Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[BattlingNelson]

"Todays era is better than any past eras. In other Words HW is better today than in past decades!"

Before saying that I have gone mad, please read below:

1924 - 22~ deaths from 22859* bouts = 0.096%

1944 - 8~ deaths from 15660* bouts = 0.051%

1964 - 15~ deaths from 9675* bouts = 0.155%

1984 - 5~ deaths from 12581* bouts = 0.039%

2004 - 9~ deaths from 18406* bouts = 0.048%

~ current record of boxing fatalities
* current record of boxing bouts

That is across the board, Heavyweight's account for roughly 8% of the listed deaths and "only" around 70% are from professional contests.

Just going by the numbers it does seem to have had very little to no impact on ring fatalities but that of course does not take into consideration other physical injuries received.

As for knock-outs, I don't really have any data at present available.



Punchers throughout history have always sought the smallest gloves possible. They only put on the big gloves for sparring and exhibitions.

6 ounce gloves at the lowest weight classes were stopped as late as the early 1990's due to boxers complaining about the dangers of a glove that size.

As always some good insights from you.

May I ask where these statistics are from and maybe you can give your take on the validity. It seems odd that the number of bouts in 2004 is twice that of 1964 where one would think there would be more fighters and that they where fighting more often. If the validity is compromised the statistic as base of decisionmaking goes Down the drain as the number of deaths most likely is correct (but the number of bouts is not).

The fatalities statistics are from The Manuel Velazquez Collection and the contest statistics are from BoxRec.

I believe both to be the most accurate sources at present available, though I believe their still be to unaccounted for fatalities and contests that hopefully with time will become known.

Unfortunately BoxRec whilst publishing the amount of contests by year and decade they have in their database have yet to do likewise with active boxers.



That is a good point and I don't have a suitable explanation either for or against the statistics.

The only figures I have on file are those given by Nat Fleischer;

1944 - 4,382 boxers on file
1964 - At least 5,000 professional boxers

Unfortunately I do not have data on the other years but can add that at present BoxRec lists 18,424 boxers as active.

Again I can't ensure absolute accuracy of that figure with regards to how BoxRec list and deem a boxer to be active - but I presume that given current technology very few boxers worldwide are missed today in comparison to the potential for oversight using the system Fleischer was forced to use as record keeper.

BoxRec's last decade update (October 23, 2014) showed these number of pro fights:

1850 2
1860 15
1870 339
1880 4607
1890 16503
1900 41984
1910 94008
1920 269461
1930 287746
1940 202824
1950 156486
1960 105133
1970 104888
1980 130861
1990 141126
2000 185882
2010 107123

So on October 23 last year, a couple of months shy of the halfway mark of this decade, BoxRec had already registered more pro fights than in each of the 60s and 70s decades.

This is hardly surprising, as the world population har doubled since the 60s, and so many more countries now allow pro boxing (since the Iron Curtain came down). So the global talent pool is obviously much larger today than 50 years ago.

Thanks Guys.

I knew a bit about the statistics, but it's nice to have them here. It's a topic that deserves a thread of it's own IMO.

What I think is one of the major implications of these numbers is that it turns the way we view boxing history upside Down. It's popular to say, and I do so myself very often, that boxers of yesteryear was better and past eras where better. Now we are present with a statistic pretty much showing that the talent pool is bigger today and the competition is much harder. Let that sink in for a while before discussing the state of HW boxing.

Mindboggling.

Maybe you Guys can comment on that observation?

Sensible discussion please. No fanboiism.

[BattlingNelson]

Sheer numbers clearly indicate that their where fewer fighters and fewer fights in the old days. Since competition always makes quality rise how can anyone dispute that boxers, in general, are better today than they where in past eras?

[Bundana]

Thanks Guys.

I knew a bit about the statistics, but it's nice to have them here. It's a topic that deserves a thread of it's own IMO.

What I think is one of the major implications of these numbers is that it turns the way we view boxing history upside Down. It's popular to say, and I do so myself very often, that boxers of yesteryear was better and past eras where better. Now we are present with a statistic pretty much showing that the talent pool is bigger today and the competition is much harder. Let that sink in for a while before discussing the state of HW boxing.

Mindboggling.

Maybe you Guys can comment on that observation?

Yes, I think you're right... the actual numbers fly in the face of what we have all been told for years: That today's boxing sucks, because there are fewer boxers/less competition than ever. This is simply not true!

Edit: Sorry, I can see, that you have now started a seperate thread about this subject.
Edit by BatlingNelson: I've used my mod superpowers and moved the post.

[LacedUp]

Interesting discussion. I was always of the thought that there were more pro boxers in the mid century than now. Could it perhaps be harder to collect info from that era for boxrec?

The old days are always better - that's how the old days are remembered. Today's boxing has little euphoria connected to it. So in 20 years time, we'll talk about the great days of Mayweather and Pacquiao - similarly to how Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran are being talked about today. Probably.

Now, I have one issue with this. How do we determine that the quantity of fighters improve the quality of fighters? Surely, there must be a better way to determine this? I don't think that we can determine that 'general competition' increases quality as today there would probably be more registered boxers who freelance as boxers, because the paycheck for a journeyman is higher today than it was before.

So if say, 95% of today's fighters are fighting at regional level and only 85% of yesteryear did - That should be a detraction from the overall quality?

What do you guys think?

[Bundana]

Thanks Bat... If only I had powers like that!

Anyway, here are some more numbers, that might be of interest in a discussion like this...

