Have standards slipped?

Thoughts please...

There are fewer registered pros ((in the world) I've heard this, although I dispute the statistic) today than in 1950

Does this mean standards have slipped and fallen?

Alternatively, is it that we lack the rubbish fighters of yesteryear - the 2-128-2 records - people who would box to earn spare change but would mostly just get a pasting; whilst the talent pool at the top remains unchanged?

My personal thought is that sometimes older fighters are allowed too much slack in being immune from criticism. I also refute the notion you can accurately assess anyone who you haven't seen box. I feel that today, boxing is probably the ONLY sport in the world where a young pro coming through could not become "the greatest ever" as memories are so firmly and fondly tied to certain fighters; Robinson and Ali.

I still think they were great though.

So tell me - is the dwindling talent pool evidence of a decline in the level of the sport? Or does it mean nothing at all?

Standards have improved. What has slipped is pitting fighters against one another who are more or less equal. It just doesn't happen. The 0 is now seen to be the be all and end all. Sometimes a fighter learns more from defeat than winning against bums. Look at Khan as a case in point.

The falling number of professionals certainly isn't a myth, and there is plenty of solid evidence to back it up. I can't link anything right now, but I think that Bob Mee's 'Boxing Record Year Books' provide excellent proof and analysis of this.

I do think that the standard of the sport, as a whole, has dropped. I think that the very, very top fighters of the last ten to fifteen years (Pacquiao, Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins, Lewis and so on) are genuine greats who could compete in any era. For me though, the crux of the argument is the depth beneath them. I simply don't think that the 'talent pool' in any division is as deep as they used to be these days.

Without trying to get too much in to the technicalities of it all (because I've typed it so many times now), it is also unfair to compare boxing with other sports in regards to the 'modern methods' and 'advances' that these other sports have seen. Training in boxing today is largely the same as it was in Jim Jeffries' day, and what's more, modern training won't improve other factors such as the ability to anticipate a punch, to judge distances, to have bottle and character at key moments, to think under pressure and so on, all of which are vital parts of the sport.

The proliferation of titles and weight classes hasn't helped much, either. For instance, we can't realistically compare Bob Fitzsimmons knocking out a genuinely great, undisputed (at that time) Middleweight champion in his prime (Dempsey) and then stepping up to Heavyweight and knocking out 'the man' in the division in Corbett to Roy Jones' achievement of outpointing a brilliant (but green and inexperienced) Hopkins for a vacant portion of a title and then eventually moving up to Heavyweight to outpoint a game but colourless performer in Ruiz (who we've only heard of because of Don King) for, once again, a mere portion of the crown. World titles mean less now, it's undeniable, and as great as the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao are, they have never been world champions in the same sense as Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong or Joe Louis; they are merely WBC, WBA or IBF Champions.

There are still great fighters around, and I think that some of today's fighters could be the great old times, and vice versa of course. But as a whole, taking everything in to account, the standard of boxing has certainly slipped as far as I'm concerned.

Ox think you know my opinions on this that are firmly that standards have slipped. But without going into too much depth will give my reasons.

Firstly fighters are not matched tough enough lest they lose their unbeaten records. Look at Danny Jacobs, had no idea what to do when he got clipped because he simply did not have the schooling on the way up, Burley and Robbo were both matched with Zivic in their first couple of years as a pro, this would not happen now.

Fighters don't fight often enough, fighters now are commonly old men by the time they have the experience 50 fights gives you so their body cannot do what their experience wants to do, back in the old days a fighter would have 50 fights experience whilst he still had his youth, speed and mobility, experience and physical fitness is surely better than either experience or physical fitness in isolation.

Because top tier fighters fight so infrequently they can afford to neglect defence because injuries or cuts are not as important, as such such skills as slipping punches and working in close have largely been lost.

There are countless other reasons I think the sport has regressed but those interested would do well to read Mike Silvers Arc of Boxing or those who don't fancy re-mortgaging the house to buy it could do worse than read the following link

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

Thanks for the replies folks.

I would ask this though;

Although I believe that there are fewer US boxers now than ever before - and probably the same in the UK too...

What about regions where boxing is growing? Eastern Europe, Germany, Russia, South east Asia? Does the rise in boxers from those shores make up for the loss to the talent pool from the USA?

oxring wrote:Thanks for the replies folks.

I would ask this though;

Although I believe that there are fewer US boxers now than ever before - and probably the same in the UK too...

