Thread: Math and Boxing Across the Years

Often folks who point out how boxing has not progressed as other sports have are derided as being nostalgic or not recognizing reality. When some argue that today's fighters really struggle in comparisons to other eras in terms of accomplishment, others seem baffled by the notion that boxing hasn't evolved the way other sports have and put it down to "old-timer-itis."

In reality, it is mostly pretty simple math.

Fifty or more years ago in order to be a champion, one had win one of only eight available slots. Today? To be a "champion" one need only occupy one of today eighty six slots. In other words, if everything else is equal? Being a champion today isn't ten percent less competitive, or 50%, or twice as easy. It is more than TEN TIMES as easy. Talk about devaluing a term. It's like handing out participation certificates.

Fifty or more years ago, in order to be ranked, one had to occupy one of eighty-eight slots. That's a champion and ten ten ranked contenders in each of eight divisions. Today? Leaving aside the silly alphabet rankings, one need only be one of 187. That is a champion and ten contenders for seventeen divisions. In other words it is more than TWICE as easy to get ranked today. But look a little more closely. There are as many "champions" today as there were ranked fighters back in the day.

Think about that for a second. If everything else is equal? It is mathematically just about the same to have been a ranked fighter in 1940 and a champion today.

But everything of course is never equal.

In the 1940's the US had approximately 10,000 licensed fighters. In 2006 (last data available in the source) less than 3,000 fighters were licensed in the US. In the UK in the 1940's they averaged just over 1000 live boxing shows a year. Now? Give or take 200 shows a year.

Now we could add in other Euros, Asians, Mexicans etc but the numbers don't change much and the relationship hardly changes at all. Let's be VERY conservative. There are now half as many pro fighters as their used to be. In other words in the 1940's there was one champion for every 1250 or so fighters. Today? One "champion" for every 60-70 fighters.

Then the question comes up how tough was it back then compared to today in terms of great fighters fighting other top guys. Well to do apples to apples (and pretend we had the same number of fighters) , one way to do it would be to say how many ranked guys did greats from each era face. Since we have twice as many ranked guys today? We'll use top ten for the old guys and top five for the newer ones.

Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb, Tony Canzoneri as examples all beat 40 or more ranked fighters while Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali as examples all beat over 30. Roy Jones, BHOP, Floyd and Manny TOGETHER have, apples to apples, beaten 45.

Again, this comparison does NOT taken into account the dramatically shrunken number of fighters or the similarly diminished talent pool.

One MUST conclude, based on math alone, that the fighters of yesteryear fought in a far more competitive environment than the fighters of today. One must also conclude, based on math alone, that yesteryear's fighters were more expert at their craft unless one wishes to argue that boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it less leads to more expertise and excellence.

You can choose to disagree, but at least understand the data and what it implies.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Often folks who point out how boxing has not progressed as other sports have are derided as being nostalgic or not recognizing reality. When some argue that today's fighters really struggle in comparisons to other eras in terms of accomplishment, others seem baffled by the notion that boxing hasn't evolved the way other sports have and put it down to "old-timer-itis."

In reality, it is mostly pretty simple math.

Fifty or more years ago in order to be a champion, one had win one of only eight available slots. Today? To be a "champion" one need only occupy one of today eighty six slots. In other words, if everything else is equal? Being a champion today isn't ten percent less competitive, or 50%, or twice as easy. It is more than TEN TIMES as easy. Talk about devaluing a term. It's like handing out participation certificates.

Fifty or more years ago, in order to be ranked, one had to occupy one of eighty-eight slots. That's a champion and ten ten ranked contenders in each of eight divisions. Today? Leaving aside the silly alphabet rankings, one need only be one of 187. That is a champion and ten contenders for seventeen divisions. In other words it is more than TWICE as easy to get ranked today. But look a little more closely. There are as many "champions" today as there were ranked fighters back in the day.

Think about that for a second. If everything else is equal? It is mathematically just about the same to have been a ranked fighter in 1940 and a champion today.

But everything of course is never equal.

In the 1940's the US had approximately 10,000 licensed fighters. In 2006 (last data available in the source) less than 3,000 fighters were licensed in the US. In the UK in the 1940's they averaged just over 1000 live boxing shows a year. Now? Give or take 200 shows a year.

Now we could add in other Euros, Asians, Mexicans etc but the numbers don't change much and the relationship hardly changes at all. Let's be VERY conservative. There are now half as many pro fighters as their used to be. In other words in the 1940's there was one champion for every 1250 or so fighters. Today? One "champion" for every 60-70 fighters.

Then the question comes up how tough was it back then compared to today in terms of great fighters fighting other top guys. Well to do apples to apples (and pretend we had the same number of fighters) , one way to do it would be to say how many ranked guys did greats from each era face. Since we have twice as many ranked guys today? We'll use top ten for the old guys and top five for the newer ones.

Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Harry Greb, Tony Canzoneri as examples all beat 40 or more ranked fighters while Archie Moore, Willie Pep, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali as examples all beat over 30. Roy Jones, BHOP, Floyd and Manny TOGETHER have, apples to apples, beaten 45.

Again, this comparison does NOT taken into account the dramatically shrunken number of fighters or the similarly diminished talent pool.

One MUST conclude, based on math alone, that the fighters of yesteryear fought in a far more competitive environment than the fighters of today. One must also conclude, based on math alone, that yesteryear's fighters were more expert at their craft unless one wishes to argue that boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it less leads to more expertise and excellence.

You can choose to disagree, but at least understand the data and what it implies.

Bit pissed so not 100%sure what you or i are on about but I think the point you are making is that fighters from a long time ago are better than today.

They fought more offten because they had to.They were fighting to put food in thier families mouth .if a fight was offered they took it.(dont want to say no to the mob)

Fighter today are much better matced than years ago so fight less IMO.

GOt to go to beed now.

agreed Marble. There are less fighters and more belts. Competition is thus much less to be a beltholder.

Years ago in the US, basketball wasn't what it is now. Football wasn't what it is now. There has been a proliferation of other sports in which one can make a living. It has taken away from boxing.

The proliferation of belts makes me appreciate a fighter who fights top competition and proves he is THE MAN in a division. It isn't an accomplishment as impressive as yesteryear, but it still to be commended and respected.

Originally Posted by captainanddew

agreed Marble. There are less fighters and more belts. Competition is thus much less to be a beltholder.

Years ago in the US, basketball wasn't what it is now. Football wasn't what it is now. There has been a proliferation of other sports in which one can make a living. It has taken away from boxing.
The proliferation of belts makes me appreciate a fighter who fights top competition and proves he is THE MAN in a division. It isn't an accomplishment as impressive as yesteryear, but it still to be commended and respected.

Agree on all counts but especially the bold. 50+ years ago there were two sports, maybe three that allowed a top athlete to make good money. Boxing, baseball and perhaps being a jockey.

Now one can make a living at football, basketball, soccer, tennis, swimming, track and field, gymnastics, weightlifting, golf and on and on we go. How many would choose to get hit in the head when they have options?