BoxRec

i sometimes feel, that you cannot directly compare a 1930 resume
with 100 fights with a 1990 record of 40 fights. people then got less
paid even for great fights, so they had to fight often and often against
opponents way below them. it is in a way obvious, but i still feel such
overrating is happening here, especially when it comes to all time ratings.
seems to sneek into judgments ...

They'd be overrated if their records were padded with no-hopers and relatively lacking in quality opposition. On the other hand, the praise would be accurate if those lengthy records included a sufficient number of high level opponents to prove their class. Either way, remaining consistent under such a strenuous haul of contests in the professional ranks is certainly more difficult than what most modern fighters endure, even if the opposition wasn't always up to par.

Those record padding type fights were usually used as little more than to stay in fighting condition anyway. That was their training, more or less.

King Carlos wrote:They'd be overrated if their records were padded with no-hopers and relatively lacking in quality opposition. On the other hand, the praise would be accurate if those lengthy records included a sufficient number of high level opponents to prove their class. Either way, remaining consistent under such a strenuous haul of contests in the professional ranks is certainly more difficult than what most modern fighters endure, even if the opposition wasn't always up to par.

Those record padding type fights were usually used as little more than to stay in fighting condition anyway. That was their training, more or less.

I personally don't think they fought so much to stay in fighting shape; I think they did it because it was their job, and they needed the money. The relatively big money fights like we have now weren't readily available.

theone wrote:

King Carlos wrote:They'd be overrated if their records were padded with no-hopers and relatively lacking in quality opposition. On the other hand, the praise would be accurate if those lengthy records included a sufficient number of high level opponents to prove their class. Either way, remaining consistent under such a strenuous haul of contests in the professional ranks is certainly more difficult than what most modern fighters endure, even if the opposition wasn't always up to par.

Those record padding type fights were usually used as little more than to stay in fighting condition anyway. That was their training, more or less.

I personally don't think they fought so much to stay in fighting shape; I think they did it because it was their job, and they needed the money. The relatively big money fights like we have now weren't readily available.

Depends on the fighter really. The top fighters, the money-makers, did it for the reasons stated. Otherwise you're probably right.

first half of the twentieth century probably you could only earn
an average monthly income if you fought at least once per month -
if you were real good. the average fighter i guess had to do a weekly
thing in whatever location was available. and many did a regular job
plus boxing. probably fighting was sparring as well - i do not see a
non-top-ten fighter in any kind of "camp" in the thirties. they fought,
they worked, they struggled, occasionally getting some "great" payday,
if they were very lucky.

i have not researched any of this, but it seems pretty obvious.
another side of this is that many, many of these guys probably did not
make it to their fifties and could have a normal conversation ...

man wrote:first half of the twentieth century probably you could only earn
an average monthly income if you fought at least once per month -
if you were real good. the average fighter i guess had to do a weekly
thing in whatever location was available. and many did a regular job
plus boxing. probably fighting was sparring as well - i do not see a
non-top-ten fighter in any kind of "camp" in the thirties. they fought,
they worked, they struggled, occasionally getting some "great" payday,
if they were very lucky.

i have not researched any of this, but it seems pretty obvious.
another side of this is that many, many of these guys probably did not
make it to their fifties and could have a normal conversation ...

All of that is true, it's part of why I get really annoyed at such apples-to-oranges comparisons. If anything Boxing fans should strive to compare fighters within the context of their own eras, especially considering the variety of rules changes (glove weight, day-before weigh-ins, number of rounds, etc.).

Part of the reason Julio Cesar Chavez was so heralded was because his record was like that of the old-time fighters in the frequency in which he fought, as well as his somewhat "throwback" style of being a boxer-banger with a focus on aggression and dodging and slipping punches on his way inside to do damage.

Agree with King Carlos' sentiment and Diamond's view on eras. You can get an approximation but so much changes between eras...

As for 'padding'... This is not really applicable to old-timers. They didn't need to pad their records and the fans back then didn't care for unbeaten records like they do today.

Definitely better for the sport of the stars fought more often. I liked the way Chavez kept fit in the ring. Tyson would have benefitted from staying active and in the ring too.

But so what if old-timers had to fight more? if they have better records then they have better records...

Ezzard wrote:As for 'padding'... This is not really applicable to old-timers. They didn't need to pad their records and the fans back then didn't care for unbeaten records like they do today.

