BoxRec

There are more boxers today than in the 1950's because the sport has gone global... 80% of Golovkin's title opponents have been foreign boxers... 80% of the guys Robinson fought in title fights were Americans... Global expansion happened to a lesser degree in the 60's, 70's, and 80's and accelerated after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

This is easiest to see among Heavyweights. The size, strength, and skill of Heavyweights has increased exponentially between the Marciano era and today.

Kalan wrote:There are more boxers today than in the 1950's because the sport has gone global... 80% of Golovkin's title opponents have been foreign boxers... 80% of the guys Robinson fought in title fights were Americans... Global expansion happened to a lesser degree in the 60's, 70's, and 80's and accelerated after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the harder it gets to convince myself, that there were more boxers in 1955 than today. I think we can conclude, that nothing really backs up Silver's claim.

Just about everything backs up his claim.
The increase in boxers in foreign countries This doesn't come close to making up for the decline of the amount of fighters from the United States than there used to be. There is only a fraction of the amount of boxing shows that there used to be. Take a look on boxrec how many shows are coming up. It is amazingly small. Some people seem to be in denial that boxing is now only This is a fringe sport. Has been for a long time. Almost everything points to this.

Boxing is NOT a fringe sport. Boxers make millions of dollars a year and Mayweather was the world's highest paid modern athlete.

Caber Tossing is a fringe sport. It doesn't get millions of viewers for a telecast on cable, go PPV, or appear on Network TV.

Boxers fought so often in the 1950's because they didn't get paid well and had to fight a lot. They would fight 20 times a year sometimes. They got ring worn and punch drunk. Today they get paid a lot better, fight less often, and there is greater attention to their physical well being. You see fewer cases of the Jerry Quarry's, Muhammad Ali's, Joe Frazier's, and Sugar Ray Robinson's -- guys who end up in poverty or punchy or both.

It's not as big as basketball, football, baseball, tennis, soccer, or even hockey, auto racing. If you aren't top contender you don't get paid well. The top 100th person in those sports make a heck of a lot more than the 100th guy in boxing.
Ask the next 20 random people you meet who Floyd Mayweather is. You might be surprised by how many blank looks you get.
My local newspaper doesn't carry it at all anymore. Local TV doesn't either. Major TV networks all but ignore it. I personally don't know anyone who still follows boxing.
I can talk with many people every day who follow other sports.

Boxing was a much bigger deal in the 1950s. It has been gradually declining in interest since the 1980s.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It's not as big as basketball, football, baseball, tennis, soccer, or even hockey, auto racing. If you aren't top contender you don't get paid well. The top 100th person in those sports make a heck of a lot more than the 100th guy in boxing.
Ask the next 20 random people you meet who Floyd Mayweather is. You might be surprised by how many blank looks you get.
My local newspaper doesn't carry it at all anymore. Local TV doesn't either. Major TV networks all but ignore it. I personally don't know anyone who still follows boxing.
I can talk with many people every day who follow other sports.

Boxing was a much bigger deal in the 1950s. It has been gradually declining in interest since the 1980s.

In America or everywhere??

The United States and overall worldwide.

The United States dominated boxing for a long time, though obviously there were great fighters from elsewhere. The United States doesn't produce nearly as many now because hardly cares about it.

Sure there are some countries that now have some interest in boxing. however, there others that don't. It certainly doesn't make up for what was lost in the United States.

If you look at current boxrecs ratings, of the top 50 fights, 23 were still from the United States. Clearly whatever gains have been from other countries has not been nearly enough.

So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Ambling Alp II wrote:The United States and overall worldwide.

The United States dominated boxing for a long time, though obviously there were great fighters from elsewhere. The United States doesn't produce nearly as many now because hardly cares about it.

Sure there are some countries that now have some interest in boxing. however, there others that don't. It certainly doesn't make up for what was lost in the United States.

If you look at current boxrecs ratings, of the top 50 fights, 23 were still from the United States. Clearly whatever gains have been from other countries has not been nearly enough.

The United States has a massive Latino population and a growing Black population. Those are your Boxing fans. Many white Americans currently ignore Boxing -- because America produces almost no white World Boxing Champions to speak of anymore -- and whites make up 63% of our population. Whereas, in the UK for instance, there's a better mix of kids who take up Boxing.

