Our Aging Sport

[marbleheadmaui]

Well I think with all the titles out there and its harder and harder to unify....I just think it takes longer for the bigger fights to happen.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with any of the number inputs does it? I mean do you think there are young guys who belong in the p4p top ten who can't get the right fights?

Well protecting the 0 has become THE issue in boxing....nobody (with the exception of guys that have already lost) is willing to take a risk these days.

TRUTH!

Makes for really mediocre fighters. I couldn't care less about unbeaten fighters. I care about great ones.

But dont you think we have kind of created this mindset. We are so critical these days when a fighter loses to someone that its gotta have an effect on the mindset of the fighter.

Do I think undereducated (defined as those who disagree with me in this matter)fans are at the core of boxing's issues? I do. Every time someone calls a strapholder a champion, a guy who loses "damaged goods" or argues an unbeaten record equals greatness an unscrupulous promoter calls up a sanctioning body head and crows "I told you these guys were that stupid! Now I gotta find an out of work 135 pound pipefitter to take on my latest 15-0 Cuban defector!"

I do think the tournaments at 168 and at 118 have stemmed the tide a little in that perhaps people now realize occasional losses to other top guys aren't all that meaningful.

I would like to see tournaments at all weight classes, like the 118 one mind you a simple single elimination bracket with each sanctioning body having a representative. Of course the WBA would have to have some kind of tourney on their own. I think bringing the clarity back of having real champs would be a great first step into making the sport back into something the public can understand. Hell even my wife see's through the "but this is a championship fight" case I set forth "They are all title fights" she says, and I can't argue with that.

As too the aging thing, it just seems like it's kind of following the trendline. People that are older are doing more in general and maintaining a peak level longer. Although there is certainly some truth to a lack of dominant talent in the younger guys, a lot of that ties to two things IMO.

1. The amateur system has nothing to do with the pro system, in the old days if a fighter went the am route they could have hundreds of fights that emulated a pro fight, now with the point system a whole different emphasis that doesn't translate into the pros is used. Therefore, we have a system of protection in place that gives young fighters time to relearn their craft.

2. Fighters for the most part are just not as active, as you get into the elite of Cruisers and Heavies a lot of these guys will only fight once a year. IMO if a fighter is capable of it they should be in the ring at least once every 3 months.

Nice post.

[marbleheadmaui]

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

[marbleheadmaui]

I'm sure there are a ton of tv friendly fighters out there who just don't get the exposure that would credit the sport.

Maybe but so what? That doesn't explain the aging at the top of the game does it?

[marbleheadmaui]

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I think that one possible reason that I posted in another thread is a lack of consistency in who trains them. I said in another thread that I don't believe it is just coincidence that those present fighters who have the most 'craft' are those who have been around the same group of people from when they first put on the gloves to the present day so there is a consistency of teaching. This is true for Mayweather with his uncles & father, Hopkins with Bouie Fisher & then Nazim, both Marquez bros & Nacho (& Zaragoza in Rafa's case who was a student of Nacho) & Ward with Virgil Hunter.

I think there has become a culture of thinking you need to go to a Roach or Steward to improve. Not that they don't necessarily do that, but I think in a number of cases, they have far less effect. For me, Amir Khan now has simply gone back more to how he used to be in the amateurs, whereas early in his pro career he seemed to think that as he didn't have to worry about losing points for getting hit anymore so he just stood in front of opponents & let off quick combos. Oscar De La Hoya went through about half a dozen trainers after leaving his amateur trainer who started him in the pros (I think he was called Victor Salazar), but the only one you could argue actually improved him was Floyd Sr.

The experience obviously plays a factor, but I think it's simplistic to say fighters are all just less skilled nowadays. I think Killer's post was probably the one that addressed why it might be.

Good thought. On your last, it may be simplistic, but it ain't wrong

[Fenster]

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

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?

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[generalbulldog]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

[marbleheadmaui]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

I hate it when that happens!

[Fenster]

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.

Right, so basically we are back to - less fights means less skill/craft.

But the number of fights must be crammed into as short a time as possible. Because 30+ guys are no longer in their physical prime so can never match the performance of expertly trained young guys.

