Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[Bundana]

If you compare the 1920's compared to the 2020's and take out the inclusion of community and or Easter bloc countries that were not allowed to compete professionally back than, boxing has fallen way off. There were dozens of boxing clubs in every major city in the US back in the 1920's and shows and towns like New York, LA and Chicago almost every night of the week. Boxing popularity has certainly waned in the last century.

This is seen from an American's perspective. Lots of activity outside the US. Do you think that boxing, worldwide, is in a slump right now?

[JAB5239]

This is seen from an American's perspective. Lots of activity outside the US. Do you think that boxing, worldwide, is in a slump right now?

This is an American point of view. That is why I said if you took out those eastern bloc countries that were not allowed to compete back then. If they were allowed to compete back then the 1920's would have had far more people fight then, than today.

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

If you compare the 1920's compared to the 2020's and take out the inclusion of community and or Easter bloc countries that were not allowed to compete professionally back than, boxing has fallen way off. There were dozens of boxing clubs in every major city in the US back in the 1920's and shows and towns like New York, LA and Chicago almost every night of the week. Boxing popularity has certainly waned in the last century.

I don't know how the disappearance of local clubs is a sign of major decline. Maybe your average kid doesn't learn to box like in those days, but as a spectator sport there are several viewership statistics and polls that show boxing is more popular than hockey, golf, tennis, and the UFC. The millions of dollars fighters make don't fall from the sky.

[QueensburyRules]

Boxing isn't a former major sport, it's still a major sport, it does big numbers and makes boxers richer than ever. Again the business has changed, it moved to a PPV model, which means less eyes on the fights overall, but I don't see anyone paying 59.99 to watch a baseball game lol.

- - Top fighters richer. Gatekeepers like Rosado make enough to hire Freddie Roach, but most fighters hold full time jobs while pretending to stay in shape for a fight that might pay 2k.

Baseball been paying a plethora of top players $250 million + for careers considerably easier than boxing. Even a ham and egger utility player gonna go $50mil. Same with NBA.

What grade you in now?

[Willow The Wisp]

Opinions and perceptions generally are as valuable as what they've cost you.
The relative popularity of Boxing has been covered recently HERE:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/b...us-harris-poll

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

- - Top fighters richer. Gatekeepers like Rosado make enough to hire Freddie Roach, but most fighters hold full time jobs while pretending to stay in shape for a fight that might pay 2k.

Baseball been paying a plethora of top players $250 million + for careers considerably easier than boxing. Even a ham and egger utility player gonna go $50mil. Same with NBA.

What grade you in now?

You can talk about extremes at one end of the spectrum and pretend it means something, good for you. Like i said to someone else, we can include all the baseball players who play for poor leagues and say the majority of pro ball players are poor. Many average and unknown fighters make a living boxing, I don't know why you expect some cab driver with boxing gloves to make 50 million dollars. It's an individual sport, it's harder to make it, this is true for every individual sport. That fact has no bearing on boxing being a major sport and a thriving sport.

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

Opinions and perceptions generally are as valuable as what they've cost you.
The relative popularity of Boxing has been covered recently HERE:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/b...us-harris-poll

There it is, the proof is in the pudding. Some boxing fans are very nostalgic for a time period they didn't live through and I don't get it. Boxing is still going strong, just because families don't sit around the radio and listen to fights like in the 30's doesn't mean boxing is dead. It's a huge sport. Period.

[Willie Pep 229]

You can talk about extremes at one end of the spectrum and pretend it means something, good for you. Like i said to someone else, we can include all the baseball players who play for poor leagues and say the majority of pro ball players are poor. Many average and unknown fighters make a living boxing, I don't know why you expect some cab driver with boxing gloves to make 50 million dollars. It's an individual sport, it's harder to make it, this is true for every individual sport. That fact has no bearing on boxing being a major sport and a thriving sport.

OK we need some numbers. Anyone got some real income numbers?

