Page 3 of 6
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 11:05
by Ambling Alp II
Why you are randomly ripping Ray Robinson (of all people) on a thread about how many fighters there used to be in strange.
Robinson was past his prime and early in a comeback when he fought Ralph Jones. Burley and Robinson were in the same weight class for a bout a year. Moore was much bigger than Robinson. You might as well rip Marvin Hagler for not fighting Michael Spinks or Carlos Monzon for not fighting Bob Foster.
Take a look Robinson's wins against contenders and champions throughout his long career. He beat more of them than any fighter whoever lived.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:08
by Kalan
Ambling Alp II wrote:Why you are randomly ripping Ray Robinson (of all people) on a thread about how many fighters there used to be in strange.
Robinson was past his prime and early in a comeback when he fought Ralph Jones. Burley and Robinson were in the same weight class for a bout a year. Moore was much bigger than Robinson. You might as well rip Marvin Hagler for not fighting Michael Spinks or Carlos Monzon for not fighting Bob Foster.
Take a look Robinson's wins against contenders and champions throughout his long career. He beat more of them than any fighter whoever lived.
I'm not randomly ripping Robinson. I'm doing a fair critique on him a somewhat mythical figure and hype job who has one of the most padded records in Boxing History. Hagler and Monzon never TRIED to fight Light Heavyweights of ANY ability. They never made runs at the LHW title. Had they tried to annex the LHW title -- and cherry-picked the weakest possible champions -- they would have been in for rightful criticism. But they weren't conniving.
Robinson DID make a run at the 175 title. He cherry-picked poor Joey Maxim who looked like an easy target due to his lack of speed, power, and athleticism. Maxim was a tough man. He fought a smarter fight than Robinson, conserving his strength in the heat for a late rounds surge. Not everyone you fight at the world level is a dummy who lets you use them as a chump to build your brand. Robinson refused lucrative offers to rematch Maxim after discovering he was no dub. And he refused all offers to fight Moore.
Robinson was in his prime when he was badly out-boxed by Ralph Jones. He was 33... Just fought a tune-up fight help bring him up to speed... before fighting pro for another dozen years and winning more Middleweight Titles from less than masterfully brilliant boxers.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:13
by Kalan
I also have to say that Middleweight Champion Dick Tiger has to be commended... After beating Jose Torres for the Light Heavyweight Title he probably was not extremely anxious to fight Bob Foster -- who was a devastating puncher who could box your ass off... Tiger bit the bullet and did his job.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:18
by armageto
Ambling Alp II wrote:Why you are randomly ripping Ray Robinson (of all people) on a thread about how many fighters there used to be in strange.
Because he is an idiot. I have him on my ignore list, so I can't see the garbage he is typing, but you see why he is there. If it's an American fighter, especially a black one, he will find idiotic ways to bash them.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 14:06
by Kalan
armageto wrote:Ambling Alp II wrote:Why you are randomly ripping Ray Robinson (of all people) on a thread about how many fighters there used to be in strange.
Because he is an idiot. I have him on my ignore list, so I can't see the garbage he is typing, but you see why he is there. If it's an American fighter, especially a black one, he will find idiotic ways to bash them.
You're the idiot Armageto, Tunney, Pep, Mayweather, Holmes, McCallum, Nunn, Foster, and most of my favorite fighters over the years have been Americans. A fair critique of a hype job is not bashing him. There are certain mythical legends who get a pass on their losses and less than stellar performances.
Robinson gets a pass for losing his Middleweight Title to Welterweight Champion Carmen Basilio---who had 12 losses on his record at the time---but when an Eastern European Middleweight Champion fights an undefeated Welterweight Champion who's 36-0, and stops him in 5 rounds to go 36-0 with 23 straight KO wins, he's a hype job who's being deified by the slathering media. I'm an American, but there's a double standard here that needs to be addressed.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 14:16
by armageto
Kalan, I'm sure you came back with a great response trying to mask your racist and ignorant views and such. Alas, you are on my blocked list and I can't read (Thankfully) the garbage that you are typing. Have a great anti-American day......

Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 13 Mar 2017, 14:36
by Kalan
I'm an American and the farthest thing from a racist... I fight against hatred of any kind, even that directed at Russians and Eastern Europeans... Have a great hear no evil, see no evil, ignore all evil day -- since you're living in the clouds and have no grasp on reality.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 09:32
by Bundana
Ambling Alp II wrote:But yes, there used to be many more boxing shows than there are now. New York City used to have several a week. Other major cities that abandoned boxing long ago, used to have cards frequently.
It's simply nowhere as near as popular sport as it once was.
I fail to see, how you can reach this conclusion... based on there being fewer shows in New York and other major cities, than in past decades.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 11:21
by Caractacus
Kalan wrote:That's perfectly okay... That just proves that Archie was aging when he fought Rocky... and he was only a Light Heavyweight... and he decked Rocky solidly... and he hammered Rocky with a lot of punches... and he fought Floyd Patterson the following year -- and couldn't do crap to him...
Archie Moore was only a "Light-Heavyweight"
He was physically a larger man then Marciano.
As a matter of fact In the Tale-of-the Tape,
he exceeded Marciano in every measurement other then maybe the thigh and calf.
(and which were about the same)
BTW there were many at ringside (including Moore's manager) who were always convinced that he threw the fight with Floyd Patterson.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 11:24
by Caractacus
What was the number of the adult male population in 1955 compared to today ?
and also remember and consider that there were really only 2 sports in America in 1955 that people gave a sh*t about
Boxing and Baseball (and possibly also Horse Racing)
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 12:51
by Kalan
Caractacus wrote:What was the number of the adult male population in 1955 compared to today ?
and also remember and consider that there were really only 2 sports in America in 1955 that people gave a sh*t about
Boxing and Baseball (and possibly also Horse Racing)
You're full of dingleberries... In 1955 Americans cared about Tennis, Horse Racing, Auto Racing, Baseball, Football, Basketball, Golf, Volleyball, Bowling, Fishing, Hunting, Wrestling, Judo, Karate, Skiing, Handball, Badmiton, Hockey, Figure Skating, Roller Skating, Archery, Gymnastics, Water Skiing, Track & Field, Boxing, Rodeo, Cycling, Diving, Table Tennis, and a hundred other sports.
There were also thousands of other hobbies and pursuits Americans could take up with their limited free time... They had a zillion things to do besides box.
And there were many more punch drunk fighters back in the 1950's than there are today because boxers fought too often back then and got trashed. They would throw kids into sparring the first day in the gym to see how tough they were. Today they wait weeks or months before they let kids spar. Most well off American parents wouldn't allow their kids to box. In the United States, boxing began to be populated almost exclusively with minorities, which were a much smaller segment of the population in those days... There are almost 100 million Latinos and Blacks in the US today.
And the fact that Boxing was an American dominated sport that hadn't gone global, tells you why there are so many more boxers today than in the 1950's
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 12:52
by Caractacus
Kalan wrote:Caractacus wrote:What was the number of the adult male population in 1955 compared to today ?
and also remember and consider that there were really only 2 sports in America in 1955 that people gave a sh*t about
Boxing and Baseball (and possibly also Horse Racing)
You're full of dingleberries... In 1955 Americans cared about Tennis, Horse Racing, Auto Racing, Baseball, Football, Basketball, Golf, Volleyball, Bowling, Fishing, Hunting, Wrestling, Judo, Karate, Skiing, Handball, Badmiton, Hockey, Figure Skating, Roller Skating, Archery, Gymnastics, Water Skiing, Track & Field, Boxing, Rodeo, Cycling, Diving, Table Tennis, and a hundred other sports.
There were also thousands of other hobbies and pursuits Americans could take up with their limited free time... They had a zillion things to do besides box.
And there were many more punch drunk fighters back in the 1950's than there are today because boxers fought too often back then and got trashed. They would throw kids into sparring the first day in the gym to see how tough they were. Today they wait weeks or months before they let kids spar. Most well off American parents wouldn't allow their kids to box. In the United States, boxing began to be populated almost exclusively with minorities, which were a much smaller segment of the population in those days... There are almost 100 million Latinos and Blacks in the US today.
