Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[New England]

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

i doubt that you can provide evidence that boxing's popularity in the first half of the 20th century is overestimated.

i haven't even mentioned soccer. that's called a strawman.

[Humean]

i doubt that you can provide evidence that boxing's popularity in the first half of the 20th century is overestimated.

i haven't even mentioned soccer. that's called a strawman.

You said that:

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

I said, no it wasn't, it was football (soccer). Where is the strawman?

[New England]

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.

where do you get yours?

you've had plenty of opportunity to provide it. i've asked you several times in this thread.


you seem to be the only person on the planet who thinks boxing's popularity is trending upward. it's on you to provide evidence when your opinion is contrary to that of historians.


i'll ask again, can you provide any evidence that boxing's historical popularity is overestimate by experts?

[Humean]

where do you get yours?

you've had plenty of opportunity to provide it. i've asked you several times in this thread.


you seem to be the only person on the planet who thinks boxing's popularity is trending upward. it's on you to provide evidence when your opinion is contrary to that of historians.


i'll ask again, can you provide any evidence that boxing's historical popularity is overestimate by experts?

1) I'm not sure how often I am supposed to repeat the same answer but I said that the popularily of boxing in the first half of the twentieth century is being overestimated by you, and other posters, not by 'experts' or historians.

2) Who are these 'experts' and 'historians' that you speak of?

3) I already gave one explanation for why you, and others, are overestimating the popularity of boxing in the early twentieth century. A lot fewer countries took an interest in the sport then.

[New England]

You said that:



I said, no it wasn't, it was football (soccer). Where is the strawman?

the strawman is designed to distract. it draws attention away from important issues. this is what you are doing, and it's one of the reasons why i spend much less time on bscene than i used to.

a variation between the popularity of the two sports isn't what's being discussed. it's the perception of boxing's popularity [among experts, and reiterated by fans like ourselves,] vs the reality of that popularity.


boxing was arguably the planet's most popular sport. that's what i wrote. that implies that arguments can be made for the popularity of other sports, and that those arguments should be entertained.

do i doubt that soccer was more popular than boxing in the 40's and 50's? i don't doubt that an argument could be made for it. again, that's not something i denied in my post, or i'm trying to discuss. it's a straw man.

[BKM-2010]

Boxing would need a complete renaissance to ever produce a fighter on the level of greatness as somebody like SRR.

It is simply impossible for somebody in this era to becoming GOAT to everybody including hardcore boxing fans and historians.

The system doesn't allow it. The activity of top fighters isn't there, there's the issue with tons of belts, corruption etc.

No matter how good somebody becomes, talent isn't enough. You can become more talented than SRR today but still not reach that kind of legacy because you need many other great fighters around in your era so you can beat them. It's about who you beat and when, and how often you do it. Modern boxing politics don't allow it.

[Bundana]

where do you get yours?

you've had plenty of opportunity to provide it. i've asked you several times in this thread.


you seem to be the only person on the planet who thinks boxing's popularity is trending upward. it's on you to provide evidence when your opinion is contrary to that of historians.


i'll ask again, can you provide any evidence that boxing's historical popularity is overestimate by experts?

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?

[Humean]

the strawman is designed to distract. it draws attention away from important issues. this is what you are doing, and it's one of the reasons why i spend much less time on bscene than i used to.

a variation between the popularity of the two sports isn't what's being discussed. it's the perception of boxing's popularity [among experts, and reiterated by fans like ourselves,] vs the reality of that popularity.


boxing was arguably the planet's most popular sport. that's what i wrote. that implies that arguments can be made for the popularity of other sports, and that those arguments should be entertained.

do i doubt that soccer was more popular than boxing in the 40's and 50's? i don't doubt that an argument could be made for it. again, that's not something i denied in my post, or i'm trying to discuss. it's a straw man.

It is not even remotely arguable that boxing was more popular worldwide in the 1940s and 50s than football (soccer), it is not even close. To think it is arguable is to have a pretty poor grasp of history.

As to your first two paragraphs, you are very confused.

[New England]

1) I'm not sure how often I am supposed to repeat the same answer but I said that the popularily of boxing in the first half of the twentieth century is being overestimated by you, and other posters, not by 'experts' or historians.

2) Who are these 'experts' and 'historians' that you speak of?

3) I already gave one explanation for why you, and others, are overestimating the popularity of boxing in the early twentieth century. A lot fewer countries took an interest in the sport then.

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.

[New England]

It is not even remotely arguable that boxing was more popular worldwide in the 1940s and 50s than football (soccer), it is not even close. To think it is arguable is to have a pretty poor grasp of history.

As to your first two paragraphs, you are very confused.

i'm confused about what i'm trying to discuss!


how does that even happen?