Why Modern Boxing Has Lost Depth....

[Flea Man]

Am I wrecked? Yes.

Is this thread going to get lambasted? Probably.


When I first came onto Eastside Boxing, I was not much of an advocate for 'old timers'. Some I recognised as innovators, but I dismissed a lot of them as primitive, or 'tough men'.

Now, I still liked to discuss or read about these fighters; I felt Iwanted to know the history of the sport I loved, but I had the mindset (and an odd one at that) that when Joe Louis came along a magical turnaround in boxing technique arose.

Now, there have been several key developments in boxing that are for another thread entirely, but as Medical Rules have come in, gloves have changed and not only help minimise hand damage (and to an effect, this should allow more fully formed shots and more power shots) and minimise damage to the opponent. The materials have changed. The chemicals used don't give you blood poisoning if your opponent rubs his mitt in a wound.

But as my interest deepened, I realised how tough a sport it was back then. How tough must these men have been. I've watched footage; they really hit each other, it wasn't the constant holding I'd been expecting (though of course referees were more lenient and you can find fights of course that really do have excessive mauling in) or thought I'd seen before.

Someone kinda' switched a light on (I think it was Manassa) who said 'rank them by how they performed in their era'. I personally feel there have been some real strong eras in boxing, but couldn't understand why it seemed to have thinned as the years went on.

I believe it's completely down to the sanctioning bodies and light/super weights that are around.

With one title, to get the money you've got to be either the champ, or a known leading contender. So why was there more depth (seemingly) and why do fighters deserve more credit in their alltime standing for fighting in a byegone era.

Lets say todays fighters undergo a change in the system; they're told that we're going back to the original divisions. The gloves to be wron are going be the 6 oz. They'll be making weight on the day of the fight.

They're will be a bit of adjustement but to an extent, the depth comes back. You've got Strawweights that don't need to boil down now, they're gonna' be fighting Flyweights. Which flyweights can't make weight on the same day, well they'll be fighting as Bantams and so on and so on and so on. Paul Williams would be a fully fledged middleweight from now on and not by choice, unless he wants to make 147 maybe 10-12 times a year, if not a couple of times a month.

So in order to get to the top, you need to be the Champ. There's only one title, so its gotta be either Vitali or Wlad. So they gotta fight each other or one of thems gotta be fighting all the contenders and trying to make bucks out of that.

So theres a massive amount of contenders now. Any 175lbers that are cutting weight to get there will be Heavys now, as theres no Cruiser division. The only way to get yourself to the top of the rankings for a title shot is to beat the most number of contenders and prove yourself worthy. You can't take one of the straps and defend that against some of the challengers. The only way to possibly fight a number of these guys is to d what is already done and probably have three (maximum four, minumum one) fights a year and repeat this for eight or so years.

Or fight more regularly. Obviously, fighters styles are going to change. Smaller guys like Jean Pascal is going to have to adapt his style massively if hes going to fight regularly as a Heavyweight against the likes of Chris Arreola, whos going to have to be in shape if he's going to fight 12 times a year.

I'm of the opinion that someone has got to be really, really special nowadays to prove themselves a top fifty fighter. More than ever nowadays, weight jumping and 'World Titles' mean next to nothing unless the competition faced is amongst the best.

So which fighters nowdays would see the most drastic change of opponent? PowerPuncher, who dislikes most old fighters, will actually be in handy here as he knows a fair bit about conditioning.

Some posters get offended if someones top 50 doesn't include a slew of fighters from the last 15 years. Accusations of 'underrating modern fighters' abound, but when you consider how much more competitive everything would be with less weight classes; I think it would really seperate the cream of the crop. It's survival of the fittest, who can fight the most, whos body can hold up? What kinda' fighter would emerge in the next 20 years as new boxers adapt to the new way boxing works (the old way)

So, this above stream of consciousness is probably turd but if anyone wants to contribute, help out with my questions, troll, feel free:lol:

[GPater11093]

My thought is there are less boxers around so less talent pool of great fighters

[Flea Man]

My thought is there are less boxers around so less talent pool of great fighters

With less divisions, the talent pool opens up for each division.