However, sadly there is a serious dearth of knowledgable trainers around anyway. Which means the fighters and trainers today are mere minnows compared with men from the past.

Boxing is doomed.

Oh, Marble, how we long for the good old days

[Fenster]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

Your posts have gone weird lately.

You on the drugs?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

I'm sure there are a ton of tv friendly fighters out there who just don't get the exposure that would credit the sport.

Maybe but so what? That doesn't explain the aging at the top of the game does it?

Easy tiger.

I guess my post was kinda in conjunction with what Lyle touched on earlier with regards to Fighters/ promoters protecting that '0'...

The networks put to much value on these young fighters with unbeaten records which to me, is a extremely toxic corporate virtue. We know this has had an affect on the casual viewer over recent years; they see this young over-hyped unbeaten guy loose to an unheralded fighter and then all interest is lost and so then the Network are in pursuit of the next Young Network Idol... Which basically to me looks like a downward spiral. Because ultimately, it's TV that governs Boxing.

I also don't like how P4P gets used, like a glorified popularity contest to market the top fighters of the sport. Fighters, fans and networks all pervert the true essence of 'Pound for Pound' to use it almost as a league table, like the Premier League. For example, Floyd Mayweather's fight against Manuel Marquez (Numero Uno) was the biggest perversion of the essence of 'Pound for Pound' from a fighters perspective.

So anyway, I guess the way I see it, the younger fighters aren't really getting the fights they, as fighters need and boxing is suffering because these younger fighters are too overprotected. Also the old guys are hanging tough because they have had proper careers ie tough breaks, hard knocks and they really know how to fight. They are showing true skills while basking in what maybe the only the spoils of a long hard career... Significance.

Andre Ward has had a handful of significant wins in a short amount of time and is currently displaying some of the finest skills boxing has to offer, yet 90% of fans wont have him in their top 5 because they are probably waiting for him to win some more fights... Which is madness. The skills are their now just as they will be when he's 35.

[marbleheadmaui]

I'm sure there are a ton of tv friendly fighters out there who just don't get the exposure that would credit the sport.

Maybe but so what? That doesn't explain the aging at the top of the game does it?

Easy tiger.

I guess my post was kinda in conjunction with what Lyle touched on earlier with regards to Fighters/ promoters protecting that '0'...

The networks put to much value on these young fighters with unbeaten records which to me, is a extremely toxic corporate virtue. We know this has had an affect on the casual viewer over recent years; they see this young over-hyped unbeaten guy loose to an unheralded fighter and then all interest is lost and so then the Network are in pursuit of the next Young Network Idol... Which basically to me looks like a downward spiral. Because ultimately, it's TV that governs Boxing.

I also don't like how P4P gets used, like a glorified popularity contest to market the top fighters of the sport. Fighters, fans and networks all pervert the true essence of 'Pound for Pound' to use it almost as a league table, like the Premier League. For example, Floyd Mayweather's fight against Manuel Marquez (Numero Uno) was the biggest perversion of the essence of 'Pound for Pound' from a fighters perspective.

So anyway, I guess the way I see it, the younger fighters aren't really getting the fights they, as fighters need and boxing is suffering because these younger fighters are too overprotected. Also the old guys are hanging tough because they have had proper careers ie tough breaks, hard knocks and they really know how to fight. They are showing true skills while basking in what maybe the only the spoils of a long hard career... Significance.

Andre Ward has had a handful of significant wins in a short amount of time and is currently displaying some of the finest skills boxing has to offer, yet 90% of fans wont have him in their top 5 because they are probably waiting for him to win some more fights... Which is madness. The skills are their now just as they will be when he's 35.

Very nice post.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

Right, so basically we are back to - less fights means less skill/craft.

But the number of fights must be crammed into as short a time as possible. Because 30+ guys are no longer in their physical prime so can never match the performance of expertly trained young guys.

However, sadly there is a serious dearth of knowledgable trainers around anyway. Which means the fighters and trainers today are mere minnows compared with men from the past.

Boxing is doomed.

Oh, Marble, how we long for the good old days

I am actually longing for an extended economic depression as a way of making so many people so poor that kids once again turn to boxing as a way to make a buck and local boxing clubs reappear because baseball/football/basketball tix are too expensive for most folks!

Now am I a fan or what?