.

It's a fighting sport, not sprinting.

also remember, not EVERY olympic record has been beat in recent times. Some recods still hold from the 60's even, and a lot from the 80's.