Mission to posters; find me guys that cut weight in every weight class to a drastic level. To a point where they would have to fight in a different division because they wouldn't be able to constantly make weight safe.

Then find me a fighter in the division this fighter will have to travel to, who can make the weight fine. Try and find me a matchup you would not see today.

For instance, could Pac make 147 on the day and be safe to fight in the evening, or at least very strong? If not, if he has to come in at 150 or 151, or 148, if he's fighting for a title it'll be the middleweight title? Which would be held by.............? (which middle can make the day or which big welter would be the best middle? Could Pavlik make 160 on the day? Or would Williams or Martinez be the no.1 in the division? Or someone from 154? Maybe there are fighters who cut so much weight to get to 154 they would need to fight at light heavy as they can't make 160 on the day?

Can anyone think of any good examples, over than the tried and tested GMan at his natural weight vs.......

Thanks for any responses?

[Squire]

I'm all for reducing the number of weight divisions. Its not difficult to gain or lose a few pounds, I don't get why people cry about it

Someone kinda' switched a light on (I think it was Manassa) who said 'rank them by how they performed in their era'. I personally feel there have been some real strong eras in boxing, but couldn't understand why it seemed to have thinned as the years went on.


People still have double standards if you adopt this approach. Why not judge the Klitschkos on how they perform? People are happy to say 'Marciano dominated his era', but when it comes to this era the usual 'the heavyweights are shit now' is spouted. People are always biased

[techks]

There is still talent but not a boxer that draws alot of people in like DLH, Tyson, Ali, etc.. Nobody cares for the young talent anymore and we're losing fans partially because of it(don't forget corruption!). But I'll always be a fan and appreciate young talent such as Bradley who is a good fighter to like because despite being undefeated he fights the best. If the "main media" can't tune into the sport and like these fighters who work their asses off to keep us entertained then forget em.

[techks]

I'm all for reducing the number of weight divisions. Its not difficult to gain or lose a few pounds, I don't get why people cry about it



People still have double standards if you adopt this approach. Why not judge the Klitschkos on how they perform? People are happy to say 'Marciano dominated his era', but when it comes to this era the usual 'the heavyweights are shit now' is spouted. People are always biased

:goodI used to be guilty of this but realized "Damn, there may not be two brothers dominating the sport again..." so since watching the Chaguev fight as soon as it aired I've come to respect them and think they have what it takes to be legends as Marciano is.

[PowerPuncher]

Afew points

1. These days fights need promotion that takes 3months
2. Fighters have 2 fights, 1 in the ring and 1 versus the scale to cut weight/water to be big at the weight.
3. 1 champ for 8divisions doesnt guarantee the best champion holds the belt, or the best men get their shotat the belt
4. Paul Williams doesnt drain more weight than Cotto/Mosley/Margarito to make WW by all accounts

[techks]

I'm all for reducing the number of weight divisions. Its not difficult to gain or lose a few pounds, I don't get why people cry about it

:goodPlus it would be easier to follow champions and make the fighters train harder to make the weight so I'm all for it too.

[PowerPuncher]

Mission to posters; find me guys that cut weight in every weight class to a drastic level. To a point where they would have to fight in a different division because they wouldn't be able to constantly make weight safe.

It would be easier to find top fighters who dont add 10-20lbs in the ring. MAB and FMJ are the only 2 I can think of in recent times

Then again even back in the day fighters would cut 4-5lbs of weight for title fights and fight above the weight the rest of the time

[Flea Man]

I'm all for reducing the number of weight divisions. Its not difficult to gain or lose a few pounds, I don't get why people cry about it



People still have double standards if you adopt this approach. Why not judge the Klitschkos on how they perform? People are happy to say 'Marciano dominated his era', but when it comes to this era the usual 'the heavyweights are shit now' is spouted. People are always biased

Well, I rank by how good they were in their era and how good their era was.