We still have by far the most influential promoters: Arum, King, Goosens, DiBella, Duvas, DeLaHoya etc. who do anything in the world to muscle foreign promoters like Ryabinsky out of purse bids and destroy their promotions with the help of whatever allies they can muster. It's a real dirty business and America ends up with more big fights between 2 foreign nationals (Golovkin-Lemieux... Alvarez-Smith... Alvarez-Chavez... Fonfara-Chavez... Martinez-Chavez... Martinez-Barker... Martinez-Dzinziruk... Pacquiao-Marquez... Pacquiao-Margarito... Pacquiao-Hatton... Pacquiao-Barrera... Golovkin-Geale... Golovkin-Proksa... Golovkin-Rubio... Golovkin-Macklin... Lomachenco-Walters... Lomachenko-Koasich... Kovalev-Caparello... Kovalev-Sillahk... Kovalev-Campillo... Kovalev-Mohammedi... Gonzalez-Wangek... Usyk-Mchunu... Ramirez-Abraham... Ramirez-Bursak) than any other country can come close to grabbing -- Americans still have the most expertise in cornering, controlling, and running the promotional business because we dominated it for generations... But there's growing competition in the promotional business as well -- and your numbers show that most of the top fights are now fought outside the USA for possibly the first time.

Bundana wrote:So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Overall includes the United States which produced a huge amount of the top talent until at least the 1990s. The vast majoirty of top boxers were from the United States for about 100 years. The amount of talent that U.S. produces had decreased drastically.
It has not been made up for by the other countires. There have been gains in some countries, but it isn't not as popular in places like Mexico and Western Europe as it once was.
As bad as United States boxing has declined, there are still more top American boxers than any other country. The other countires simply have not been able to come up with enough talent to compensate for what t he United States has lost.

Worldwide, there aren't as many boxers as there was was. There are not nearly as many boxing shows as there was once was. Those stats have already been mentioned in this thread.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Bundana wrote:So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Overall includes the United States which produced a huge amount of the top talent until at least the 1990s. The vast majoirty of top boxers were from the United States for about 100 years. The amount of talent that U.S. produces had decreased drastically.
It has not been made up for by the other countires. There have been gains in some countries, but it isn't not as popular in places like Mexico and Western Europe as it once was.
As bad as United States boxing has declined, there are still more top American boxers than any other country. The other countires simply have not been able to come up with enough talent to compensate for what t he United States has lost.

Worldwide, there aren't as many boxers as there was was. There are not nearly as many boxing shows as there was once was. Those stats have already been mentioned in this thread.

You have not been able to post any supporting data to back up your claims that there's not as many boxers worldwide today as there was... The UK has more World Champions than the United States... And there are many more top boxers produced in the rest of the world than are produced in the United States... We haven't won an Olympic Gold Medal for men's boxing going back 3 Olympics because of the vastly improved global competition.

Global competition in Boxing is definitely on the upswing... Boxrec numbers going back to its inception prove that number of professional boxers has been growing rapidly. This decade...and the previous decade particularly. It's just nuts to poo poo this data.

Kalan wrote:You have not been able to post any supporting data to back up your claims...

Gosh don't you just hate it when people do that?

When they post things that are factual and truthful it isn't so bad. When slanted rubbish is posted, like the number if fights in the United States and not the number of fights worldwide when we dominated the sport and most of the fights were here in the US -- that paints a slanted picture.. Boxers sometimes fought up to 20 times a year in those days, including as many record padding tomato cans as possible who didn't have a chance. It was the Jimmy Wilde strategy.

Just because guys like Robinson fought so many meaningless non-title fights doesn't mean there were more boxers worldwide. Gennady Golovkin only fought 2 short fights in the last year, but they were both Middleweight Title Fights against undefeated challengers.. His record of Middleweight Title Defenses is 17-0 with 17 KO wins...and he's fighting a bigger and tougher Middleweight than Robinson ever faced tonight. Robinson's record in Middleweight Title Defenses was 3-3 with 2 KO wins.

More fights in 1 country doesn't mean you're fighting tougher competition, and or that there were more and better fighters.

Since you're a bit dense I should probably explain that my post was about you.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Bundana wrote:So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Overall includes the United States which produced a huge amount of the top talent until at least the 1990s. The vast majoirty of top boxers were from the United States for about 100 years. The amount of talent that U.S. produces had decreased drastically.
It has not been made up for by the other countires. There have been gains in some countries, but it isn't not as popular in places like Mexico and Western Europe as it once was.
As bad as United States boxing has declined, there are still more top American boxers than any other country. The other countires simply have not been able to come up with enough talent to compensate for what t he United States has lost.

Worldwide, there aren't as many boxers as there was was. There are not nearly as many boxing shows as there was once was. Those stats have already been mentioned in this thread.

This is not about which countries produce the best boxers. That has got nothing to do with this thread... so why are you going on and on about this?

No, those stats have not been mentioned in this thread. All we hear about is how the numbers have declined in the US. Nothing about the rest of the world.

