BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 17:10 You also have to look at their ages. Many of these guys had a 100 plus fights, but were not that old.
Only two of Marciano's opponents had 100 plus fights. Moore of course had a ton. Charles has 122. However, he was a great defensive fighter. He had serious health problems that may have had something to do with boxing. Walcott had 72. Louis has 71. Layne had 70. La Starza had 66. Marciano himself had 49.

Cleveland Williams had 97 fights. Zora Folley had 96. Chuvalo had 93. Eddie Machen 64. Patterson had 64.
So no, there wasn't a sudden movement of guys having less fights in the 1960s. No sure where you getting these bizarre conclusions.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 19:42 Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

p4p1 wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 19:42 Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 12:44
It not like in the !960s, all of a sudden everyone stopped fighting as often. To actually think that fighters must not have punched as hard because most modern fighters fight less often is beyond stupid.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:32

p4p1 wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:11

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 19:42 Furthermore, one has to concede that even the ATG's had a certain percentage of tiersmen and journeymen on their records. They'd fight maybe 10 times or more a year but at least 4 or 5 of them were no hopers.

Take Harry Greb's remarkable year of 1919 where he went 45-0 (Floyd Mayweather was 50-0 over 18 years) and while most of that year was spent on legitimate guys there still was at least 8 or 9 guys who were strictly made from cheese. That's 17-20% of the matches being against soft opposition.

So if it's puzzling why people had long careers, or had such high numbers in comparison to modern guys, without much damage being done you have to figure 20% or higher of the matches were probably walkovers.

I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Jul 2023, 08:32

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:32

p4p1 wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:11
I think you have at least party hit the nail on there head there. It's hard not to believe that at least for some of the top guys a good amount of these fights were nothing more than glorified sparring. Against as you said 'no hopers' some against mid-level opponents. You've estimated 20% as being walkovers but I suspect it would actually be higher than that, not because they were all bums but because the difference between the best guy and the guy ranked 11th-30th is often night and day. Roy Jones for example had a lot of title fights that were legitimate-ish contenders but had no hope against Jones.
I know it was a lot different in those days and I am sure that on some level everyone knew where they stood. If you're fighting that often there is probably no need to spar, which is another way they could have saved themselves from a bit of damage.

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Yes I agree, lots of very padded records out there. As you say there a journeymen recently who have had hundreds of fights so it can be done but of course they rarely are in wars or taking much punishment, if they were they couldn’t do it

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑04 Jul 2023, 08:57

Controversial wrote: ↑04 Jul 2023, 08:32

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑03 Jul 2023, 22:32

That is also true especially in that 1890-1920 timeframe.

There was a lot of guys who mutually agreed beforehand to just waltz around the ring, going to a draw, or a no decision depending on the jurisdiction to get a relatively easy payday on the promise they'd rematch later for keeps.

It was also true, to an extent, for championship fights. The thought process then was the longer a fight went, the more film, therefore it was worth more. So you'd have a lot of guys basically sparring for ten rounds and then they'd start to cut loose.

Think Johnson-Ketchell. They mutually agreed beforehand to not really mix it up, so they'd both make a ton of money off the film. Ketchell tried to double cross Johnson because he thought it was his best shot, when the champion had his guard down. It didn't work, but that only could've been attempted in the first place because of the prior agreement to spar.

In more recent years I'm reminded of guys like Reggie Strickland. He'd travel with a troupe of fighters he managed, and they'd all compete on the same cards often against each other and they'd agree to either spar to a draw or hand each other wins, just so they could keep fighting and getting paydays down the road against better opposition.

Yes I agree, lots of very padded records out there. As you say there a journeymen recently who have had hundreds of fights so it can be done but of course they rarely are in wars or taking much punishment, if they were they couldn’t do it

I will say this, for further clarity on the journeyman issue anyways... a lot of guys who used to exist having triple digit losses... were essentially runners, or constantly on defense. They rarely ever opened up. Not because they couldn't but because at some point in their careers they decided it was more financially lucrative to just drop decisions because they'd get a call a week later or two weeks later and they'd drop another decision.

Now, some guys were far better than their records showed. Reggie Strickland purposely would lose 10 or 20 matches, only to bet on himself against some 10-0 or 20-0 prospect and give the upstart a boxing lesson, collect his money and then get out of town asap.

As far as standard run of the mill journeymen who were like 10-10-0, 5-4-2, 25-15-3, etc they often got blew out early so even though they were stopped they actually took far less punishment than guys like Holyfield. So that's why you had guys like Danny Wofford or Frankie Hines or Donnie Pendleton having over 100 matches but still sharp as a tack mentally.

Even today you can mutually agree to a no-contest. Every once in a great while you will come across a fight that the result was a no-contest, and when you look at the reasons why it will say, "Both parties agreed to a no-contest prior to the bout." Like it never even happened, though everybody is getting paid.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑04 Jul 2023, 13:16 This makes me think of Ingemar Johansson. As a pro he never fought any one with a losing record. And his career was awfully short in comparison to many title holders or contenders past or present. It makes me wonder if bypassing the journeymen, etc made his career wind down faster than you'd expect.

Ezzard wrote: ↑04 Jul 2023, 12:23 Are today's fighters fitter and stronger at fighting 12 rounds 2-3 times per year - yes.

Were old-timers fitter and stronger at fighting 6, 8, 10,, 15 or even 45 rounds multiple times per year - yes.