I'll bet the IRS does. I wonder if 'income by trade/profession' is available to the public?.

What we really want to know is the mode (most common) income for any given sport?

I just happened to have watched a short video on baseball incomes recently.

MLB's minimum wage is $750K a season. Triple A's minimum income is 85K a season (Triple A exists is mutiple leagues.)

Unconnected baseball (not associated with MLB; sometimes called Double A) average income is a part time income and usually only around 2K a month.

How many ham and egg (small venue) boxers are there? How many of them make 12K in six months?

How many boxers make 85K a year? --> Not too many. (So I would think.)

How many make really big number incomes? --> far less than baseball. (So I would think.)

In boxing I don't think the money/the incomes across the board are even close to baseball.

We need income numbers not popularity polls.

Fox News has higher ratings than CNN, but CNN is a wealthier company. Fox News sponsers sell pillows and knife sharpeners, CNN cars and major company products.

Ratings numbers alone won't get you there, sponsers also measure the value of that viewing market.

Popularity in opinion polls doesn't necessarily translate into mega revenue.

We need boxer/manager/trainer income numbers from the IRS and match them against other sports. I can't think any other way to measure this.

[I_Didn't_Hear_No_Bell]

OK we need some numbers. Anyone got some real income numbers?

I'll bet the IRS does. I wonder if 'income by trade/profession' is available to the public?.

What we really want to know is the mode (most common) income for any given sport?

I just happened to have watched a short video on baseball incomes recently.

MLB's minimum wage is $750K a season. Triple A's minimum income is 85K a season (Triple A exists is mutiple leagues.)

Unconnected baseball (not associated with MLB; sometimes called Double A) average income is a part time income and usually only around 2K a month.

How many ham and egg (small venue) boxers are there? How many of them make 12K in six months?

How many boxers make 85K a year? --> Not too many. (So I would think.)

How many make really big number incomes? --> far less than baseball. (So I would think.)

In boxing I don't think the money/the incomes across the board are even close to baseball.

We need income numbers not popularity polls.

Fox News has higher ratings than CNN, but CNN is a wealthier company. Fox News sponsers sell pillows and knife sharpeners, CNN cars and major company products.

Ratings numbers alone won't get you there, sponsers also measure the value of that viewing market.

Popularity in opinion polls doesn't necessarily translate into mega revenue.

We need boxer/manager/trainer income numbers from the IRS and match them against other sports. I can't think any other way to measure this.

You guys keep trying to measure a team sport vs an individual sport and expect the numbers to match up. That you feel it necessary to make such an unfair comparison with boxing just to make an argument against the sport says it all really. Bottom line, boxers at the top make a **** ton of money, and people still watch. The sport isn't dead, not by any metric, not by a long shot, and that's what this conversation was originally about.

[Willie Pep 229]

You guys keep trying to measure a team sport vs an individual sport and expect the numbers to match up. That you feel it necessary to make such an unfair comparison with boxing just to make an argument against the sport says it all really. Bottom line, boxers at the top make a **** ton of money, and people still watch. The sport isn't dead, not by any metric, not by a long shot, and that's what this conversation was originally about.

No one said it is dead - it has diminished.

If I compare individual salaries why does a team sport make for an unfair comparison? - How does a team sport generate more money simply because it is a team? Still just one ticket sale per customer.

In fact doesn't making it a team sport mean the generated revenue has to be shared by a greater number of people?

You are getting offended or frustrated and you shouldn't. This is just an exploration of the topic.

RE your last sentence. Yes that is what this topic is about. I am not off topic.

If you are a poster who believes that there are right and wrong answers to these question you probably won't enjoy communicating with me.

IMO nothing is ever black & white, it's always nuanced and complicated.

But there are more than a few on this forum that like that sort of thing. That "I won thing." Winning an argument and being 'right' is so important to them.

Problem is, while you will find those who agree with you (and you can give eachother hugs with the "Like" button,) you will run into those that disagree with you and you're not going to enjoy where those conversations go.