...I took The Ring's end-of-year rankings for 1925, to see how many fights the 10 top contenders (I did not include reigning champions) in each division (80 men in total, as there of course were only 8 divisions back then) had during that year. I found, that they had anywhere from 2 (Harry Wills) to 33 (Young Stribling) - with an average of 13.09! I made the same calcuations for 1930, and then for every 10 years after that (each time only for the 8 classic divisions) and came up with this:

1925 - 13.09
1930 - 10.74
1940 - 9.94
1950 - 8.60
1960 - 5.86
1970 - 5.33
1980 - 4.15
1990 - 3.29
2000 - 2.96
2010 - 2.26
2014 - 2.18

As said, these numbers are only for the 80 top men in the 8 original divisions! There's no way of telling, if they can be said to represent the ENTIRE pool of boxers at any given time. However, they certainly seem to indicate, what I'm sure we all know/believe... that the old-timers fought MUCH more often than today. Of this there can be little doubt!

[LacedUp]

Thanks Bat... If only I had powers like that!

Anyway, here are some more numbers, that might be of interest in a discussion like this...

...I took The Ring's end-of-year rankings for 1925, to see how many fights the 10 top contenders (I did not include reigning champions) in each division (80 men in total, as there of course were only 8 divisions back then) had during that year. I found, that they had anywhere from 2 (Harry Wills) to 33 (Young Stribling) - with an average of 13.09! I made the same calcuations for 1930, and then for every 10 years after that (each time only for the 8 classic divisions) and came up with this:

1925 - 13.09
1930 - 10.74
1940 - 9.94
1950 - 8.60
1960 - 5.86
1970 - 5.33
1980 - 4.15
1990 - 3.29
2000 - 2.96
2010 - 2.26
2014 - 2.18

As said, these numbers are only for the 80 top men in the 8 original divisions! There's no way of telling, if they can be said to represent the ENTIRE pool of boxers at any given time. However, they certainly seem to indicate, what I'm sure we all know/believe... that the old-timers fought MUCH more often than today. Of this there can be little doubt!

Wouldn't it be smarter to calculate how many top 10 fighters fought top 10 fighters in their own or another division from decade to decade?

That would show us the quality.

[joeandthebums]

I would start by stating that I believe the amount of professional boxers that are not accounted for from Fleischer's time to be far greater than the present.

If BoxRec have the capabilities to publish the figures for active boxers in any given year, then we will have a much greater base for comparison.

Fleischer would rate approximately 2,600+ boxers each year in his yearly ratings, that would equate to roughly over half of the boxers he claimed he was aware of - I haven't spent any great time looking at this area until now and I think a considerable amount of time would be needed before reaching any form of conclusion.

I have took a brief look at 1941, for which I have only a vague reference, courtesy of Fleischer that 4,000 boxers were active at that time period.

Looking at his yearly welterweight ratings, he grouped 174 boxers over 7 groups.

28 of those boxers were non-US nationalities, including the likes of Mistos Grispos who was listed as from Greece despite being based in New York.

That makes for a over-inflated total 15% of non-US nationality boxers being ranked.

The rest then becomes guess work;

On the premise that Fleischer ranked over half of the boxers he knew of, we would have to believe there were no more than 348 active welterweights worldwide in 1941.

146 US boxers had already been ranked so what remaining percentage would be US and non-US?

Only 7 English boxers were ranked among the 174, what would be the total number of active English/British boxers at welterweight in 1941?

[joeandthebums]

Wouldn't it be smarter to calculate how many top 10 fighters fought top 10 fighters in their own or another division from decade to decade?

That would show us the quality.

I did begin to do this task; month-by-month working off of the monthly The Ring Magazine rankings but it's a task I haven't been back to for some time.

[BattlingNelson]

Interesting discussion. I was always of the thought that there were more pro boxers in the mid century than now. Could it perhaps be harder to collect info from that era for boxrec?

Well Bundana and I had a discussion on the subject in another forum. I believe that is a point. I somehow doubt that boxrec has gone through all the regional US papers let alone Worldwide, to gather every result from any bout. That would be a monumental task.

Still the numbers IMO, still is so much greater in todays era than in the past, that it would be unlikely to change that perception completely.

The old days are always better - that's how the old days are remembered. Today's boxing has little euphoria connected to it. So in 20 years time, we'll talk about the great days of Mayweather and Pacquiao - similarly to how Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran are being talked about today. Probably.

Now, I have one issue with this. How do we determine that the quantity of fighters improve the quality of fighters? Surely, there must be a better way to determine this? I don't think that we can determine that 'general competition' increases quality as today there would probably be more registered boxers who freelance as boxers, because the paycheck for a journeyman is higher today than it was before.

There might be better ways yes, but the point stands. If, for instance you take 10 fighters and let them fight each other in separate fights untill 1 emerges as the best (champion) and then do the same with 100 fighters.

If you then pair the 10-fighter champion with the 100-fighter champion surely the 100-fighter champ would be favoured.

So if say, 95% of today's fighters are fighting at regional level and only 85% of yesteryear did - That should be a detraction from the overall quality?

What do you guys think?

Possible. Again the gap in absolute quantity is immense.

[Bundana]

Wouldn't it be smarter to calculate how many top 10 fighters fought top 10 fighters in their own or another division from decade to decade?

That would show us the quality.

That would be quite an undertaking to work out, though... but if anyone has the time/energy to look into this, it would certainly be interesting to know!