I have no doubt, there are fewer fights/fighters in the US than before, but your claim that boxing has declined WORLDWIDE since the 80s is not based on facts. The annual number of fights, worldwide, listed by BoxRec has more than doubled over the past 40 years. The numbers are there for all to see, so I assume you're aware of this. And if you are, how can you translate that into a decline over the same time?

punchoutsb wrote:Since you're a bit dense I should probably explain that my post was about you.

You're more than a bit dense -- you're thick as a brick.

Bundana wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Bundana wrote:So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Overall includes the United States which produced a huge amount of the top talent until at least the 1990s. The vast majoirty of top boxers were from the United States for about 100 years. The amount of talent that U.S. produces had decreased drastically.
It has not been made up for by the other countires. There have been gains in some countries, but it isn't not as popular in places like Mexico and Western Europe as it once was.
As bad as United States boxing has declined, there are still more top American boxers than any other country. The other countires simply have not been able to come up with enough talent to compensate for what t he United States has lost.

Worldwide, there aren't as many boxers as there was was. There are not nearly as many boxing shows as there was once was. Those stats have already been mentioned in this thread.

This is not about which countries produce the best boxers. That has got nothing to do with this thread... so why are you going on and on about this?

No, those stats have not been mentioned in this thread. All we hear about is how the numbers have declined in the US. Nothing about the rest of the world.

I have no doubt, there are fewer fights/fighters in the US than before, but your claim that boxing has declined WORLDWIDE since the 80s is not based on facts. The annual number of fights, worldwide, listed by BoxRec has more than doubled over the past 40 years. The numbers are there for all to see, so I assume you're aware of this. And if you are, how can you translate that into a decline over the same time?

Great point... But nobody claiming Boxing is dying and in decline is going to acknowledge that... They've all disappeared rather than admit they're wrong.

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Since you're a bit dense I should probably explain that my post was about you.

You're more than a bit dense -- you're thick as a brick.

Your mother been telling ya stories about me again, eh?

punchoutsb wrote:

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Since you're a bit dense I should probably explain that my post was about you.

You're more than a bit dense -- you're thick as a brick.

Your mother been telling ya stories about me again, eh?

punchoutsb wrote:

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Since you're a bit dense I should probably explain that my post was about you.

You're more than a bit dense -- you're thick as a brick.

Your mother been telling ya stories about me again, eh?

No, it was my neighbor's granddaughter... She said, "I'm about to give birth to punchoutsb" and farted. Nasty kid, but very honest.

Kalan wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

Kalan wrote:
You're more than a bit dense -- you're thick as a brick.

Your mother been telling ya stories about me again, eh?

No, it was my neighbor's granddaughter... She said, "I'm about to give birth to punchoutsb" and farted. Nasty kid, but very honest.

Was that supposed to be a comeback of some kind? Because if it was it was very weak and very very weird...not unlike yourself actually.

You should stick to something you're good at like.............

......

Man it must suck to be you.

doesn't suck to be a man. sucks to be a little fart like you

Kalan wrote:doesn't suck to be a man. sucks to be a little fart like you

Bundana wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Bundana wrote:So over the last several decades boxing has been declining not just in The United States, but overall worldwide?

Ok, I'm willing to learn... so show me the numbers you have that supports this contention.

Overall includes the United States which produced a huge amount of the top talent until at least the 1990s. The vast majoirty of top boxers were from the United States for about 100 years. The amount of talent that U.S. produces had decreased drastically.
It has not been made up for by the other countires. There have been gains in some countries, but it isn't not as popular in places like Mexico and Western Europe as it once was.
As bad as United States boxing has declined, there are still more top American boxers than any other country. The other countires simply have not been able to come up with enough talent to compensate for what t he United States has lost.

Worldwide, there aren't as many boxers as there was was. There are not nearly as many boxing shows as there was once was. Those stats have already been mentioned in this thread.

This is not about which countries produce the best boxers. That has got nothing to do with this thread... so why are you going on and on about this?

No, those stats have not been mentioned in this thread. All we hear about is how the numbers have declined in the US. Nothing about the rest of the world.

I have no doubt, there are fewer fights/fighters in the US than before, but your claim that boxing has declined WORLDWIDE since the 80s is not based on facts. The annual number of fights, worldwide, listed by BoxRec has more than doubled over the past 40 years. The numbers are there for all to see, so I assume you're aware of this. And if you are, how can you translate that into a decline over the same time?

Sorry if I got off track a bit about the quality.
As for the quantity, I was going back a lot farther back then the 1980s.
Another point worth mentioning again is that we a re much more likely to miss fighters that has one or two fights the farther back you go.

More than 1 or 2, most of those debuts against guys like Pascual Perez probably had 30 or 40 fights.