And I wouldn't say a certain era is 'shit' so I think I'd be able to make valid claims and evidence to support my claims. If people disagree than fine, as evidenced by this thread I'm more than prepared to have people throw shit at me:lol:

[Flea Man]

Afew points

1. These days fights need promotion that takes 3months
2. Fighters have 2 fights, 1 in the ring and 1 versus the scale to cut weight/water to be big at the weight.
3. 1 champ for 8divisions doesnt guarantee the best champion holds the belt, or the best men get their shotat the belt
4. Paul Williams doesnt drain more weight than Cotto/Mosley/Margarito to make WW by all accounts

I've just assumed that Williams won't be able to make the weight any more. Not based on anything other than a hunch mind you.

I'm not trying to improve boxing per se, just an experiment to see A) How the landscape would change and B) Which fighters might wilt/prosper under a 1920's schedule:good

[ishy]

Someone like Caballero must cut a lot of weight. The guys 6ft and fights at SBW!! With 8 divisions he'd end up at Lightweight against someone like Juan Manuel Marquez :hey

[Mendoza]

Yes. Give me 11 weight divisons...same as the Olympics.

[booradley]

If we went back to the original 8 divisions, and same day weigh-ins, every division would be stacked with talent.

[Flea Man]

Glad to see some have understood my reasoning :good

[Flea Man]

Someone like Caballero must cut a lot of weight. The guys 6ft and fights at SBW!! With 8 divisions he'd end up at Lightweight against someone like Juan Manuel Marquez :hey

See, this is the kinda' example I'm looking for.

Think of what the Light-Heavys would be like-Quite a few middles and all the super middles up there, fighting regularly. I wonder how many prospects would remain undefeated under this regime?

[anarci]

My thought is there are less boxers around so less talent pool of great fighters Overall you are right somewhat. I think the elite fighters of today have more athleticism (for the most part)and over the years the Boxers have learned from their predecessors, In a sense kind of like other sports although the gap in talent isnt as far. Training,nutrition, etc is better.

However there were far more boxers back in the days and they really learned their trade by fighting so often and not avoiding fighters on the way up the way up and coming fighters and contenders do today. They know want to protect that 0 but it slows their learning process compared to fighters from the past.

Although i said todays elite fighters have somewhat perfected techniques from past greats.
Their are also alot of things todays fighters dont or cant do that many fighters from the past did. Many of the feints and parrying of shots that many of the old timers did is a lost art today. I might sound like im contradicting myself but there are somethings lost and somethings improved.
Bottom line it all kind of equals out as far as quality of fighters "post War" and many pre war fighters are just as good as todays elite and some better.
Boxing isnt as deep as it once was but the talented fighters at the top today would compete in any era and some would dominate like fighters from the past.
Just like it might not be fair to say early century fighters would get slaughtered today with that technique. It is also unfair to expect fighters of today to have such long resumes as the old timers.
I am one of those that thinks fighters of the modern era are very underrated on the Classic Forum and Overrated on the General forum
This has to be weighed out evenly.

[anarci]

Someone like Caballero must cut a lot of weight. The guys 6ft and fights at SBW!! With 8 divisions he'd end up at Lightweight against someone like Juan Manuel Marquez :hey
Yey but Panama Al Brown was 5-11 and Bantamweight champ for a long time back when they had same day weigh ins. Do you think hed shrink down to FLY.

Can you imagine a 5-11 flyweight:shock:

[ricardinho]

Overall you are right somewhat. I think the elite fighters of today have more athleticism (for the most part)and over the years the Boxers have learned from their predecessors, In a sense kind of like other sports although the gap in talent isnt as far. Training,nutrition, etc is better.

However there were far more boxers back in the days and they really learned their trade by fighting so often and not avoiding fighters on the way up the way up and coming fighters and contenders do today. They know want to protect that 0 but it slows their learning process compared to fighters from the past.

Although i said todays elite fighters have somewhat perfected techniques from past greats.
Their are also alot of things todays fighters dont or cant do that many fighters from the past did. Many of the feints and parrying of shots that many of the old timers did is a lost art today. I might sound like im contradicting myself but there are somethings lost and somethings improved.
Bottom line it all kind of equals out as far as quality of fighters "post War" and many pre war fighters are just as good as todays elite and some better.
Boxing isnt as deep as it once was but the talented fighters at the top today would compete in any era and some would dominate like fighters from the past.
Just like it might not be fair to say early century fighters would get slaughtered today with that technique. It is also unfair to expect fighters of today to have such long resumes as the old timers.
I am one of those that thinks fighters of the modern era are very underrated on the Classic Forum and Overrated on the General forum
This has to be weighed out evenly.