And the fact that Boxing was an American dominated sport that hadn't gone global, tells you why there are so many more boxers today than in the 1950's
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 12:56
by Caractacus
Those sound like sports for rich people.
anyway I seem to remember that Colleges and even High Schools back then
still had boxing programmes.
I think I remember Carmen Basilio saying he took up boxing in High School
but after he graduduated they didnt teach it anymore and dropped it from High School circulum.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 12:58
by Caractacus
The population of the United States of America in 1955 was approx. 165.9 million people.
for comparative purposes the population today in the USA is approx 321 million people.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 14:32
by evrenb
Kalan wrote:Ambling Alp II wrote:Why you are randomly ripping Ray Robinson (of all people) on a thread about how many fighters there used to be in strange.
Robinson was past his prime and early in a comeback when he fought Ralph Jones. Burley and Robinson were in the same weight class for a bout a year. Moore was much bigger than Robinson. You might as well rip Marvin Hagler for not fighting Michael Spinks or Carlos Monzon for not fighting Bob Foster.
Take a look Robinson's wins against contenders and champions throughout his long career. He beat more of them than any fighter whoever lived.
I'm not randomly ripping Robinson. I'm doing a fair critique on him a somewhat mythical figure and hype job who has one of the most padded records in Boxing History. Hagler and Monzon never TRIED to fight Light Heavyweights of ANY ability. They never made runs at the LHW title. Had they tried to annex the LHW title -- and cherry-picked the weakest possible champions -- they would have been in for rightful criticism. But they weren't conniving.
Robinson DID make a run at the 175 title. He cherry-picked poor Joey Maxim who looked like an easy target due to his lack of speed, power, and athleticism. Maxim was a tough man. He fought a smarter fight than Robinson, conserving his strength in the heat for a late rounds surge. Not everyone you fight at the world level is a dummy who lets you use them as a chump to build your brand. Robinson refused lucrative offers to rematch Maxim after discovering he was no dub. And he refused all offers to fight Moore.
Robinson was in his prime when he was badly out-boxed by Ralph Jones. He was 33... Just fought a tune-up fight help bring him up to speed... before fighting pro for another dozen years and winning more Middleweight Titles from less than masterfully brilliant boxers.
Robinson was not in his prime at 33...that is utter garbage. And you know it. Robinson was prime at welterweight. He had over 130 fights by then . ..
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 14:38
by Kalan
Caractacus wrote:Those sound like sports for rich people
Maybe Skiing, Boating, Water Skiing, Figure Skating, Auto Racing, Horse Racing, Martial Arts, Golf and Gymnastics are engaged in more by upper income people... But all the other sports are done by everybody. You get a cross section of races who are involved with most of them. In the United States you don't see very many white boxers -- but that isn't true in countries where the rich and poor are white because 95% of the population is white.
The Population of America has only doubled from 1955.. but the combination of Blacks and Latinos went from around 20 million to almost 100 million.. so the talent pool has grown by leaps and bounds from where it was back in the olden days... You look at the Heavyweight talent pool of the 1950's and it was a total joke, my goodness... What other decade but the 1950's did you have a 185-pound Heavyweight Champion retiring -- and the box-off for his replacement was a fight between a 40-year-old Light Heavyweight and a 21-year-old 182-pound Heavyweight??? Gee whiz
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 14:59
by Kalan
evrenb wrote:Robinson was not in his prime at 33...that is utter garbage. And you know it. Robinson was prime at welterweight. He had over 130 fights by then
You're utterly full of garbage... Most of Robinson's career fights were fought over the Welterweight limit... He had been Middleweight Champion for quite a few fights before he had 130 fights -- and he was fighting at Middleweight before he won the title at that weight..
Robinson is most famous for his exploits as a Middleweight fighter -- not for what he did as a Welterweight. You're trying to minimize all his losses.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 16:27
by evrenb
I will start a survey then ...Lets see who agrees with you.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 18:14
by Caractacus
Kalan wrote:Caractacus wrote:Those sound like sports for rich people
Maybe Skiing, Boating, Water Skiing, Figure Skating, Auto Racing, Horse Racing, Martial Arts, Golf and Gymnastics are engaged in more by upper income people... But all the other sports are done by everybody. You get a cross section of races who are involved with most of them. In the United States you don't see very many white boxers -- but that isn't true in countries where the rich and poor are white because 95% of the population is white.
