I was looking at the records of old timey boxer from the turn of the 20th century and I was surprised to see how often boxers competed. For example, look at Jack Dillon's career. In 1914, he averaged roughly 2 fights per month.
None of todays fighters have the gumption and guts to fight that often. They are too busy calling each other chicken while they are doing the ducking and demanding silly catch weights and ridiculously unfair purse bids.
Boxers frequency of fights
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15181
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Boxers frequency of fights
It used to be quite common for fighters to fight more than 100 fights as late as the 1950s. And of course there are examples of fighters with 200 or more.
There are several reasons why some fighters fought so often. Some of them:
- A loss did not hurt you as much then. The all important "0" in the loss column of a fighter's record was not that important.
-There weren't all the WBS titles that we have today. With four titles, a contender now just bides his time knowing he will eventually get a title shot. With only one champion, the contenders would fight each other, knowing they could make more $ fighting another contender, and would likely get a title shot if they beat enough other contenders.
-There simply were more fighters and many more places to fight. A fighter had more options.
-Pre-televison, almost all fighters had to fight a lot to make it financially.
It is actually easier to rate fighters in the first half of the 20th century. There usually was much more evidence to show how good someone was. fighters fought more and the top guys fought each other much more often. It's not like now where a guy can be 25-0 or whatever, and it's hard to say how good he really is. The networks may hype him as being undefeated or having some title, but he may not be that good.
There are several reasons why some fighters fought so often. Some of them:
- A loss did not hurt you as much then. The all important "0" in the loss column of a fighter's record was not that important.
-There weren't all the WBS titles that we have today. With four titles, a contender now just bides his time knowing he will eventually get a title shot. With only one champion, the contenders would fight each other, knowing they could make more $ fighting another contender, and would likely get a title shot if they beat enough other contenders.
-There simply were more fighters and many more places to fight. A fighter had more options.
-Pre-televison, almost all fighters had to fight a lot to make it financially.
It is actually easier to rate fighters in the first half of the 20th century. There usually was much more evidence to show how good someone was. fighters fought more and the top guys fought each other much more often. It's not like now where a guy can be 25-0 or whatever, and it's hard to say how good he really is. The networks may hype him as being undefeated or having some title, but he may not be that good.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Boxers frequency of fights
It's all about money. Old timers wouldn't do it today and modern fighters would have had to then.
-
TBEwasLangford
- Welterweight
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 04 Feb 2016, 18:12
Re: Boxers frequency of fights
No point elite boxers fighting regularly anymore. Look at even relative novices like Anthony Joshua.. made estimated 3 million sterling last fight.. would probably harm him from money perspective if they diluted his volume of fights. Look at Joe Gans he fought Langford the day after a 6 rounder, travelling by train in the morning! If he lived nowadays would be ruling Light to WW having 2 fights a year.