Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[Humean]

boxing is a niche sport today.

in robinson's era, it was arguably the planet's most popular sport.

Football (soccer) was the worlds most popular sport in the 40s and 50s, just as it is now. The popularity of boxing in the first half ot the twentieth century is grossly overestimated. Few countries had taken up the sport in a big way then.

[New England]

Football (soccer) was the worlds most popular sport in the 40s and 50s, just as it is now. The popularity of boxing in the first half ot the twentieth century is grossly overestimated. Few countries had taken up the sport in a big way then.

according to whom?

you?

[Ray Corso]

The bottom line is that Robinson is THE exception when it comes to natural ability along with learning skills and developing methods!
There is no fighter with the speed & power along with experience of the Sugarman.
Mayweather is no where near his level. Mayweather has no power and is a counter move counter punch methods fighter. He has become a one punch at a time offense in fear of someone "punching with him"! It's smart because he has no power!!
The so called welters of today are all 5'8" and below and other than the younger fellows coming up Floyd & Manny are considered best at lower weights. These men are little tiny guys compared to Robinson, Gavilan, Hearns, Leonard, Curry, Trinidad the only short welter that was great was Napoles.
There were great accomplishments in history by outstanding men that still aren't equaled today!
Babe Ruth hit more home runs than other TEAMNS did. He also was a life time 343 hitter, he also holds the record for innings unscored upon in the World Series!!
What other athlete today could be a top five pitcher and a top five hitter?
No one ran on Ruth for extyra bases and stole bases when he needed too!
Robinson was considered better than Louis and for all these years people in the business remain affirmmed that his legacy is safe for now.

Rare individuals come along in sports and theres a few who remain at the top
why is that so hard to understand?
Watch the film and see the man operate, theres no one like him!!

Ray

[Humean]

according to whom?

you?

I don't overestimate the popularity of boxing in the first half of the twentieth century. People like yourself that suggest it was the most popular sport in the world are the ones that do that.

[New England]

since you're asking us to discount the findings and assertions of experts on the matter, it's up to you to provide some evidence.


do you have any evidence that boxing wasn't as popular in the first half of the 1900's as it's estimated by experts?

and how are you measuring its popularity today?

[Humean]

since you're asking us to discount the findings and assertions of experts on the matter, it's up to you to provide some evidence.


do you have any evidence that boxing wasn't as popular in the first half of the 1900's as it's estimated by experts?

and how are you measuring its popularity today?

What experts? I was referring to you, and others like you on this forum and other forums, that consistently make these assertions about the popularity of boxing in the early part of the twentieth century.

[New England]

I don't overestimate the popularity of boxing in the first half of the twentieth century. People like yourself that suggest it was the most popular sport in the world are the ones that do that.

that is not what i am implying.


read what i bolded in your other post, and then what i wrote in response.

i am asking, "according to whom is boxing's popularity overestimated?"


in my follow up post, i ask for evidence that boxing's popularity is overestimated.

the history section isn't going to discount the findings and testimony of experts in favor of your opinion without any evidence. that's what i was getting at.

[Humean]

that is not what i am implying.


read what i bolded in your other post, and then what i wrote in response.

i am asking, "according to whom is boxing's popularity overestimated?"


in my follow up post, i ask for evidence that boxing's popularity is overestimated.

the history section isn't going to discount the findings and testimony of experts in favor of your opinion without any evidence. that's what i was getting at.

I already answered: you. You doubt that football (soccer) was more popular than boxing in the 1940s and 50s?

[New England]

What experts? I was referring to you, and others like you on this forum and other forums, that consistently make these assertions about the popularity of boxing in the early part of the twentieth century.

we made it all up?

is that where you're going with this?

[Humean]

we made it all up?

is that where you're going with this?

You are simply wrong, or at the very least you stress it too far how popular the sport was then. Where you get your information on this I have no idea.