Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[Bundana]

Stephen "Breadman" Edwards was asked what benefit there would be to taking more frequent, non-title bouts against opponents with few fights or losing records.

I felt his answer was spot on.


Bread's Response: I think Duran took non title fights because it was the custom of the time. It helps you stay sharp without having long grinding camps and it helps you stay close to the weight. In this era it wouldn't work because the money is different and it seems to get forbidden by the big bosses.

It always helps a fighter to stay sharp. Anything involving skill, requires repetition. So fighting often is good as long as you aren't fighting killer after killer. But again, I think the economics are different today.

It's an individual thing, I believe.

Duran turned pro at 16, and was obviously learning on the job, so to speak. No doubt a busy early schedule was instrumental in developing him as a fighter.

Now take someone like Usyk. He turned pro exactly 9 years ago, at the age of 26 - and has so far had all of 20 pro bouts!

In the first 9 years of his career, Duran fought 60 times. The question is: would Usyk have benefitted from an extra 40 stay busy/stay sharp matches against non-threatening opponents, in between the serious fights? Would he today have been a better boxer? I sincerely doubt that!

After a very long, busy amateur career, with 350 fights (many at the highest level), Usyk has probably long since reached the stage, where his body needs long pauses to recuberate - rather than staying in shape all the time. Clearly a "Duran-schedule" would not have worked for him. The same goes for other long-time amateurs like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux.

But, generally speaking, I of course agree, that a technical sport like boxing requires a lot of repetition. A LOT! So most young boxers (without a long, gruelling amateur career) starting out in the pro game, would likely benefit from quite a few "learning fights" - before getting down to serious business.

But again, it's a very individual thing.

[ShoulderRoll]

It's an individual thing, I believe.

Duran turned pro at 16, and was obviously learning on the job, so to speak. No doubt a busy early schedule was instrumental in developing him as a fighter.

Now take someone like Usyk. He turned pro exactly 9 years ago, at the age of 26 - and has so far had all of 20 pro bouts!

In the first 9 years of his career, Duran fought 60 times. The question is: would Usyk have benefitted from an extra 40 stay busy/stay sharp matches against non-threatening opponents, in between the serious fights? Would he today have been a better boxer? I sincerely doubt that!

After a very long, busy amateur career, with 350 fights (many at the highest level), Usyk has probably long since reached the stage, where his body needs long pauses to recuberate - rather than staying in shape all the time. Clearly a "Duran-schedule" would not have worked for him. The same goes for other long-time amateurs like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux.

But, generally speaking, I of course agree, that a technical sport like boxing requires a lot of repetition. A LOT! So most young boxers (without a long, gruelling amateur career) starting out in the pro game, would likely benefit from quite a few "learning fights" - before getting down to serious business.

But again, it's a very individual thing.

The question directed towards Edwards was about Duran mixing in easier, non-title fights in between harder defenses of his championship. So it wasn't a case of a young 16-year-old needing learning fights...what we have is a WORLD CHAMPION being guided by old school trainers Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown to stay active and to keep the blade sharp. Just like it was done in their day.

When you factor in how grueling training camps can be this strategy makes perfect sense. Fighting often:

1. keeps you on weight or close to it
2. gets you repetitions (even if you are already at championship level)
3. constantly grows your ring IQ and experience (even if you are already at championship level)
4. is less of a grind as long as "you aren't fighting killer after killer"

[Willow The Wisp]

The question directed towards Edwards was about Duran mixing in easier, non-title fights in between harder defenses of his championship. So it wasn't a case of a young 16-year-old needing learning fights...what we have is a WORLD CHAMPION being guided by old school trainers Ray Arcel and Freddie Brown to stay active and to keep the blade sharp. Just like it was done in their day.

