Why is The Boxing Community so Nostalgic Compared to Other Sports Communities?

[Dr. Z]

In the big league sports, athletes have become bigger, stronger, faster overall. In boxing, a 160 pound middleweight is 160 pounds in 1923 as he would be in 2023. If you follow boxing long enough you can see how boxers of today have become more two dimensional. They have access to more modern training and conditioning methods but it doesn't make them better boxers. Boxers in previous eras fought the best of their era. Hearns fought prime Leonard, Duran, Benitez, Hagler--none of Spence's opponents measure up to that level, and his resume is nowhere near as impressive.

This is true. In boxing 160 pound is the middle weight limit. But today fighters have perfected the art of draining themselves to make weight the quickly re-hydarte.

[BattlingNelson]

This is true. In boxing 160 pound is the middle weight limit. But today fighters have perfected the art of draining themselves to make weight the quickly re-hydarte.

Big difference is that today you weigh in the day before leaving room to re-hydrate. Back in the early 80s and earlier, the weigin was the same day leaving less time to rehydrate. Going back even longer, boxers needed to hold the weight ringside.

So say middleweights today is more comparable to lighheavies of earlier times.

[Dr. Z]

Big difference is that today you weigh in the day before leaving room to re-hydrate. Back in the early 80s and earlier, the weigin was the same day leaving less time to rehydrate. Going back even longer, boxers needed to hold the weight ringside.

So say middleweights today is more comparable to lighheavies of earlier times.

Right you are. The problem is every bigger in the lower weights classes. Guys do not fight at their weight class! There is a dangerous process, an oil change like happening where fluids are " pumped in " to rehydrate fighters and a lot of water is consumed at the tv level of boxing. Middle weights today often exceed the light heavyweight division limit! The process is not discussed on what is going on in detail among fans, nor is it widely known.

This makes comparing past middle weights with modern middle weight fighters a bit unfair.

[DeeMoney]

Number of active (at least one fight during the year in question) pro boxers, that can be found in BoxRec's database for the 1940s:
1940 11387
1941 10164
1942 9227
1943 9207
1944 10340
1945 11320
1946 17500
1947 16841
1948 14533
1949 13439

Number of active boxers in the 2010s (2018 is the last year, where these numbers are available):
2010 18615
2011 19603
2012 19843
2013 20529
2014 20291
2015 22086
2016 23537
2017 23683
2018 23535


Since we're talking about "Robinson's time", it might be interesting to take a look at what the welterweights looked like in the 1940s (the division and decade, where I believe most people agree, he was prime). Looking at The Ring's end-of-year Rankings, we find that for the whole decade, a total of 59 WWs made it into the Top-10 at least once. Of these, 55 were North Americas (which here, besides the US, include Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba).

The 4 men not originating from North America were:
Ron Richards, Australia (#9 in '41)
Arthur Danahar, UK (#6 in '45)
Charlie Fusari, Italy (#10 in '46)
Aldo Minelli, Italy (#9 in '47)

Fusari, by the way, came over with his parents to the US as a child, and never fought in Italy (or outside the US for that matter) - so he was not really a "foreigner", with regards to his boxing career.


"It doesn't make sense to you that boxing centralized to a few giant markets produces better fighters than where boxing aficionados are spread between 3 continents." That does indeed make a lot of sense, when we're talking about the 1940s - because back then everything was more or less happening in the US, with very little of importance going on in the rest of the world.

But surely the same thing doesn't apply today - with top boxers from all over the world making an impact. Imagine if everything was still centered in the US, and non-Americans (because of war, less intercontinental travelling, or whatever) hadn't been able to mix it up with the best boxers in the last 10 years or so... where we would never have heard about Pacquiao, Loma, GGG, Usyk, Inoue, etc.! I don't think, that would have resulted in a better era.

France's Population over the past few decades has grown from just over 47 mil in 1960 to roughly 68 mil right now. During that same time, the US has gone from 180 mil to 330 mil; China 667 mil to 1.4 bil.

France has had a significantly smaller population than either of those two countries, yet throughout those year France has been far superior to either of those two nations at soccer. Based on raw population numbers, this shouldnt be, but we can see that it is.