Definitely better for the sport of the stars fought more often. I liked the way Chavez kept fit in the ring. Tyson would have benefitted from staying active and in the ring too.

But so what if old-timers had to fight more? if they have better records then they have better records...

i think "unbeaten" had the same resonance then as it has now.
i doubt the romantic vision about the "fans back then". of course
every champ gets beaten if he fights long enough (and is not hand
picking), so there is nothing wrong with losing. yet an unbeaten
fighter always has the extra confidence by believing in his invincibility.
so it is not only the fans having a perception, it actually makes a
difference in the ring. IMHO.

i think the number of fights needs balance. fighting once a year today
is too few, fighting six times, with four of them against bums, is maybe too
much. plus we expect good fights. fighters get criticized immediately
if their opponents do not qualify.

and finally many old fighters fought way past their prime and this is
not so welcome anymore. just look at the discussion on roy. i think that
SRR fought too long as well as Duran and so does holyfield.

mentioning evander - i think my point is that the 117 bouts of greb are
very comparable to holyfield's 56 ... to me these are pretty even.

man wrote:

Ezzard wrote:As for 'padding'... This is not really applicable to old-timers. They didn't need to pad their records and the fans back then didn't care for unbeaten records like they do today.

Definitely better for the sport of the stars fought more often. I liked the way Chavez kept fit in the ring. Tyson would have benefitted from staying active and in the ring too.

But so what if old-timers had to fight more? if they have better records then they have better records...

i think "unbeaten" had the same resonance then as it has now.
i doubt the romantic vision about the "fans back then". of course
every champ gets beaten if he fights long enough (and is not hand
picking), so there is nothing wrong with losing. yet an unbeaten
fighter always has the extra confidence by believing in his invincibility.
so it is not only the fans having a perception, it actually makes a
difference in the ring. IMHO.

i think the number of fights needs balance. fighting once a year today
is too few, fighting six times, with four of them against bums, is maybe too
much. plus we expect good fights. fighters get criticized immediately
if their opponents do not qualify.

and finally many old fighters fought way past their prime and this is
not so welcome anymore. just look at the discussion on roy. i think that
SRR fought too long as well as Duran and so does holyfield.

mentioning evander - i think my point is that the 117 bouts of greb are
very comparable to holyfield's 56 ... to me these are pretty even.

I'm a massive Holyfield fan but his 56 bouts don't compare to Greb's 117. I don't know what you mean?

I also don't think a fighter can foght too often.

Very few old-timers had unbeaten records for very long because they were thrown in deep early and often were better for it.

look at bob roper:
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... r&pageID=2
he fought greb six times, losing all of them. holyfield could
not have done that, times are different. today you do not
only want to see a fight, you want to see a competitive fight.
boxers are publicly punished for easy matchups.

the twenties were tough times for people in general - and
without TV. people primarily wanted to see harry greb fight ...
if the fight was entertaining why not do it again ... even if it
truly was one-sided. but today that is different. every
bout has to be a title bout, every matchup must be a clear
challenge for both fighters. otherwise we as consumers are
already bored. add to that the fact that the world was smaller
than. greb could not fight the best in the world every month,
he was limited to what was available here and there.

great boxers had to fight easier opponents as well if they
wanted to fight ... and i guess the understanding then was
more like fighting ten times a year was okay, but twice a
year would have marked you as a lazy guy.

man wrote: mentioning evander - i think my point is that the 117 bouts of greb are
very comparable to holyfield's 56 ... to me these are pretty even.

Greb had 299 fights.

wouter wrote:

man wrote: mentioning evander - i think my point is that the 117 bouts of greb are
very comparable to holyfield's 56 ... to me these are pretty even.

Greb had 299 fights.

if thats true, then it proves how little i know about him.
not sure if it harms "my overall case" though ...