What about regions where boxing is growing? Eastern Europe, Germany, Russia, South east Asia? Does the rise in boxers from those shores make up for the loss to the talent pool from the USA?

Actually the future of boxing in the UK seem very good. Some cracking fighters, both established and up and coming. As for the eastern Euro boxers, the problem is they dont speak English or Spanish; traditionally the biggest viewers of boxing. But just as importantly, is that they lack charisma and are quite frankly BORING both in and out of the ring. Tell me the last time either of the Klits got you on the edge of your seat (except for when Wlad was being bounced up and down).

There's a Russian middleweight who looks very exciting though. Cant recall his name though.

Matt Koborov?

I'm not sure about the charisma aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayden_Panettiere#Personal_life seems to see some charisma in Wlad.

My belief is that boxing is alive and flourishing in these countries - they sell out arenas in Germany for fun, even though they're both Ukrainian and the public seems to have taken them to heart.

Surely its the absence of the oxygen of publicity in the west that provides the illusion of a dying sport and the illusion that current fighters aren't charismatic?

When was the last time a boxer made the BACK page?

I think the politics and fragmentation of the sport at present has certainly been a problem. Its too easy to stage manage careers nowadays. Too many world titles, divisions etc - the same problems people bring up all the time. The sport has definately been sidelined as a result of this, ppv, social attitudes etc.

How much has top level talent fallen I think is very much up for debate. Various divisions will always peak and trough but has there been a drop off in an overall sense? America has lost ground witht he influx of ex Soviet pros entering the game and a more diluted talent pool. Its easier for an athlete to enter other sports in the U.S. Places like Mexico, Peurto Rico an Central America still turn out great fighters though especially in the lower weights.

I dont really like adopting an attitude that old is better than modern or vice versa because it leads to lack of objectivity and becomes a one way system. For some people theres no such thing as an overrated old fighter. All older era fighters were top class and even guys with mediocre records were still underrated and top class but never got the breaks. I dont really follow this mentality. I think there fighters in the past that were also very overrated while there are fighters now that are nderrated. The drastic changs in the dynamics of the sport over time though has made it next to impossible to accurately compare eras though.

oxring wrote:Matt Koborov?

I'm not sure about the charisma aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayden_Panettiere#Personal_life seems to see some charisma in Wlad.

My belief is that boxing is alive and flourishing in these countries - they sell out arenas in Germany for fun, even though they're both Ukrainian and the public seems to have taken them to heart.

Surely its the absence of the oxygen of publicity in the west that provides the illusion of a dying sport and the illusion that current fighters aren't charismatic?

When was the last time a boxer made the BACK page?

She's a sort. :love:

But seriously the Klits are boring both in and out of the ring (discounting Hayden's ring). Nothng controversial or colourful about either of them or most eastern euro boxers. All very robotic. Yes they sell 60,000 when they fight in Germany. Otkke also sold thousand when he fought. Are you suggesting he was exciting or had charisma?

Golota was popular because he was nuts and colourful. What you expect from a heavyweight. If he was around in his peak now, he would be selling PPV in the states for fun. Controversy sells. The best thing about the Klits is their entrance. After that they're a cure for insomnia (Hayden notwithstanding).

If anything I would say the 00's standards of the divisions below LMW are greater than in the 1990s, with Barrera, Pacquiao, Morales, JMM, Mosely, etc. There may not be that many show stopping names as a whole, but these periods come around every so often. Hopkins is a big ATG name, RJJ competed not long ago, JCC, Lennox Lewis - there is a strong contingent. Also, some future stars in Lopez, Gamboa, Donaire, Bradley etc. Rigondeaux and Donaire are showing some excellent counter punching skills, there is still real talent around.

Outside of the top 20-30, have standards declined? I'm not so sure, once you move to the more journeyman strata, ability is about the same. For Blighty, the 00's have been a relative boom period. Froch, Khan and Haye all near the top of their division, 5 current world champs and some hot domestic contests.

The number of world titles does water it all down a bit. These days its more about unifying titles and taking on the best in the division. At MW, by almost everyone's standards the top fighters are not world champs. Could argue the same about WW - absense of Cotto, Marge, Williams, Mayweather, etc.

MW is particularly weak - when effectively a blown-up WW is destroying the world MW champ - you know there's something wrong.

WW I think is quite strong - away from the titles. As in the mix there's Floyd, manny, cotto, marg, williams, mosley, and then the second levle of berto et al.

Problem is - they're not all fighting each other! Which makes the scene look like a joke!

oxring wrote:MW is particularly weak - when effectively a blown-up WW is destroying the world MW champ - you know there's something wrong.