I just think the big difference is news coverage is virtually nonexistent. This is due to most promotions moving away from metro areas an to casinos.

[Robney]

I agree for the biggest part of the article, but there's a point about the weights I like to make.
Back to eight divisions (halleluja!) but then there should be new weight standards too. You can't expect a natural cruiserweight (what a lot of European man are nowadays) from say 188 pounds who can't make 175 and still be fight capable and put him in the HW division where 220 pounders till huge 245 pounders are populating the ranks.

In the time these weight classes where made, a normal HW was about 200 pounds and the biggest HW's where about 220, which is now the division standard.
And this is the same for the lesser weights.
So, like I said... I agree totally with your case and would even put up a few extra rules like; All states, countries same rules. Back to 15 rounders for championship bouts and max 20x20 ringsize. :good

[Flea Man]

I agree for the biggest part of the article, but there's a point about the weights I like to make.
Back to eight divisions (halleluja!) but then there should be new weight standards too. You can't expect a natural cruiserweight (what a lot of European man are nowadays) from say 188 pounds who can't make 175 and still be fight capable and put him in the HW division where 220 pounders till huge 245 pounders are populating the ranks.

In the time these weight classes where made, a normal HW was about 200 pounds and the biggest HW's where about 220, which is now the division standard.
And this is the same for the lesser weights.
So, like I said... I agree totally with your case and would even put up a few extra rules like; All states, countries same rules. Back to 15 rounders for championship bouts and max 20x20 ringsize. :good

Again!

I'm not trying to 'save boxing' I'm just wondering how these fighters WOULD deal with the massive size disparity and having to fight in 8 classes.

So, your extra ideas are worth nothing to this thread. Thanks anyway :good

How do you feel light heavys that can boil down to 175 would adapt to having to fight hulking heavys?

[Robney]

Again!

I'm not trying to 'save boxing' I'm just wondering how these fighters WOULD deal with the massive size disparity and having to fight in 8 classes.

So, your extra ideas are worth nothing to this thread. Thanks anyway :good

How do you feel light heavys that can boil down to 175 would adapt to having to fight hulking heavys?

Ok, I misunderstood what you where trying to say! :oops:

But the guys who can just make 175 against huge heavys.... I think they would have to use 'special supplements' to grow bigger, or be trashed.

[PowerPuncher]

A fighter would have ranked fights at a weight back in the day despite weighing 4-6lbs over the weight. Greb/Armstrong/Pep were only at 160/126 for their title fights

Still with 6hour weigh ins the usual carb depleting and water, wouldnt give adequate time to get the carbs, nutrients and water back into the system. The fighter wont have energy in the ring. So at most they would want to drain 4-6lbs of water off their usual fighting weight. Then there were weigh ins just miniutes prior to the fight, making re-carbing impossible.

Practically today everyone except for Pacquaio, Williams and Mayweather would have to go up 1-2weight classes or 1 whole old weight class.

The fighters that would hurt the most would be the 1s who naturally weighed around the junior/lighthalf divisions who have to fight the bigger men in their division. Fighters who are brawlers with little care for defense willburn out quicker. Boxers will likely develop better sharper skills due to constantly being in the ring and practising their craft. Alcoholics/bingers who blow up in weight will stop drinking so much and stay at their weight because of the frequent fights and possibly have longer careers because they would train more and binge less

[PowerPuncher]

As for 190lb-200lb LHWs, they'd bulk up much like Adamek has done recently and like Spinks/Moorer/Jones/Holyfield did

[The Morlocks]

Am I wrecked? Yes.

Is this thread going to get lambasted? Probably.


When I first came onto Eastside Boxing, I was not much of an advocate for 'old timers'. Some I recognised as innovators, but I dismissed a lot of them as primitive, or 'tough men'.

Now, I still liked to discuss or read about these fighters; I felt Iwanted to know the history of the sport I loved, but I had the mindset (and an odd one at that) that when Joe Louis came along a magical turnaround in boxing technique arose.

