What effect did World War 2 have on boxing?

[Controversial]

What effect do you think World War 2 had on boxing, especially in America? Of course the USA joined WW2 in 1941 and were involved upto 1945, then in 1950-1953 they were fighting in Korea. Then obviously the Vietnam war from 1965-1975.

Some people have argued the heavyweight division in Marciano's time was filled with older fighters as most of the younger guys were off fighting, therefore the talent pool was diminished. The Korean War also falls into that era. Yet the heavyweight divisions greatest era was the 1960s-1970s and America was heavily involved in Vietnam.

Has anyone ever looked into this or have anything to contribute to that train of thought? Did WW2 and Korea have more of an effect on boxing that the Vietnam war did?

Obviously WW2 had a huge impact on Europe so there must have been a dramatic fall in the amount of young guys boxing, with millions of men killed or seriously injured during 1939-45.

EDIT:

Just looking on Wikipedia about American casualties -

WW2: 405,399 killed and 670,846 wounded
Korea: 36,416 killed and 92,134 wounded
Vietnam: 58,209 killed and 153,303 wounded

Total American casualties in WW2, Korea and Vietnam: 500,024 killed and 916,283 injured. Of course the figures don't include all the men that came back with no physical injuries but were mentally ruined with post-traumatic stress disorder, mental health problems and the huge amounts who would later commit suicide.

[Rover]

WWII caused Louis/Conn II to occur way too late.

[dempseyfire]

WWII marked the beginning of the long decline of boxing in the United States, and also the rest of the developed world. New social programs created in the US (GI Bill and numerous reforms of the FDR administration) and Western Europe (the larger welfare state with universal healthcare) after the war created increased middle class populations (along with other economic conditions I won't get into in a boxing blog) and increased standards of living. With greater education, young men from poverty could go into fields beyond prizefighting to make a good living. With this, you had less and less people boxing and thus the sport going into precipitous decline, with more and more clubs and gyms closing (TV also helped kill the local club scene as people could stay home and watch the fights rather than go out to the city with a bunch of hooligans and watch it live).

Regarding WWII and Vietnam, you had MUCH heavier involvement of the overall male population than WWII than in Vietnam, leading to less of a drop-off in fighters. In addition, although the upper tier of Heavyweights in the late 60s-early 70s was definitely one of, if not the greatest, upper tier of heavyweights in history (with Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Quarry), I'd argue the overall depth of the division, and the other divisions in boxing, paled with what existed prior to the post-WWII transformation.

[Controversial]

dempseyfire regarding Marciano's era do you think that many of the top fighters like Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore etc.. were only at the top of the rankings because of the lack of young fighters in general due to the war? They were certainly older than the top tier heavyweights of the 60s/70s.

[dempseyfire]

dempseyfire regarding Marciano's era do you think that many of the top fighters like Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore etc.. were only at the top of the rankings because of the lack of young fighters in general due to the war? They were certainly older than the top tier heavyweights of the 60s/70s.

I think the GI Bill and Korea did result in a temporary minor dearth in talent, but it also just happened by chance and the quality of those older fighters. Walcott didn't get proper management until his mid 30s and his incredible discipline and skills enabled him to prosper into his late 30s. Charles and Moore were lb for lb some of the greatest fighers ever. And people forget that Moore and Charles beat a very talented crop of younger African-American heavyweights in the period that often get overlooked like Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Elmer Ray, all of whom would have been top contenders in the 60s and 70s . . and then you have guys like Coley Wallace,Embrell Davidson and Johnny Holman, who wern't world beaters but were well schooled, well conditioned punchers.

[Expug]

Very interesting topic.
Dempseyfires posts on the subject are outstanding.

I agree also with him that there was greater talent depth pre WWII in the lighter divisions.
Do you think that the greater depth in talent in the heavyweights at that time may also be due to Lightheavies going up and down in the divisions as Billy Conn did. There was less of that in the Nam era I think.

[-KOKid-]

According to a book I read recently, more than 4000 pro boxers were drafted into the US Armed Forces during WWII.
One would suspect that there was a good number of amateurs as well.
Many of those boxers who were drafted never fought again, either due to better job opportunities after their service, death or injury suffered in combat.

It is well known that the 1930s was the busiest decade in boxing history in terms of fights and active fighters.
Various estimates have the number of competing pros (world wide) at 50,000 or so.
According to The Ring, there were approx 20,000 pro fighters world wide in 1950, so the drop off from pre-WWII to post-WWII appears to be quite significant, with WWII certainly doing it's part.

