When did the modern boxer come about?

[Bundana]

I don't claim any genetic advantage for the old timers.

Just that they were a lot tougher because they had to be. That there were a lot more of them competing against each other to rise up in the ranks back then. And that more frequent practice made for better developed boxers.

The conditions simply don't exist currently to replicate the quality of fighting men that came out of that forge. In my opinion.

I believe that heart, guts, courage, intestinal fortitude or whatever you like to call it, is something that you either have, or you don't. just like you have a strong chin or you don't. The same with hitting power. I don't believe these things are "molded" by the environment.

Did you watch the Warrington-Frampton fight last Saturday? I saw two men going at it for 12 rounds, with such ferocious intensity, that you would have thought their lives depended on it! And yet, having been brought up in a modern, affluent country, I doubt they have ever gone to bed hungry. I see courage displayed in the ring all the time - it's not something that is restricted to "hard times".

There are a lot more fights taking place in a lot more countries today, compared to, say, 50-60 years ago… and with intercontinental flights bringing the world closer together, boxers are no longer restricted to meeting opponents from their own immediate area. They will now be tested against fighters from all over the world.

As for more frequent fighting, making better boxers... I have already expressed my opinion on that subject in this thread. So no need to go over that again.

But to cut a long story short: This is just as good a time to produce great boxers, as it was "back in the day"... IMO.

[ShoulderRoll]

I believe that heart, guts, courage, intestinal fortitude or whatever you like to call it, is something that you either have, or you don't. just like you have a strong chin or you don't. The same with hitting power. I don't believe these things are "molded" by the environment.

Those qualities exist in fighters to some degree or another, sure. But the environment can certainly encourage (or in some cases demand) a stronger expression or blossoming of those qualities.

There are a lot more fights taking place in a lot more countries today, compared to, say, 50-60 years ago… and with intercontinental flights bringing the world closer together, boxers are no longer restricted to meeting opponents from their own immediate area. They will now be tested against fighters from all over the world.

I think you are incorrect about this.

In his book "The Arc of Boxing" Mike Silver makes the point that in the 1920s there were more licensed professional boxers in New York City alone than there are in the entire world today.

It's been a few years since the book came out but I doubt the numbers have changed that much.

As for more frequent fighting, making better boxers... I have already expressed my opinion on that subject in this thread. So no need to go over that again.

To me this seems obvious and self evident. Someone that practices the piano once a week will not be as good as someone who practices it 3 or 4 times a week.
Especially as years of such practice accumulate.

Likewise, fighters who win a championship after only 25 fights will lack the seasoning and depth of knowledge of fighters who won their first championship after 84 fights...which was the average back in 1925.

It typically took 644 rounds of experience back then before a boxer was good enough to be a champ. Compare that to 2007 where it typically took only 143 rounds.

That's a vast difference.

[Bundana]

Those qualities exist in fighters to some degree or another, sure. But the environment can certainly encourage (or in some cases demand) a stronger expression or blossoming of those qualities.



I think you are incorrect about this.

In his book "The Arc of Boxing" Mike Silver makes the point that in the 1920s there were more licensed professional boxers in New York City alone than there are in the entire world today.

It's been a few years since the book came out but I doubt the numbers have changed that much.



To me this seems obvious and self evident. Someone that practices the piano once a week will not be as good as someone who practices it 3 or 4 times a week.
Especially as years of such practice accumulate.

Likewise, fighters who win a championship after only 25 fights will lack the seasoning and depth of knowledge of fighters who won their first championship after 84 fights...which was the average back in 1925.

It typically took 644 rounds of experience back then before a boxer was good enough to be a champ. Compare that to 2007 where it typically took only 143 rounds.

That's a vast difference.

So you're a student of Mike Silver? Ok, now I understand where you're coming from!

As everybody knows (or should know!) Silver has devoted his life to rubbishing today's boxing/boxers. In his opinion even the best boxers in recent years would barely be contenders back when there were "real" fighters.

In "The Arc of Boxing" you can find hilarious stuff like:

… Hagler would not beat Rocky Graziano.

… Tommy Loughran would outpoint Mike Tyson.

… Hopkins is an ordinary talent. Maybe he would have been a main event club fighter in the small clubs.

… Tommy Bell would have beaten Mayweather and De La Hoya with one arm tied behind his back.

… Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Whitaker, De La Hoya, would have been ordinary contenders.

… Lennox Lewis was an ordinary boxer, who would have been flattened by Tami Mauriello and destroyed by Luis Firpo.

Anyone who can publish a book with nonsense like this, does not deserve to be taken seriously!


The idea that the number of active boxers is decreasing, and that the worldwide talent pool today is at an all-time low, is just a myth. On the contrary, more and more boxers have joined the pro ranks over the last several decades.

Claiming that back in the 20s there were more licensed boxers in New York City alone, than in the ENTIRE world today, is nothing short of ridiculous!


As for the low number of fights many boxers have under their belt today, when they fight for a world title… no, that does not NECESSARILY mean that they aren't seasoned enough. If you have fought in the amateurs for a decade, collecting Olympic and/or World titles along the way, and (often) amassed several hundred amateur bouts... then you don't start from scratch when you turn pro.