Now, there have been several key developments in boxing that are for another thread entirely, but as Medical Rules have come in, gloves have changed and not only help minimise hand damage (and to an effect, this should allow more fully formed shots and more power shots) and minimise damage to the opponent. The materials have changed. The chemicals used don't give you blood poisoning if your opponent rubs his mitt in a wound.

But as my interest deepened, I realised how tough a sport it was back then. How tough must these men have been. I've watched footage; they really hit each other, it wasn't the constant holding I'd been expecting (though of course referees were more lenient and you can find fights of course that really do have excessive mauling in) or thought I'd seen before.

Someone kinda' switched a light on (I think it was Manassa) who said 'rank them by how they performed in their era'. I personally feel there have been some real strong eras in boxing, but couldn't understand why it seemed to have thinned as the years went on.

I believe it's completely down to the sanctioning bodies and light/super weights that are around.

With one title, to get the money you've got to be either the champ, or a known leading contender. So why was there more depth (seemingly) and why do fighters deserve more credit in their alltime standing for fighting in a byegone era.

Lets say todays fighters undergo a change in the system; they're told that we're going back to the original divisions. The gloves to be wron are going be the 6 oz. They'll be making weight on the day of the fight.

They're will be a bit of adjustement but to an extent, the depth comes back. You've got Strawweights that don't need to boil down now, they're gonna' be fighting Flyweights. Which flyweights can't make weight on the same day, well they'll be fighting as Bantams and so on and so on and so on. Paul Williams would be a fully fledged middleweight from now on and not by choice, unless he wants to make 147 maybe 10-12 times a year, if not a couple of times a month.

So in order to get to the top, you need to be the Champ. There's only one title, so its gotta be either Vitali or Wlad. So they gotta fight each other or one of thems gotta be fighting all the contenders and trying to make bucks out of that.

So theres a massive amount of contenders now. Any 175lbers that are cutting weight to get there will be Heavys now, as theres no Cruiser division. The only way to get yourself to the top of the rankings for a title shot is to beat the most number of contenders and prove yourself worthy. You can't take one of the straps and defend that against some of the challengers. The only way to possibly fight a number of these guys is to d what is already done and probably have three (maximum four, minumum one) fights a year and repeat this for eight or so years.

Or fight more regularly. Obviously, fighters styles are going to change. Smaller guys like Jean Pascal is going to have to adapt his style massively if hes going to fight regularly as a Heavyweight against the likes of Chris Arreola, whos going to have to be in shape if he's going to fight 12 times a year.

I'm of the opinion that someone has got to be really, really special nowadays to prove themselves a top fifty fighter. More than ever nowadays, weight jumping and 'World Titles' mean next to nothing unless the competition faced is amongst the best.

So which fighters nowdays would see the most drastic change of opponent? PowerPuncher, who dislikes most old fighters, will actually be in handy here as he knows a fair bit about conditioning.

Some posters get offended if someones top 50 doesn't include a slew of fighters from the last 15 years. Accusations of 'underrating modern fighters' abound, but when you consider how much more competitive everything would be with less weight classes; I think it would really seperate the cream of the crop. It's survival of the fittest, who can fight the most, whos body can hold up? What kinda' fighter would emerge in the next 20 years as new boxers adapt to the new way boxing works (the old way)