[dempseyfire]

Very interesting topic.
Dempseyfires posts on the subject are outstanding.

I agree also with him that there was greater talent depth pre WWII in the lighter divisions.
Do you think that the greater depth in talent in the heavyweights at that time may also be due to Lightheavies going up and down in the divisions as Billy Conn did. There was less of that in the Nam era I think.

I think you had a few more guys jumping up from 175 to HW b/c guys turned professional so much earlier back then. So you'd have someone who at 19, 20, 21 years old could fight at middle or light HW, but by 23 had grown into being HWs . . .lots of Holyfield-sized guys in that regard; Bob Pastor is a great example. But the 2 divisions always had inter-matchups through the 60s (Bob Foster tried his hand at HW before winning the 175 lb, plus you had guys like Doug Jones, Pastrano, Peralta etc.)
By the 1970s I think 175 lb champions were making enough money (it had never had the prestige, and thus the marketing power/$, of a middle, welter or heavyweight title) that fighters would make more clear "either/or" choices about what weight class they wanted to campaign in, and only the most successful guys (like Mike Spinks, Jones Jr) or guys who couldn't control their eating (Cysz, Toney) ended up moving up to HW.

[Ambling Alp II]

Interesting topic. I meant to comment on this sooner. I don't think the sport suffered much long-term impact from World War II.
We did miss out some fights during the war; ie Tony Zale would have had some middleweight title defenses and obviously Joe louis would have had some heavyweight title defenses. A Louis-Bivins fight may have been interesting and may have occurred during this time.

However, the sport seemed to have bounced right back after WW II. The late 1940s and early 1950s were a strong period.
True, there was little depth in the heavyweight division in the late 1940s. However, there was very little depth in the early 1940s as well.The early 1950s had some decent depth in the heavyweight division.
There were some great fighters in the lower divisions in the late 1940s and early 1950s. You have the Pep-Saddler rivalry and some great lightweights in this period.

[klompton]

It almost completely shut down the filming of fights. Very fights exist from this era and most are home productions, not professionally filmed.

[DavidKehler]

The decline in the filming of bouts occurred because material used in the manufacture of films was needed more in the war effort.

[DavidKehler]

A major effect of the war was the diminishing of the audience available to attend boxing matches, as spectators at bouts were overwhelmingly male, and millions of guys were abroad in the service. Similarly, the radio audience was diminished. Further, nighttime blackouts in coastal areas put a crimp on all evening entertainment venues in locales where blackouts were imposed.

The "freezing" of championships for the duration of the war impeded the career progressions of major contenders and diminished the significance of bouts that might have been considered, in other eras, to be elimination matches for title shots. Other major sports continued to hold championship contests during the war, such as baseball.

[wsbuf]

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Categ ... I_Veterans

lost some young fighters

[HomicideHenry]

WW2 put a freeze on the linear championships. However it did give the sport a chance, in a sense, to regroup and find new contenders. When Joe Louis and Billy Conn entered the service, for example, a series of state champions were declared, and each of these men held a portion of the American World title. An eliminator(s) was done in the interim to round out the top ten. It also helped small time promoters to get a foot hold in the business; while Louis was away, believe it or not, a 'white hope' tournament was thrown together with over 100 men competing. The winner of this tournament was none other than future Louis and Marciano victim Lee Savold, whom the BBBC recognized as world heavyweight champion because of this 'white hope' interim tournament. When Louis would face Ezzard Charles and lose, the BBBC took recognition from Lee Savold and put the title on Charles (at last).

More or less this same approach in one degree or another was done for all the other weight divisions. It was the only way of keeping boxing afloat when the rest of the world was in chaos; and it also helped when Louis, or these other champions like Gus Lesnevich, would appear in movie serials and would do exhibitions for the troops and would make comments now and then "I can't wait to come home and defend the belts against the interim champion," etc. But I think the biggest impact on the sport because of the war was that, it effected everyone in sports and because our heroes went to war with the rest of us, it made us all feel like we were all in the same boat, no man was better than the other. There was that feeling of brotherhood, and though it didnt seem to have the great impact of success as it did on Billy Conn, Joe Louis became an even bigger superstar because of his service in WW2 than when he was doing knockouts.

