Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[McGoorty]

Those stats you are talking about show the number of annual fights according to BoxRec's database.

The graph Bat posted shows the number of boxers taking part in those fights - again from that same database.

Two entirely different things.

The stats are not complete, that is for sure, but anyway, I am sure there were more fighters back then, I know it for a fact at least in my country Australia..... there were many many times more pros back in 1950 than at any time from the 80's onwards but there does seem to be more fighters now than in the 80's but clearly there are other factors involved here as the best of the 80's makes todays best look second rate..... perhaps it was the hunger.

[McGoorty]

McGoorty, you obviously see boxing today from an Australian's point og view - which is totally different from what someone like Bat is experiencing. You sound, like there used to be a lot of fights on free TV down your way, and also a lot more active boxers than today. So I can understand, if you think boxing isn't what it used to be. Guess that's what most Americans complain about too!

Now in Bat's (and my own!) country, Denmark, it's the other way around! When we started to take an interest in boxing, many years ago, we could only DREAM of ever getting a glimpse of the boxers we read about in Boxing News or The Ring - because boxing on TV was almost unheard of in Denmark on the ONE(1) channel we had up until 1988.

But over the past 25 years things have changed dramatically for us! We now have dozens and dozens of channels to chose from - several of them all-sports networks. As a result of this, we now get all the major shows from UK, USA, Germany (and lately from Macao!) live on Danish TV. And no PPV, either... it's all part of our cable package. So for us, as fans, this is the best time ever!

Now we all know, there's a lot of things wrong with boxing today. Too many "world" champions, too many alphabet organisations, the best boxers not meeting each other, etc., etc. In a perfect world, much would surely be different! But we have what we have... and how can boxing today be all bad, when you have guys like Kovalev and Beterbiev heating up the light heavyweight division? If Beterbiev keeps making progress and Kovalev holds on to his title(s)... can you imagine those two clashing in a shootout between big punchers late next year? WOW! I don't care what is wrong with boxing - something like that will certainly get my attention! As will Wilders next fights! Also, will he get a showdown with Wlad, before the Ukrainian retires (or loses his belts) - and if he does, what will happen? Also I hope to soon see more of Ward and the brilliant Rigondeaux. Oh, I almost forgot GGG - can't get enough of him! A master of cutting off the ring as he patiently hunts down his pray. Yes, lots of exciting stuff to look forward to (IMO).

As for the 40s and 50s... was that really a better time for boxing? When it was (at least to some extent) controlled by the mob, with deserving fighters being denied a title shot for years (like Archie Moore) or LaMotta being forced to take a dive before finally getting his long overdue chance. If you actually made it to the top, you often fought for peanuts, or had your crooked manager steal most of your money (see Ike Williams).

As for the old films revealing, that the old-timers were BETTER that the boxers we have today - sorry, but I just don't see that! But that is of course my personal opinion.

Well of course my view of the Australian scene is more knowledgeable than many here but I still see the US as the pinnacle in many cases... the money at least and yes the game in Denmark has grown and Australia's has declined but that doesn't prove much except the sport is more worldwide. But lets put it this way, I don't know any young blokes who actually box yet four out of five of the old blokes I have known were boxers... it tells me that most blokes in the 29's 30's 40's and 50's downunder did some boxing, my grandfather actually fought professional but that didn't last long as his girlfriend said he had to quit the sport or she wouldn't marry him and the fact I am here proves he chose the latter... LOL... well anyway thats an indication of why i think the way i do on this subject. It was uncommon for a bloke in the old days not to box or at least learn to box..... somehow it became uncool to box... was it Bruce Lee maybe ?... or the extra sports available and are we simply softer with all our PCs laptops and Xboxes ?

[Bundana]

"... there were many many times more boxers back in 1950". In Australia, yes (I'll take your word for it)... but I'm talking worldwide.

The best boxers today look second rate compared to 1980 (and earlier, I presume!)? You don't think guys like Gonzalez, Rigondeaux, Lomachenko, GGG, Ward, Kovalev could hold their own in any era?

[McGoorty]

All sports grow and advance in any category through population,MOST sports also advance thru combination of things ,history/Video/resources etc.. availabilty of ones opponent/better access to modern diet/more focus on the specific sport/better fundamentals of sports science/ In almost any Olympic even tas well records are being broken almost always.


The HW divison? Well put Carnera or Baer against almost almost any shw today and they lose easily.


Put SRR against RJJ and I don't think its a question RJJ would win that one.



Put Lewis/Klitcko against ali and theres no way I favor Ali.



Cruiser Holyfield > Joe Louis

Of course these are my examples and opinions but the reference can almost always be used when lining up similar fighters of different eras.



on the current era I would say the majority HW may not be as slick but they are no longer the same weights hence its a different weight class any which way you look at it when 19 of 20 top 20 boxers are over 220. And reality many 230 plus fighters move pretty good,fury is proof of that heres a 6'9 260 plus guy dancing around the ring with really good footwork. That would be unheard of in any other era.


One can argue the size vs skill but that doesn't take away the competitive modern SHW era now.


Overall the more fighters the more competition,personally I see just as good if not better more refined fighters in all categories today. Are they better? That's an opinion,i would say overall yes.