So, this above stream of consciousness is probably turd but if anyone wants to contribute, help out with my questions, troll, feel free:lol:
Nobody argues with you more than me. but you hit the nail on the head.:goodI have a problem w/ the whole top ten and top 50 list anyway, because there have been a LOT of fighters who were great and most fighters aren't gerat but just Very good. And if you go by what they did, for instance, could Leonard have fought w/ the frequency of what Duran did in his (D) first 13 years and been as good and then step up and fight a guy of leo's class and THEN gone on to win 2 more titles and then still continue. No Way, Hearns couldn't either. Could Mayweather fight 49 times in one year as Greb did in 1919 against the cream of the crop of SEVERAL divisions and then still go on to greatness. He won't even fight the cream 3 times in 7 years. The fighters of today are fighting less in less rounds in easier rules. For 60 years or so Benny Leonard was considered by every boxing writer and old timer and trainer and fighter to be one of the 3 if not the no 1 fighter ever. Now people consider him nothing. It's ridiculous. I saw on one post some guy said he couldn't beat any of today's contenders. Completely assinine. And recently, someone listed him w' the weak chins. comon man. Nowadays, all the announcers and writers call everything great and just want their era to be the best whether it is or not and they don't have the knowledge or care to have the knowledge of the past to make a true informed decision. The average fan hears their beliefs and takes them for fact when they shouldn't. It is a fast food world w/ fast now only matters reporting and the viewer is the worst for it. Kenny the ESPN guy is one of the worst along w/ Kellerman although Max is getting better due to Merchant's influence I think. And Lampley prob. creams his jeans getting a whopper "WOW, WHAT A BURGER" Can YOU BELEIVE THIS". Don't take announcers for right nowadays, study the sport deep and w/ breadth and learn the truth about this great sport and the true greatness of fighters. READ, WATCH and pay attention to records. Back in my day, we all had the Ring record books and endless bios of fighters, and old timers to learn from. It's out there, find it.:thumbsupAnother point on BennyLeonard. Arcel said he had to carry guys or noone would fight him. He was that good. You should study this guy deep and you will be blown away (no not by Ayala. Sorry, can't stop).

[PowerPuncher]

Nobody argues with you more than me. but you hit the nail on the head.:goodI have a problem w/ the whole top ten and top 50 list anyway, because there have been a LOT of fighters who were great and most fighters aren't gerat but just Very good. And if you go by what they did, for instance, could Leonard have fought w/ the frequency of what Duran did in his (D) first 13 years and been as good and then step up and fight a guy of leo's class and THEN gone on to win 2 more titles and then still continue. No Way, Hearns couldn't either. Could Mayweather fight 49 times in one year as Greb did in 1919 against the cream of the crop of SEVERAL divisions and then still go on to greatness. He won't even fight the cream 3 times in 7 years. The fighters of today are fighting less in less rounds in easier rules. For 60 years or so Benny Leonard was considered by every boxing writer and old timer and trainer and fighter to be one of the 3 if not the no 1 fighter ever. Now people consider him nothing. It's ridiculous. I saw on one post some guy said he couldn't beat any of today's contenders. Completely assinine. And recently, someone listed him w' the weak chins. comon man. Nowadays, all the announcers and writers call everything great and just want their era to be the best whether it is or not and they don't have the knowledge or care to have the knowledge of the past to make a true informed decision. The average fan hears their beliefs and takes them for fact when they shouldn't. It is a fast food world w/ fast now only matters reporting and the viewer is the worst for it. Kenny the ESPN guy is one of the worst along w/ Kellerman although Max is getting better due to Merchant's influence I think. And Lampley prob. creams his jeans getting a whopper "WOW, WHAT A BURGER" Can YOU BELEIVE THIS". Don't take announcers for right nowadays, study the sport deep and w/ breadth and learn the truth about this great sport and the true greatness of fighters. READ, WATCH and pay attention to records. Back in my day, we all had the Ring record books and endless bios of fighters, and old timers to learn from. It's out there, find it.:thumbsupAnother point on BennyLeonard. Arcel said he had to carry guys or noone would fight him. He was that good. You should study this guy deep and you will be blown away (no not by Ayala. Sorry, can't stop).

Got some rose tinted glasses on. Yes old timers fought more often, the business was very different. However few fought everyone in their divisions, there was plenty of avoidance. And i dont see Mayweather struggling if he fought bi-weekly against Gatti/Mitchell types who were top contenders but easy fights and mixing in the occasional hard fight, because thats the patern the old-timers took for the most part

[McGrain]

You don't give Greb credit for fighting half blind because his opponents might have been injured, but you're giving china-hand-Floyd the benifit of the doubt in a 20 fight year?

[PowerPuncher]

You don't give Greb credit for fighting half blind because his opponents might have been injured, but you're giving china-hand-Floyd the benifit of the doubt in a 20 fight year?