However, as I stated earlier, it did help alot of guys who were overlooked prior to the war, to get that chance to become something more noticeable and appreciated, and of course, make more money and have more opprotunities, while the top men were away. As bad as the war was for the world in many aspects, as far as boxing goes it helped make journeymen into contenders, two bit promoters have a seat at the bargaining table, and make guys who were ducked, overlooked, etc. into stars such as Elmer Ray, Turkey Thompson, etc. though they never would get shots at the world title.

[Controversial]

Thought I resurrect this thread as it interests me.

[Ambling Alp II]

We missed out on some potentially great fights during the early 1940s. However, the sport bounced right back after the War.

[CNorkusJr]

Interesting topic. I meant to comment on this sooner. I don't think the sport suffered much long-term impact from World War II.
We did miss out some fights during the war; ie Tony Zale would have had some middleweight title defenses and obviously Joe louis would have had some heavyweight title defenses. A Louis-Bivins fight may have been interesting and may have occurred during this time.

However, the sport seemed to have bounced right back after WW II. The late 1940s and early 1950s were a strong period.
True, there was little depth in the heavyweight division in the late 1940s. However, there was very little depth in the early 1940s as well.The early 1950s had some decent depth in the heavyweight division.
There were some great fighters in the lower divisions in the late 1940s and early 1950s. You have the Pep-Saddler rivalry and some great lightweights in this period.

Just saw this thread for the first time and is quite interesting. My father was right in the middle of all this. Having graduated from High School in NYC in June 1946, he missed the majority of the war (or the greater part of battle). Already a touted amateur in the NYC area, he wanted to enlist with several friends from HS into the US Marines. At that time, the military made some kind of promise that if you enlisted with friends, you will all be pretty much kept togeher until different details might split you apart. My father never joined to box. It pretty much found him, when having boxing matches during basic training at Parris Island, he was pounding everyone in sight including drill instructors that "offered" thenselves up. When the Base Commander heard of my fathers exploits, he made a call to NY and found out he was a good amateur.

After another call to a Marine Colonel-The base commander himself asked my father if he wanted to box on the Marine Boxing Squad- (As it was,they had a spot open for a Heavyweight). The rest pretty much fed itself into an very good Amateur career in the Service concluding with the 1948 US Marine Heavy Championship and US Naval and All Services Champion titles won in San Diego in 1948. He was immediately sent to Washington DC to be detailed to the DC Armory where I was told all service men trained for the upcoming 1948 Olympic Trials. My father fought Coley Wallace in Boston and lost in the Qtr Finals at Boston Gardens (my father had him down for two 9-counts though). Wallace was defeated eventually by Norvel Lee who went to London to lose in his medal bid.

Asked to re-up, my father turned pro to "make money" compared to Marine pay. Too numerous to mention here, my father could rattle off many names of fighters who turned pro after their stint in WW II history.

Now I am not that well versed in numbers as I seen some mentioned in other posts, but I can tell you that TV was the biggest factor to live gate reductions. Clubs still were very much in business in late 40's (at least in NYC and NJ area)- but were soon fading as boxing became a second thought as other opportunities became available to others who might have went into the fight game. TV was a double edged sword. A main event in St Nicks or Pwy Arena might get you 500-1,000 dollars depending on live gate attendance and no TV, A TV bout got each Main Event fighter $5,000 plus any gate agreement on top of that (of course minus corner fees and newspaper pay-offs,gym fees)(many times taxes were not paid by mgr as promised and fighters got whacked later on).

But getting back on subject- Whoever mentioned TV chilled live boxing was definetly correct, GI bill and schooling loped off more guys, but many fighters did time in the service proudly- Heroes like Danny Nardico (gold star), US Marine Champ of 1952 Pat McMurtry of Tacoma,WA and Ken Norton another Marine Champ. I remember my father telling me name after name of fighters of all weights who he was with in the service in 1946. (By the way, my father received the WW II Campaign Medal for his time in Service.) If you want to win a bar bet- name the first time that two US Marine Champions ever fought against each other in the Pro ring ? Norkus vs McMurtry in 1958.
My father fought Nardico twice (a Marine but not Marine Champion).

