Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Elroy1]

Notice Ray's favourite promotional eras are the ones which are in fact demonstratably the weakest.

He even cites the weakest era in the entirety of boxing history, the Marciano era, as being strong.



All would be boxers were annihilated in the war which is why the era featured not a single non-bummy real HW.

[Ray Corso]

Elroid, theres folks waiting for you in the Trainers Forum. Go see........

[Anthony342]

Louis didn't have the politics in his way,in his time there werent an alphabet soup of titles with 4 commissions and so on...its not Wlads Fault Vitali held it and guys like Stiverne under King wouldn't fight Wlad......Wlads opponents in contrast weigh over Louis's. The bottom line is Wlad fought the best guys so far ,the only guy missing is Fury at the moment and we all know what will most likely happen next week...today its the opponents that matter not what belt you have......you also have to remember Louis fought more frequently.



Wilder is a perfect example of another foot dragger.


Theres really only a select few just at watching them the first 5 minutes and I can see a different type of fighter....they were Tyson/ Klitchkos/ Lewis and Joshua. Those are the only guys I need not look at longer than 3 minutes and say theres your future champ. I can tell you now ,barring Wlad sionce he may or not be around.....it will come down to Joshua or Arias as the new dominant champion .

I know Wlad will fight Wilder. And yes, with more titles, it's hard to unify, especially with people ducking, like Stevenson ducking Kovalev, so in that case, Sergey is considered the true champ at light heavy these days. And some would he happy defending one belt against the best contenders, but that was a stronger argument when there were only 2 and then 3 belts. That's why with Wlad, I count his defenses from when he was awarded the belt from The Ring. It's not the same, since defenses are usually counted from when someone wins only one of the belts, so there needs to be separate categories for stuff like lineal and undisputed defenses though. I like Wlad and think he'll beat Fury and Wilder, I just am not a big fan of all the clinching he does.

I could maybe see Wilder dominant too after Wlad is retired, especially improving his skills. With the division not being as strong, one might only need decent stamina and a big punch to dominate at heavyweight.

[Anthony342]

So true. I'm trying to hang in there, but to be honest even NSB seems more appealing lately.

Yeah. I mean, hell, they even had a really good, long discussion about Holly Holm, a former boxer, winning an MMA title recently and it didn't even get that crazy. I'll be checking that out more often now as well.

[Anthony342]

After reading most posts by Elroy, I'm starting to think the mods should rename this section Revisionist Boxing History.

[Elroy1]

After reading most posts by Elroy, I'm starting to think the mods should rename this section Revisionist Boxing History.

No Anthony, I am not trying to take Louis's achievements away from him.

I am merely separating them as necessarily must be done.

Even when Wladimir for example won an individual one of the 4 major titles, even the as some claim less regarded WBO title, that was STILL a far more difficult task than winning an undisputed lineal championship back then and defending them/it. There's no comparison.

Louis's achievements were great THEN, Wlad's achievements are great NOW. It's just that against the criteria of the now standard, Louis doesn't rate at all and what Wlad has done would have been impossible.

This isn't revisionist history, it's called putting history in the proper perspective armed with all the information that we now know. Not holding on to that closed world view which some still choose to.

[Anthony342]

Yeah, like that closed world view you have that everyone from 1980 on is better than everyone that came before, right, I understand.

[Bundana]

A graph showing the number of active fighters through the years:



It's taken from another forum.

The talentpool is way bigger today which would potentially give better fighters. Of course we also have 9 more weightdivisions compared to the 20's which (Again potentially) offsets this.

Sorry about bringing this old thread back!

But for those of you who may(?) be interested, BoxRec recently came out with their first update since 2013 of the number of annual fights in their database:
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.ph...01907&start=50

As can be seen, after a period of stagnation during the first years of this decade, the numbers again seem to follow the upward trend, that has been going on over the last 40 or so years. There were almost 20% more fights in BoxRec's database in 2016 than just 2 years before, in 2014... and twice the number of fights compared to 25 years earlier!

As for the graph posted by Bat, it seems to end around 2006 with approx. 14.000 active boxers in the database. If we were to continue the graph through 2016, it would literally go through the roof with 23.201 (21.838 male, 1.363 female) active boxers last year.

[Anthony342]

Still doesn't mean today's era is better overall.

[BattlingNelson]

Still doesn't mean today's era is better overall.

.


Why not?