Do you think he doesnt spar 1000s of rounds against top contenders plenty anyway? If you break a hand you just punch with a different part of the hand, even use elbows, backhand or the base of your palm

And yes Floyd would pick up more injuries and have worse hands but he'd be facing half blind types like Greb :lol:

[McGrain]

I'll be honest with you, I don't think Floyd would make it under that type of schedule. I don't think he has the temprament or the hands for it, and he's yet to demonstrate to me that he has the guts.

[PowerPuncher]

I'll be honest with you, I don't think Floyd would make it under that type of schedule. I don't think he has the temprament or the hands for it, and he's yet to demonstrate to me that he has the guts.

We'll beg to differ, fighters in all eras are in it for the money, in those days that meant fighting bi-monthly, today its about building an undefeated record and getting the biggest names. I think Floyd's 'ducking' is very overstated, if the money was right he'd fight anyone. Lots of fighters have hand problems and its not like old fighters wouldnt have done too, ie Holman Williams did fine despite having shot hands.

Mayweather can make 20-30million a fight, so he fights 6monthly just like Dempsey in Grebs time. Its like saying Dempsey didnt have the temprement or guts for fighting a greb schedule, both were the cash cows of their era and fought when they wanted for big bucks.

Greb may have done the same and have a much weaker resume if he became the cash cow early in his career

[McGrain]

Having shot hands totally redefined Holman's style, and he didn't figh anything like as often as Greb.

[Flea Man]

Floyd is one fighter who really wouldn't prosper IMO.

Also, a lit of posters are assumin the bigger Heavies would still be dominant: i don't think that's the case. Someone like Adamek might very well be Champ. Vitalis fighting regularly now but would he still be fighting if he'd already had 100+fights?

How many times would Wlad have been starched fighting 12 times a year (at least?)

I also don't think fights would need to be marketed over a number of months as the big fighters would be more well known. It's 'boxings current fragmented state that has caused confusion.

8 champs are much easier to remember, and I think a lot of fans would 'come back' so to speak.

[red cobra]

Boxing, for a variety of reasons has become a marginal sport..only surfacing when a heavyweight like Mike Tyson is the star, or when a wonder=boy like Sugar Ray Leonard or De la Hoya is making news...but really, only Tyson sparked real interest in the sport, and part of that was due to his noteriety and providing morbid sensationalism like ear biting, although that was in his period of decline. It's nothing like the days when Ali was champion..but boxing's decline can be based on incremental changes that slowly sapped the sport of it's tradition..like the reduction of championship bouts to 12 from 15, and the overproliferation of titlists and weight classes....and these are still just some of the reasons.

[Flea Man]

Holman Williams was also willing to fight anyone.

[enquirer]

I think there is a social/psychological dimension here as well.
When you are brought up in poverty and with a lack of opportunities and boxing gives you a way to earn (albeit still not enought to become rich or complacent in the days of yesteryear.) then you are not going to give a fuck about protecting your 'o' or having two fights a year to chill out,play basketball,go to the casino and watch rap dvds on your 50 inch plasma.
When you box because you need to eat,injuries are of much less concern also.
Boxers of today who have been brought up in relative comfort will know or understand nothing of the trials of hobos like dempsey,those during the great depression,rampant racism and such like.
A guy like money may or other current luminaries probably have no idea or concept of fighting twenty times in a year for peanuts or any associated hardships of boxing back in the day.
That doesnt mean that 'may' isnt more talented than 99% of all the boxers of yesteryear,but we have to put that talent in perspective somewhat,and i really seriously doubt todays boys in general could fight a schedhule like those of the earlier guys....

[PowerPuncher]

Vitalis fighting regularly now but would he still be fighting if he'd already had 100+fights?

How many times would Wlad have been starched fighting 12 times a year (at least?) .

Both K brothers have had well over 100 fights, probably over 200

[Flea Man]

Pro fights, with the gloves stipulated atthe beginning of the thread?

As to your previous point, I think Dempseys schedule does diminish his standing somewhat.

