Quote:
Hmmm....
1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?
2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.
3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.
Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?
1. I think the idea that a specific craft always EVOLVES rather than DEVOLVES is simply wrong. Ask yourself this. When did the world have the finest blacksmiths? 200-300 years ago when every village had one and every city had several or today when they are a rare anachronism? When did the world have the finest horsemen? When the Mongol hordes, hundreds of thousands strong crashed west or when the Comanche in their tens of thousands ruled Texas or when JEB Stuart's cavalry circled the entire Union Army or today, when everyone drives a car? When did the world have the finest wind-powered sailors? When tens of thousands of mariners roamed across the seas throught storms in ships made of wood with only a sextant, compass and the wind delivering freight and fighting wars or today when few recreational sailors ever leave the sight of land and those that do are armed with GPS and cell-phones and computers?
Now what do these have in common with boxing? Two major things. They are largely apprentice tasks and skills and the resources applied to them have declined dramatically. If one watches enough footage one notices several thinhgs about the game today. First, style diversity is at its lowest in 80 years. Where are the guys fighting out of a crouch like Jeffries or Berlenbach or Galento? Where are the bobbers and weavers like Frazier, Dempsey or a young Tyson? Where are the "stay in the pocket" counterpunchers like Sanchez, Pep or Sweet Pea? Or better put on this one, where are those guys under 35? Another example is the lack ok KO punchers as noted by Manny Stewart. Where are the Ernie Shavers, Tommy Hearns, Julian Jacksons, Ray Robinson's today? That is a fuinction of lower talent levels, poor teaching, or both. Go watch Ike Williams and the torque and leverage he gets on his punches. There is almost nobody today who looks like that.
2. You are measuring fighter longevity in a way that doesn't matter, time. As a fan? That's easy to accomplish, take lots of time off. I care about fighter longevity in a way that DOES matter. Number of fights. If one waits too long? One doesn't acquire optimnal experience until long after one's reflexes etc begin to erode.
3. Of COURSE I can compare boxing to other sports. You don't think one time, or short time events can change careers in other sports? Look up Gale Sayers, Bobby Orr, Calvin Shiraldi and Pete Resier as examples. As for records in measurable sports never being higher? Find me a sport where a) size is restricted (the explanation for swimming and sprinting etc) ande/or b) technology hasn't changed (starting blocks, better tracks, introduction of weightlifting, steroids etc).
As for "comfort?" The math is what the math is isn't it? Half as many fighters today fighting half as many fights each. Unless you think boxing is the one human endeavor where doing it less makes one more proficient...
And actually old timers fought for money AND to be great. After Ray Robinson won the 147 crown the VERY FIRST THING he and his trainer George Gainford agreed to was that he had to stay active and sharp. More broadly up until about the 1960's there were really only two sports where a gifted athlete could make big money. Baseball and boxing. Greb and Walker and Ross etc made fortunes and lived like kings.
But in the end the WHY of the frequency of fighting doesn't matter. One either fights frequently and becomes expert or one doesn't and one doesn't...or one is a .0000000001 % freak.