Now don't get me wrong, I believe your general point has a lot of validity to it, but I think you are ignoring variables that are exposed in France's soccer superiority compared to two larger nations. The popularity of a given sport within a population is important. The US is almost 5x more populated than France right now, China is over 20x more populated, yet France is superior.

The numbers you cite show a less than 2x growth in numbers of fighters when looking at only the post WWII years (which is important to note as well), but has the relative popularity of the sport remained constant? Has it done so in the nations with the wherewithal to provide top fighters at all weight classes? I think its an important variable to consider, and I think the France soccer example points to it having some validity.

[Slugfester]

Thanks.

Annual number (worldwide) of fights/fighters can be found here:


Annual number of promotions in a specific country:


You probably already know about The Ring's Annual Ratings, but here's the thread (where I spend a lot of time!) anyway:



Does the larger, worldwide talent pool mean, that we have better boxers today than back in the old days? That will of course always be a hotly debated issue, with some people arguing, that boxing has evolved over the last many decades... while others believe it has devolved into a sport of sissies, who would stand no chance against boxers from way back, when there were real men! There's of course no "right" or "wrong" opinion - as we can never find out.

As for the heavyweight division... I find it hard to imagine, that greats like Dempsey and Marciano (at around 190 lbs) would be able to trouble the giants of today. But that's just my personal opinion, and I know there are many who would disagree.

Thanks. When you don't know, ask someone who does.

For the red above: if it doesn't yet, it has to, probably soon, UNLESS fundamental knowledge of the game really has declined so drastically that the current giants would be so far out-coached as to be hopeless. I am assuming that coaching a great talent is as important as being one. Yet I don't see the peerless coaching of tiny heavyweights of yore as enough to overcome the average coaching of today's giant brick shithouses, except in a few special cases where I give the miniature heavyweight a good chance of pulling off an upset.

[QueensburyRules]

Big difference is that today you weigh in the day before leaving room to re-hydrate. Back in the early 80s and earlier, the weigin was the same day leaving less time to rehydrate. Going back even longer, boxers needed to hold the weight ringside.

So say middleweights today is more comparable to lighheavies of earlier times.

- - Canelo at 154 was mid 170s fight night. Now he's mid 180s and considered small at LH, half the reason Bivol beat him.

And he wanted Usyk!!!

[BattlingNelson]

Thanks. When you don't know, ask someone who does.

For the red above: if it doesn't yet, it has to, probably soon, UNLESS fundamental knowledge of the game really has declined so drastically that the current giants would be so far out-coached as to be hopeless. I am assuming that coaching a great talent is as important as being one. Yet I don't see the peerless coaching of tiny heavyweights of yore as enough to overcome the average coaching of today's giant brick shithouses, except in a few special cases where I give the miniature heavyweight a good chance of pulling off an upset.

But talented giants like lummox and Wlad was coached by the atg Emanuel Steward who’d be a great coach in any era.

[Bundana]

Thanks. When you don't know, ask someone who does.

For the red above: if it doesn't yet, it has to, probably soon, UNLESS fundamental knowledge of the game really has declined so drastically that the current giants would be so far out-coached as to be hopeless. I am assuming that coaching a great talent is as important as being one. Yet I don't see the peerless coaching of tiny heavyweights of yore as enough to overcome the average coaching of today's giant brick shithouses, except in a few special cases where I give the miniature heavyweight a good chance of pulling off an upset.

I agree, that it's very difficult to see how tiny (Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano sized) heavyweights from the past should be able to trouble today's giants - no matter how well they may have been trained/coached all those years ago.

And by the way... is there any reason to believe, that "fundamental knowledge" of the game has drastically declined over the last, say, 100 years? I don't see, why that would be the case.

[Slugfester]

Big difference is that today you weigh in the day before leaving room to re-hydrate. Back in the early 80s and earlier, the weigin was the same day leaving less time to rehydrate. Going back even longer, boxers needed to hold the weight ringside.

So say middleweights today is more comparable to lighheavies of earlier times.

Exactly, sir!