[ShoulderRoll]

So you're a student of Mike Silver? Ok, now I understand where you're coming from!

As everybody knows (or should know!) Silver has devoted his life to rubbishing today's boxing/boxers. In his opinion even the best boxers in recent years would barely be contenders back when there were "real" fighters.

In "The Arc of Boxing" you can find hilarious stuff like:

… Hagler would not beat Rocky Graziano.

… Tommy Loughran would outpoint Mike Tyson.

… Hopkins is an ordinary talent. Maybe he would have been a main event club fighter in the small clubs.

… Tommy Bell would have beaten Mayweather and De La Hoya with one arm tied behind his back.

… Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Whitaker, De La Hoya, would have been ordinary contenders.

… Lennox Lewis was an ordinary boxer, who would have been flattened by Tami Mauriello and destroyed by Luis Firpo.

Anyone who can publish a book with nonsense like this, does not deserve to be taken seriously!


The idea that the number of active boxers is decreasing, and that the worldwide talent pool today is at an all-time low, is just a myth. On the contrary, more and more boxers have joined the pro ranks over the last several decades.

Claiming that back in the 20s there were more licensed boxers in New York City alone, than in the ENTIRE world today, is nothing short of ridiculous!


As for the low number of fights many boxers have under their belt today, when they fight for a world title… no, that does not NECESSARILY mean that they aren't seasoned enough. If you have fought in the amateurs for a decade, collecting Olympic and/or World titles along the way, and (often) amassed several hundred amateur bouts... then you don't start from scratch when you turn pro.

When it comes to the numbers Mike Silver did the research and has the statistics to back it up.

If you have a source that shows his figures are incorrect or ridiculous then post it. Let's have a look.

[Bundana]

When it comes to the numbers Mike Silver did the research and has the statistics to back it up.

If you have a source that shows his figures are incorrect or ridiculous then post it. Let's have a look.

This is something that has been discussed at length on other sites. No one seems to be able to confirm Silver's claim.

I'd be interested to hear, what kind of research he has done - so if you know anything, please share.

As you know, another one of Silver's outlandish claims is that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters than there was in 1955."

This ludicrous idea has of course not escaped my attention, and for years I have been bugging BoxRec about releasing their annual number of active boxers - but to no avail.

They can give us the annual number of FIGHTS or number of promotions, that can be found in their database... so why not the number of boxers, I have asked over and over again. But with no luck. It has been like talking to a wall!

Finally I got so mad, that I sent a PM to one of their moderators, "John"... asking him, that if they would not reveal the number of boxers for each year, could he at least tell me, what it was for the year 1955?

And, lo and behold, I finally got an answer! He said that, as of May 9, 2017, 9463 pro boxers could be found in their database for the year 1955. At the same time he informed me, that the number for 2016 was 23,557.

Now to be fair to Mr. Silver, his 1955 claim was put forward in 2010... where there (most likely) weren't quite as many active boxers as 6 years later, in 2016.

From the numbers in BoxRec's database we can see, that in 2010 they have registered approx. 20% less fights than for 2016.

If the number of boxers can (at least approximately) be linked to the number of fights, then we should probably reduce the 23,557 figure by around 20% to give us a fair number for 2010... which will then be in the neighborhood of just under 19,000!

If there were indeed more than twice as many active boxers in 1955, compared to 2010, there would have been close to 40,000 back then… which I find VERY hard to believe! Yes, yes, I know… BoxRec is likely missing a lot of boxers from 1955. But not THAT many!

This reminds me of Conor Neill's lecture on "How to start a speach". He suggests, that you hit your audience with an attention-grabbing facktoid... such as "there are more people alive today, than have ever died"

This statement is of course more insane than anything Mr. Silver has ever said… but as long as no one cares to take the time to actually check it out, he can get away with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w82a1FT5o88


By the way, how do you feel about Mr. Silver's never-ending, over-the-top belittlement of modern boxers? Does he have a point... or is he so agenda-driven, that it simply becomes too much?

[DreamFighter]

I don't believe the old-timers had some genetic advantage over modern boxers, when it comes to the ability to go 15 rounds. So why wouldn't today's boxers be able to adapt to 15 rounds, if they could decades ago?

they had it, they dont have it now. thats the difference, not a mythic "what they might have".

[Bundana]

they had it, they dont have it now. thats the difference, not a mythic "what they might have".

Yes, they used to have 15 rounds championship bouts - which we don't have now.

I'm not sure, what your point is?

[DreamFighter]

Yes, they used to have 15 rounds championship bouts - which we don't have now.

I'm not sure, what your point is?

thats becos u ignored it. they had that ability then, not now.

[Bundana]

thats becos u ignored it. they had that ability then, not now.

Ok, so if we reverted back to the old 15 rounds championship distance, today's boxers would simply have to retire, because they would not have the ability to adapt. Is that what you're saying?

[DreamFighter]

Ok, so if we reverted back to the old 15 rounds championship distance, today's boxers would simply have to retire, because they would not have the ability to adapt. Is that what you're saying?

they'd have to prove they can do 15 rounds.

You dont get a free pass just for being a boxer.


obviously I dont mean a grand sweeping statement for ALL, in case you want to pursue that, this is general pattern.