So many holes in your argument and mostly it is because of opinion not facts, would Holyfield really beat Joe Louis ??? I really doubt it, I think Joe wins and it could be a massacre and RJJ is MUCH bigger than SRR so to hell with that comparison but at least it would be by far the best opponent RJJ ever faced.

[McGoorty]

Spinks may beat Jones ,he may not......SRR fought at 150/160 and similar weight to Jones ,he would be far to susceptible in defense and foot work.



Holyfield had a chin of granite and by FAR would be more skilled then anyone Louis ever fought,and so fast that Louis who was fast himself and often needed his opposition to stop moving to plant those quick combos would easily get flustered and k.od by round 5/6.People forget Holyfield was 6'2 himself , and one of the most complete fighters of all time.Louis would have holes in defense stradegy and foot work style .Basically Louis the slower paced counter puncher who relied on bating his opposition at certain distances is now up against a fast paced one who never stops using head movement /footwork/combinations and can also brawl.Louis would need a k.o ,taking punches from the likes of Foreman at a slighter heavier weight of about 205 ,i dont think his chin is in question,however would Louis who hit the deck numerous times do the same?



Again these are just examples on a whole since the 90's boxing has drastically changed.Weather someone can beat either Klitchko or not isnt really the point ,the further you go to past era the less chance you find anyone winning .Personally i would only put Lewis and Tyson as my top 2 guys who can potentially defeat them at their best if i had to pick..... .maybe Holmes if i included a third? I wouldn't favor any against them ,anyone can win these fights .

Sure the Brown Bomber did go down on occasions but look who too.... Schmeling.... very good fighter with good skills and very tough and he had some real DYNAMITE in his right hand which is what dropped Louis...... Walcott... another fast guy, great skills and a deadly dynamite left hook... and who else off the top of my head... oh yeah Marciano, the biggest P4P puncher the heavyweight division ever has seen.... in both hands btw and oh yeah... Joe was old then........ there were other knockdowns but none, no one with light hands ever put Joe down... you had to have real power and timing to drop Joe... and Yes Holyfield potentially has the power at heavyweight to do so but not as a cruiser

[McGoorty]

"... there were many many times more boxers back in 1950". In Australia, yes (I'll take your word for it)... but I'm talking worldwide.

The best boxers today look second rate compared to 1980 (and earlier, I presume!)? You don't think guys like Gonzalez, Rigondeaux, Lomachenko, GGG, Ward, Kovalev could hold their own in any era?

well some of them for sure would hold their own in any era but the world title belts would be a lot tougher for them to get and in some eras they simply would not win the world title but that is not due to their abilities maybe, if they are entertainers well they would get title shots, if they wanna dance a lot then they got no chance, you had to be a crowd pleaser to get title shots

[juggernaut666]

So many holes in your argument and mostly it is because of opinion not facts, would Holyfield really beat Joe Louis ??? I really doubt it, I think Joe wins and it could be a massacre and RJJ is MUCH bigger than SRR so to hell with that comparison but at least it would be by far the best opponent RJJ ever faced.

I would take Hagler over SRR...I thought SIZE didn't matter? Now you are complaining that Jones who fought 160/170...and so did SRR is a size disadvantage?




And no ....Holyfield would most likely defeat Joe Louis.there is absoulutly no video of ANYONE he fought that says otherwise. If Conn was out boxing holyfield he would the end to all ends that no one could win an argument that Holyfield was overatted.you have guys like Braddock with enough power to drop Louis but then claim not holyfield?lol ....The LEGENDS game can only take it so far...of course unless you actuall think the skill sets of Louis were better than holyfield..which would be ridiculous...really. Holyfield would be a murderous puncher at even 200 pounds in the Louis era,louis wouldn't even be able to k.o half the guys holyfield did as a HW.

[joe strong]

I stick to Heavyweights & as most know I posted over 2000 fights here a few years ago. I won't compare eras before my time but since the late 80s I have followed most of the Heavyweights before youtube. I bought my fights overseas so I had fights many had no way of seeing unless they lived in Europe. In my opinion todays HW era doesn't come close to touching the 90s where everyone fought each other to get that big payday from the 3 headed monster... Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis...

[Bundana]

Well I think you should find more reliable stats because these are clearly wrong, I have seen other stats that say the exact opposite, in fact I posted them somewhere. The idea that todays crap is better than from some of the other decades (some truly great) I find hilarious. I am not used to you saying stuff like this.

I'm curious: Those other decades where boxers/boxing were better than today... how far back are we talking? The 40s, the 20s... or can we go even further back?

[juggernaut666]

The shoulder roll defence is not suited to every fighter and largely depends whether you can make use of it or not. Some fighters would be better served eliminating it (ie. Broner). The mere fact that is has gone out of fashion is evidence that it is no longer as effective.

Inside fighting is a sign of a lack of boxing skills. A failure to get in and out or to keep an opponent at bay, again, further evidence that skills have inexorably improved over time.

And lastly the entire premise of skills degrading or being lost is totally false. If past era skills survive into the present, they BECOME a feature of the modern skillset. And if they don't? They went the way of the dodo for a reason.

Every generation takes all what came before, keeps what works, discards what does not and continues to refine it further.

Obviously!

And This ^^^^^^