The Population of America has only doubled from 1955.. but the combination of Blacks and Latinos went from around 20 million to almost 100 million.. so the talent pool has grown by leaps and bounds from where it was back in the olden days... You look at the Heavyweight talent pool of the 1950's and it was a total joke, my goodness... What other decade but the 1950's did you have a 185-pound Heavyweight Champion retiring -- and the box-off for his replacement was a fight between a 40-year-old Light Heavyweight and a 21-year-old 182-pound Heavyweight??? Gee whiz
well maybe they didnt want to get involved in any brutal sports so soon after WW II and the Korean War.
because those wars were really brutal and took a toll on all the able-bodied men in America (that were fortunate enough to come home).
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 18:17
by Caractacus
but you goota hand it to Carmen Basilio,he was still only 5 ft 6" tall when he defeated Sugar Ray Robinson ( 6ft. tall) for the Middleweight title in 1957.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 03:26
by Kalan
I've never see Robinson listed as 6' tall by anyone... He was 5' 11" tops. And Basilio was 5'6.5" so he gave up 4.5 inches, which is difficult, but can be managed.
But Roberto Duran gave up 6" of height and a foot of reach to Hearns... That could be problematic because it could mean punches are coming at you from angles you might never have seen before.. Barkley is listed the same height but he's a hair under 6' and his reach is much shorter.. And with his lack of hand speed and jab he was a product Duran could deal with though Hearns couldn't. It doesn't take much of a difference between dimensions that will freak you out and dimensions that won't..
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 04:56
by Tomasino
Kalan wrote:Caractacus wrote:Those sound like sports for rich people
Maybe Skiing, Boating, Water Skiing, Figure Skating, Auto Racing, Horse Racing, Martial Arts, Golf and Gymnastics are engaged in more by upper income people... But all the other sports are done by everybody. You get a cross section of races who are involved with most of them. In the United States you don't see very many white boxers -- but that isn't true in countries where the rich and poor are white because 95% of the population is white.
The Population of America has only doubled from 1955.. but the combination of Blacks and Latinos went from around 20 million to almost 100 million.. so the talent pool has grown by leaps and bounds from where it was back in the
olden days... You look at the Heavyweight talent pool of the 1950's and it was a total joke, my goodness... What other decade but the 1950's did you have a 185-pound Heavyweight Champion retiring -- and the box-off for his replacement was a fight between a 40-year-old Light Heavyweight and a 21-year-old 182-pound Heavyweight??? Gee whiz
Olden days?

Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 15:46
by Caractacus
Kalan wrote:I've never see Robinson listed as 6' tall by anyone... He was 5' 11" tops. And Basilio was 5'6.5" so he gave up 4.5 inches, which is difficult, but can be managed.
But Roberto Duran gave up 6" of height and a foot of reach to Hearns... That could be problematic because it could mean punches are coming at you from angles you might never have seen before.. Barkley is listed the same height but he's a hair under 6' and his reach is much shorter.. And with his lack of hand speed and jab he was a product Duran could deal with though Hearns couldn't. It doesn't take much of a difference between dimensions that will freak you out and dimensions that won't..
Ive' see Sugar Ray Robinson even listed at 6 ft 1" in some sources.
and Maybe Carmin Basilio stood 5 ft 6.5 " in his PF Flyers.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 23:30
by Kalan
Robinson was always listed as 5'11" for all his fights when I was a kid. To make him 6'1" would give him Tommy Hearns type dimensions.. He was slightly taller and more slender than Leonard.. He had the ideal boxer's physique at Middleweight -- and never appeared to be a 6-footer at any time.
Re: Twice as many fighters in 1955 than today?
Posted: 16 Mar 2017, 09:00
by Bundana
Can I remind you guys, that the original question wasn't whether or not SRR is overrated, or which era is better... no, the question was whether there were really far more (twice as many) active boxers 60 years ago, compared to today.
Has anyone got something to add to this? Sure would be nice if someone would release the BoxRec numbers, but it seems that's not gonna happen... so, sadly, we'll probably never be any the wiser, but will have to make do with unsubstantiated guesses.