Talking to my father and his description of competing in the top 20 of the Heavywt division for 6 of his 12 years, I got the impression that since there was only 8 divisions governing boxing, the talent pool was always rich with the heavier weights competing with a large talent pool. Making the top ten was the goal, to getting TV bouts and drawing a possibilty of title shot. The next ten guys vied for the 8th thru 10 spot to get better paydays and catch the eye of the champ. Unfortunately, the mob decided many times what the rankings were and who was fighting who for how much which made the whole thing a crapshoot. You see guys who got title shots over guys who deserved them and other hokey pokey. But the talent pool in the 40's and 50's gave you enough contenders to compete for the sport overall. Each year that passed -names floated in and out of the 10-20 or 30 spots, and the cream rised to the top 10 anyway. If the war took 10,000 boxers away from the game, you would still have a top 20 giving you what you had anyway.

But I do agree that some of boxings biggest matches were delayed, postponed or never fought because of the incidentals of WW II.
But to look at that way-you must ask why is the reason that Paquiao and Mayweather never fought the big one, with no war involving them to keep it from happening. Boxing always was a fickled sport.

[Chuck1052]

Along with a number of other sports such as baseball and auto racing, professional boxing did quite well for the most part in the United States during the late 1940s. But there were some clouds on the horizon. There was the advent of television, which would do much in decreasing the number of people attending boxing shows. Besides getting good jobs right off the bat, so many veterans were going to college or getting vocational training as the result of the G.I. Bill on their way to having lucrative careers, all of which cut down on the number of potential professional boxers. Another important development was the tremendous number of people moving from the inner parts of cities into the suburbs, which meant they weren't living near the existing boxing clubs afterwards.

I read somewhere that the number of boxing clubs in the U.S. decreased from 250 or 300
to about 50 during the 1950s. Yet many people have very fond memories of boxing during that decade. I think it is due to the fact that large numbers of people saw quite a few bouts on television at the time. But with the disappearance of the boxing clubs, it meant that fewer boxers were being developed or were getting enough bouts to make a living.

Also keep this in mind......California had over one thousand professional boxing shows on a annual basis during the late 1920s. In recent years, California has had about one hundred professional boxing shows on an annual basis. Yet California has over six times the population at the present time than it did in 1930. If the number of professional boxing shows increased at the same rate in California from that time, there would be over six thousand professional boxing shows a year in the state now.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

Some very interesting observations covering a wide range of areas.

[Chuck1052]

Professional baseball, auto racing and professional boxing were hit hard by societal changes
and the advent of television in the United States by the 1950s. I have written about how boxing was affected by such changes in my last post on this thread.

During the 1950s, American professional baseball sustained huge decreases in attendance at both the minor and major league levels, wiping out many of the minor leagues or the minor league clubs. While all of major league clubs survived, several of them moved to other cities, including the St. Louis Browns to Baltimore, the Boston Braves to Milwaukee, the Brooklyn Dodgers to Los Angeles and the New York Giants to San Francisco during the 1950s.

In the case of auto racing in the United States, a staggering number of race tracks ceased to exist during the 1950s. It is probable that decreasing attendance and/or changing real estate trends doomed such tracks.

- Chuck Johnston

[Controversial]

I wonder how many of the 500,000 Americans killed in ww2 may have been boxers peaking in rockys era. Does this make his era weaker?

Thread bump, this might interest you cfang from the Marciano thread...

[cfang]

Thanks mate it really did!

[Tuan_Jim]

It's a bit of a leap to think that somewhere among the dead there would have been heavyweights, and among them world class heavyweights, and among them one good enough to topple Marciano. The statistical likelihood must be near zero.

[JC]

It's a bit of a leap to think that somewhere among the dead there would have been heavyweights, and among them world class heavyweights, and among them one good enough to topple Marciano. The statistical likelihood must be near zero.

Yes. Also most top fighters start boxing in childhood/adolescence, so it's not even about potential talent amongst that group, it would need to be someone who had already been training that talent for years before going off to fight.

[GoGoldenState!]

I have often wondered about how Joe Louis had so few fights against fellow black boxers early in his career? I know about the Jack Johnson backlash, and yes, he did defend against John Henry Lewis, but to the best of my knowledge, that was about it. Black fighters were prospering in other divisions; why not heavyweight? Dempsey had Harry Wills that he was accused of ducking. Why I wonder, did Louis not have a black boxer or two that he was accused of ducking. During the war, Jimmy Bivens, I believe, was known as the uncrowned champion. And he did fight black boxers (Charles and Walcott) after the war. I don't claim to be an expert on this era of boxing history, and I am curious to hear from someone who might know more than me. My Dad loved to talk about boxing history, and much of what I do know, I learned from him. I just regret I never posed the question about the lack of black heavyweights during Joe Louis' long title reign while he was still here to answer it.