Thread: The Arc of Boxing by Mike Silver

Has anyone read it? I would like to but by 'eck it's expensive. Have read articles by Mike and his argument that boxers today are far inferior to fighters from the 40s,50s & 60s is a convincing one.

Seems irrelevant due to the fact that boxing is in very good shape just now. Excluding the HW division.

Originally Posted by Tyke72

Has anyone read it? I would like to but by 'eck it's expensive. Have read articles by Mike and his argument that boxers today are far inferior to fighters from the 40s,50s & 60s is a convincing one.

I will check it out, but I really believe that boxers of today are as good as in any era. Promoters, managers and sanctioning orgs are the real reason boxers seem less than they were in the "good old days".
Everything is so controlled today, it makes the fighters look like sissy boys. Why is it so controlled? to get every dollar possible out of every fighter and protect the fighters.
Things are much better for the fighters today, they don't fight as often, better conditioned, better diet, more money and sports medicine is light years beyond what it was just a couple of decades ago. That my opinion on the 'good old days", what's yours?

but I really believe that boxers of today are as good as in any era.....Things are much better for the fighters today, they don't fight as often,

That says it all right there.

Fighters learn to fight by fighting a lot.
A young fighter that fights 10 to 20 fights per year will develop into a better, more well-rounded fighter than a young fighter who fights 2 or 3 fights per year against carefully selected opponents.

It pains me to say it, but Boxing is a sport that has devolved, not evolved.
In the 1980s, Floyd's skills wouldn't have been seen as out of the ordinary, they were simply what fight-fans expected a top professional fighting man to have as par for the course.