Actual connect rate today vs yesteryear

[them_apples]

If anything proves this, watch Floyd's jab.

Seriously, it looks great. Does it every connect, though?




Really, when has that jab connected?

last time i saw it connect was vs shane

[them_apples]

I'm not trying to put a spin (negative or positive) on anything. Though you probably think so, I have no horse in this race (old vs new). I'm simply interested in boxing history, and like to find out what is what.

Yes, the old-timers had far, far more (on average) pro fights than today. But does this mean, that they were much more familiar with performing on the big stage, with the whole world watching? Not necessarily!

Today we of course bemoan the fact, that our overpaid champions make only 2 - or at most 3 - defences a year. But that was pretty much the going rate back "in the day" as well. Sure, there were exceptions to this (Armstrong and Louis come to mind)... but, generally speaking, champions didn't defend their crowns much more often than they do today (though I'm sure, a lot of people think so).

The big difference between then and now, is of course the many "keep busy" or "put food on the table" fights, we find in the records of the old-timers. Even reigning champions took part in lots of such fights.

If we take a look at, for example, SRR... he won the welterweight title in 1946, and made:
2 defences in 1947
1 in 1948
1 in 1949
1 in 1950
… before stepping up to take the middleweight crown from LaMotta in 1951.

Now that is not a very busy schedule - but he of course had a ****load of fights in between those few defences.

In 1950, for example, he had 19 bouts in addition to his sole defence. How much "big scene" experience did he gain from those bouts. Very little, would be my guess.

Think about it: The more fights you have against (in many cases) nobodies, with no title at stake… the less interesting they will be. Both to the press and the fans. It's not like the boxing world will be awaiting the results of such fights with baited breath.

So many of these fights probably took place without a lot of people really caring much about them. In fact, only recently did a historian from Florida come across a Robinson fight that had never been reported before: Against Johnny Dudley on Feb. 18, 1950 in Orlando, Florida.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=218031

This fight was not in any record books or listed in his own autobiography "Sugar Ray"... and yet it actually took place, and has now been added to his BoxRec record. And we're talking about not only a reigning world champion, but the best P4P boxer at the time (or any time, for that matter)... who was able to have a fight that went completely under the radar! Hard to even imagine, that something like that could take place today!

So... with no TV and worldwide attention, I don't really think the old-timers were more used to the limelight than today's top boxers.

Also… what are those bad amateur habits today's boxers can't get rid of, when they turn pro? Some of the absolutely best boxers of recent years have spent most of their boxing life in the amateurs - learning their craft in hundreds of amateur bouts.

Guys like Rigondeaux, Lomachenko, Usyk, Golovkin have all had ridiculously long amateur careers at the highest level, with 300+ bouts. Yet they have all turned into exceptionally good pros after just a dozen (or less) paid bouts. Rigo and Loma are arguably some of the finest boxers ever!

this is what I mean though, the pros today are fighing like amateurs and so is the competition. GGG would get slaughtered by Marvin Hagler, believe me. Hopkins would knock him out as well.

rigo quit without a mark on his face, he would lose to any real champion in the history of the sport once the going got tough

[QueensburyRules]

this is what I mean though, the pros today are fighing like amateurs and so is the competition. GGG would get slaughtered by Marvin Hagler, believe me. Hopkins would knock him out as well.

rigo quit without a mark on his face, he would lose to any real champion in the history of the sport once the going got tough

- -Ok, 1 of 3 with Rigormortis is an excellent .333 batting average in baseball, but a weak sister slugging average.

Ever seen GGG together with Hagler? He's massive!

Popcorns? Poor dear is a major league sissy. Seriously, when a fighter comes along in my weight class I know I can beat, not gonna rate him.

He was circling the drain until Oscar rescued him and put his first $$$ in his pocket along with a ref and judges who ignored his incessant fouling.

I never picked on sissies, but with Popcorns, I'd make an exception.

[them_apples]

- -Ok, 1 of 3 with Rigormortis is an excellent .333 batting average in baseball, but a weak sister slugging average.

Ever seen GGG together with Hagler? He's massive!

Popcorns? Poor dear is a major league sissy. Seriously, when a fighter comes along in my weight class I know I can beat, not gonna rate him.

He was circling the drain until Oscar rescued him and put his first $$$ in his pocket along with a ref and judges who ignored his incessant fouling.

I never picked on sissies, but with Popcorns, I'd make an exception.

hagler was small in his day, him and Duran were nearly the same size. He was strong though. And you also forget Hagler is old, he's not standing the same way and is likely stooped. regardless, he's 5 ft 9 1/2 and GGG is what? 5'10? both in bare feet

[QueensburyRules]

- -Sorry, ap, Marv a vigorous life after boxing didn't just dry up and blow away and years away from turning 70.

Boxrec heights notoriously inaccurate because boxing officiating and media too often ham handed oafs. They often fudge fight by fight wts too.

Picture of GGG and Marv together showed GGG a couple inches taller and massively bigger in bone structure. Marv wasn't a LH which is the class GGG would be in during Marvs era.

And both rock solid chins. In 6oz gloves, not many of them old timers could stand against him. Marv could, but outmuscled and we know Popkins ain't fighting him for good reason.