[Flea Man]

I think there is a social/psychological dimension here as well.
When you are brought up in poverty and with a lack of opportunities and boxing gives you a way to earn (albeit still not enought to become rich or complacent in the days of yesteryear.) then you are not going to give a fuck about protecting your 'o' or having two fights a year to chill out,play basketball,go to the casino and watch rap dvds on your 50 inch plasma.
When you box because you need to eat,injuries are of much less concern also.
Boxers of today who have been brought up in relative comfort will know or understand nothing of the trials of hobos like dempsey,those during the great depression,rampant racism and such like.
A guy like money may or other current luminaries probably have no idea or concept of fighting twenty times in a year for peanuts or any associated hardships of boxing back in the day.
That doesnt mean that 'may' isnt more talented than 99% of all the boxers of yesteryear,but we have to put that talent in perspective somewhat,and i really seriously doubt todays boys in general could fight a schedhule like those of the earlier guys....

thanks for your contribution :good

your point on social context is a f'n good one too.

[Mendoza]

My thought is there are less boxers around so less talent pool of great fighters

Boxing is now a global sport. I think the participation rate is OK. What hurts is the lack of media coverage and alphabet politics which prevent the type of fights on air to see depth. There are too many weight divisions too. Reduce the weight divisions from 17 to 11, and all of a sudden the 3rd or 4th rated guy in each division from light heavyweight down would be better than they are now.

[mochabuzz]

modern boxing has lost popularity and depth because u have to pay friggin' 50.00 to watch a championship fight!!!!! nobody knows who all of these alphabet champs are. :bart

[techks]

u have to pay friggin' 50.00 to watch a championship fight!!!!! nobody knows who all of these alphabet champs are. :bart

:deal

[junior-soprano]

I think there is a social/psychological dimension here as well.
When you are brought up in poverty and with a lack of opportunities and boxing gives you a way to earn (albeit still not enought to become rich or complacent in the days of yesteryear.) then you are not going to give a fuck about protecting your 'o' or having two fights a year to chill out,play basketball,go to the casino and watch rap dvds on your 50 inch plasma.
When you box because you need to eat,injuries are of much less concern also.
Boxers of today who have been brought up in relative comfort will know or understand nothing of the trials of hobos like dempsey,those during the great depression,rampant racism and such like.
A guy like money may or other current luminaries probably have no idea or concept of fighting twenty times in a year for peanuts or any associated hardships of boxing back in the day.
That doesnt mean that 'may' isnt more talented than 99% of all the boxers of yesteryear,but we have to put that talent in perspective somewhat,and i really seriously doubt todays boys in general could fight a schedhule like those of the earlier guys....

i totally agree with you. but this is not only the problem with boxing but with more "tough" sports. most athletes of today lack the mental toughness compared to old timers. because (at least in the western world) life in general is to "easy". almost al people have acces to health support and good education and a job etc etc and also the financial reward for sportsman has grown way out of proportion. i accept the fact that athletes are gifted people who work/train hard (but so do we normal people also) and that there careers last a few years so a bigger reward then normal people get for there work is in place. but athletes making 10s of millions of dollars/euro's a year that ain't normal

[Bummy Davis]

Boxing, for a variety of reasons has become a marginal sport..only surfacing when a heavyweight like Mike Tyson is the star, or when a wonder=boy like Sugar Ray Leonard or De la Hoya is making news...but really, only Tyson sparked real interest in the sport, and part of that was due to his noteriety and providing morbid sensationalism like ear biting, although that was in his period of decline. It's nothing like the days when Ali was champion..but boxing's decline can be based on incremental changes that slowly sapped the sport of it's tradition..like the reduction of championship bouts to 12 from 15, and the overproliferation of titlists and weight classes....and these are still just some of the reasons.


I agree with this, problem is the organizations that can make $ changes are all about the $$$$ and more titles

[The Morlocks]

:thumbsupBoxing, for a variety of reasons has become a marginal sport..only surfacing when a heavyweight like Mike Tyson is the star, or when a wonder=boy like Sugar Ray Leonard or De la Hoya is making news...but really, only Tyson sparked real interest in the sport, and part of that was due to his noteriety and providing morbid sensationalism like ear biting, although that was in his period of decline. It's nothing like the days when Ali was champion..but boxing's decline can be based on incremental changes that slowly sapped the sport of it's tradition..like the reduction of championship bouts to 12 from 15, and the overproliferation of titlists and weight classes....and these are still just some of the reasons.
:thumbsup