When you factor in how grueling training camps can be this strategy makes perfect sense. Fighting often:

1. keeps you on weight or close to it
2. gets you repetitions (even if you are already at championship level)
3. constantly grows your ring IQ and experience (even if you are already at championship level)
4. is less of a grind as long as "you aren't fighting killer after killer"

I agree.
5. Keeps a fighter out of the saloons and whorehouses.

[JAB5239]

I agree.
5. Keeps a fighter out of the saloons and whorehouses.

6. Keeps petty cash flowing in to visit the saloons and whorehouses.

[Willie Pep 229]

6. Keeps petty cash flowing in to visit the saloons and whorehouses.

You also don't get gouged by gyms (training expenses); instead of giving it away in gym wars or unintentionally becoming the educator of a future opponent, (i.e. used by other trainers and managers), you instead stay on the road getting paid (a little) for applying your trade.

I figure back then (other than the champions or major prospects that had $$ backing) it made more sense to barnstorm than to become a gym rat hoping to get noticed, more likely used.

[Willie Pep 229]

P.S. What do you guys think was the going rate for a six rounder, club fight, between two unknowns? Were they paid by the round?

I wonder how that matched $ wise against taking a gig as a champion's sparing partner. Were they paid by the round?

Anyone have any kind of numbers for either the 1930s or 1940s?

[Mikeh333]

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.

My theory is that from the 1930s - 1960s boxing was one of the most popular sports in America, and therefore drew a large number of generally great athletes who would’ve been great at anything. Today, most of those athletes wind up, playing football or basketball, or maybe baseball. There are a lot more options for young men to express themselves athletically then there were 70 or 80 years ago.

For a more academic take see the book Postscript on Boxing, which discusses the decline of boxing as a function of the loss of America’s industrial base. The authors believe that boxing simply doesn’t function very well outside of a regulated, predictable, industrial, blue-collar communities. I don’t know if they’re right, but it’s a very interesting book.

[Willie Pep 229]

My theory is that from the 1930s - 1960s boxing was one of the most popular sports in America, and therefore drew a large number of generally great athletes who would’ve been great at anything. Today, most of those athletes wind up, playing football or basketball, or maybe baseball. There are a lot more options for young men to express themselves athletically then there were 70 or 80 years ago.

For a more academic take see the book Postscript on Boxing, which discusses the decline of boxing as a function of the loss of America’s industrial base. The authors believe that boxing simply doesn’t function very well outside of a regulated, predictable, industrial, blue-collar communities. I don’t know if they’re right, but it’s a very interesting book.

Prima facie it seems correct. Opportunity would shy off the upper class and the destitute poor would have no opportunity.

You need a working class (lower-middle class*) to draw from. Enough social/economic stability to allow a child athlete to grow, but for great wealth, limited opportunities otherwise.

You know, Rocky didn't want to work in a shoe factory. If Louis's mom hadn't move to Detroit we likely never hear about him.

* Everyone in America is some how 'middle-class' - don't believe me, go ahead and ask them LOL

[JAB5239]

P.S. What do you guys think was the going rate for a six rounder, club fight, between two unknowns? Were they paid by the round?

I wonder how that matched $ wise against taking a gig as a champion's sparing partner. Were they paid by the round?

Anyone have any kind of numbers for either the 1930s or 1940s?

I think the winner took the bigger cut. I'm not versed in this area, but I gotta believe it probably went down like the opening scene from Rocky, when he fights Spider Rico. The promoter comes in to give him his winnings and takes a cut for this, a cut for that.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think the winner took the bigger cut. I'm not versed in this area, but I gotta believe it probably went down like the opening scene from Rocky, when he fights Spider Rico. The promoter comes in to give him his winnings and takes a cut for this, a cut for that.

I can't speak to how well Stallone knew the ins and outs of the game but the concept of a winner's share opens the door to two possibilities.

Does it confirm that there was a problem with no/little effort fights; that there were too many noncombative fights so promoters used the concept of a winner's share to try and force more action into the fights?

Or does the existence of a winner's share suggest to us that fighters carrying eachother or putting in a half effort was unlikely?