WW I think is quite strong - away from the titles. As in the mix there's Floyd, manny, cotto, marg, williams, mosley, and then the second levle of berto et al.

Problem is - they're not all fighting each other! Which makes the scene look like a joke!

The Welterweight division has become weak I think. Cotto is at LMW. Margarito is also at LMW and has been beaten to the sidelines. Williams is now at MW and was knocked out cold in his last fight. Mosely is 40 now. Looked awful in his last fight with Mora and could well be sent into retirement by Pacquiao. Mayweather is AWOL.

Pacquaio looks like he will settle on WW as his division. That just leaves Berto really and the possibility of Mayweather returning. Its not the division it was 2/3 years ago.

The gap between rich and poor has narrowed over the last 100 years...I mean trying to get healthcare was a waste of time back then and up until the last few decades was a nightmare, benefits were few and barely existant and alot of companies still wouldn't employ blacks or if they did hired them with slave wages!!

There isn't as many professionals now because there isn't as much of a pressing need for these guys to fight...A sign of the times if you like...Not life and death anymore!

Obviously schooling these days is better but it isn't to say speed of punch, movement is any better and that the greats of the past wouldn't have done as much damage. It's just that boxers are more technically sound and they would have struggled a bit more!

88Chris05 wrote:The falling number of professionals certainly isn't a myth, and there is plenty of solid evidence to back it up. I can't link anything right now, but I think that Bob Mee's 'Boxing Record Year Books' provide excellent proof and analysis of this.

I do think that the standard of the sport, as a whole, has dropped. I think that the very, very top fighters of the last ten to fifteen years (Pacquiao, Mayweather, Jones, Hopkins, Lewis and so on) are genuine greats who could compete in any era. For me though, the crux of the argument is the depth beneath them. I simply don't think that the 'talent pool' in any division is as deep as they used to be these days.

Without trying to get too much in to the technicalities of it all (because I've typed it so many times now), it is also unfair to compare boxing with other sports in regards to the 'modern methods' and 'advances' that these other sports have seen. Training in boxing today is largely the same as it was in Jim Jeffries' day, and what's more, modern training won't improve other factors such as the ability to anticipate a punch, to judge distances, to have bottle and character at key moments, to think under pressure and so on, all of which are vital parts of the sport.

The proliferation of titles and weight classes hasn't helped much, either. For instance, we can't realistically compare Bob Fitzsimmons knocking out a genuinely great, undisputed (at that time) Middleweight champion in his prime (Dempsey) and then stepping up to Heavyweight and knocking out 'the man' in the division in Corbett to Roy Jones' achievement of outpointing a brilliant (but green and inexperienced) Hopkins for a vacant portion of a title and then eventually moving up to Heavyweight to outpoint a game but colourless performer in Ruiz (who we've only heard of because of Don King) for, once again, a mere portion of the crown. World titles mean less now, it's undeniable, and as great as the likes of Mayweather and Pacquiao are, they have never been world champions in the same sense as Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong or Joe Louis; they are merely WBC, WBA or IBF Champions.

There are still great fighters around, and I think that some of today's fighters could be the great old times, and vice versa of course. But as a whole, taking everything in to account, the standard of boxing has certainly slipped as far as I'm concerned.

have to agree with you in general, except about training tecnuiques, which have come on leaps and bounds. i think another reason there seemed to be better fighters in the old days is that the ref wasn't as likely to stop a fight so fighters had to dig alot deeper than today when they got in trouble, and its the fights where a boxer comes back from behind that people remember

What training techniques relevant to boxing?

i think it comes down to the money

Back in the 50's, many more of the boxers were of poor backgrounds than nowadays and boxing was everything to them, you could say for this reason boxers then had more heart and determination

also a boxers resume makes up most of their legacy and a lot more negotiatiosn break down for big fights because the money is wrong in the 21st century

however i do think the talent pool in the middle/ lower ability level of boxing is the same but the talent pool at the very top of the game because big fights can't be made

zx1234 wrote:i think it comes down to the money

Back in the 50's, many more of the boxers were of poor backgrounds than nowadays and boxing was everything to them, you could say for this reason boxers then had more heart and determination

also a boxers resume makes up most of their legacy and a lot more negotiatiosn break down for big fights because the money is wrong in the 21st century

however i do think the talent pool in the middle/ lower ability level of boxing is the same but the talent pool at the very top of the game because big fights can't be made

Some very good points there