I dont think there is any doubt that fighters were better back when they fought more often. They were in better shape (even when "out of shape") and not to mention the whole idea of practice makes perfect. The simply fact that they fought so much, so often, against so many different styles, and often times without even having the benefit of seeing any footage of the guy they were facing prior to stepping into the ring means these guys were prepared. Period. Guys today fight one way and look good against a certain type of opponent, throw anything new their way and they are clueless. Furthermore, if a guy had 200 fights its not like those 200 fighters he faced were novices, those guys typically had far more fights and far more experience than modern fighters as well. Someone mentioned Bob Roper. He lost to Harry Greb 6 times, so what. Bob Roper was a good, tough, and very experienced fighter who had fought a lot of service bouts prior to going pro, acted as a sparring partner for top fighters, and was trained by both Jack Johnson and Jack Blackburn (both of whom praised him). In fight Greb six times he had about 4 more fights against a legend than most of even the best of the best today, not to mention all of his other fights. Furthermore, another reason this type of thing happened was that there was no television and little access to even the fights that were filmed. If you matched up well with a certain fighter, or a certain fighter was popular in a town or two you naturally took the act on the road and went where the money was. There were plenty of occasions were Greb beat a fighter, but later that fighter had a good win in somewhere like Grand Rapids etc and suddenly Grand Rapids wanted to see that guy against someone else. Greb was so active, and made himself so readily available to fight anyone at the drop of a hat for a reasonable price that he often got the call. It didnt hurt that he also gave his best every time out, decision or no. Furthermore, these guys were a lot tougher mentally and physically today. The stuff they went through fight after fight, well, you just dont see that today. In those days a guy got cut, or a broken hand, and if he had a fight a few days later he was there more often than not. Nowadays a guy gets a little scratch and hes out of the ring for months. A different era to be sure but todays fighters simply cant compare. There are exceptions to every rule of course.

Many fighters probably fought too much way back and nowadays many don't fight enough. If you fight too much you can suffer injuries and your body doesn't heal right. If you don't fight enough you don't stay sharp.

Having said that, I agree with klompton that overall that it usually does help to fight more. You gain valuable experience fighting more often, facing a variety of opponents. Even fighting in a variety of places is a good experience.
However, at a certain point, the extra experience doesn't really help you any further. ie- After you have had a 100 fights, you probably aren't going to learn many more tricks of the trade or improve very much. You have probably gotton about as good as you are going to be.

As for comparing two fighters who fought a far diffent amount of fights, it can be done. It just takes more thinking.
You take one guy, look at his significant victories, (ignore his wins against weak and mediocre competition. And yes, even the greats who has more than a 100 fights fought some stiffs), and then look at his defeats. Of course you have to take into account the quality of opponents and the stages of the fighters careers.

Then do it with the other fighter. Often find that the fighter who had more fights had more significant wins, but also more relevant losses. You have to weigh them and compare.

You can't assume that the guy who had many more wins is better without digging deeper. You also can't assume that the guy with many less losses is better either.

klompton wrote:I dont think there is any doubt that fighters were better back when they fought more often. They were in better shape (even when "out of shape") and not to mention the whole idea of practice makes perfect. The simply fact that they fought so much, so often, against so many different styles, and often times without even having the benefit of seeing any footage of the guy they were facing prior to stepping into the ring means these guys were prepared. Period. Guys today fight one way and look good against a certain type of opponent, throw anything new their way and they are clueless. Furthermore, if a guy had 200 fights its not like those 200 fighters he faced were novices, those guys typically had far more fights and far more experience than modern fighters as well. Someone mentioned Bob Roper. He lost to Harry Greb 6 times, so what. Bob Roper was a good, tough, and very experienced fighter who had fought a lot of service bouts prior to going pro, acted as a sparring partner for top fighters, and was trained by both Jack Johnson and Jack Blackburn (both of whom praised him). In fight Greb six times he had about 4 more fights against a legend than most of even the best of the best today, not to mention all of his other fights. Furthermore, another reason this type of thing happened was that there was no television and little access to even the fights that were filmed. If you matched up well with a certain fighter, or a certain fighter was popular in a town or two you naturally took the act on the road and went where the money was. There were plenty of occasions were Greb beat a fighter, but later that fighter had a good win in somewhere like Grand Rapids etc and suddenly Grand Rapids wanted to see that guy against someone else. Greb was so active, and made himself so readily available to fight anyone at the drop of a hat for a reasonable price that he often got the call. It didnt hurt that he also gave his best every time out, decision or no. Furthermore, these guys were a lot tougher mentally and physically today. The stuff they went through fight after fight, well, you just dont see that today. In those days a guy got cut, or a broken hand, and if he had a fight a few days later he was there more often than not. Nowadays a guy gets a little scratch and hes out of the ring for months. A different era to be sure but todays fighters simply cant compare. There are exceptions to every rule of course.

i basically agree with you. my point on roper was to illustrate
that today a top notch boxer in his prime would not be allowed
to fight an opponent he has beaten easily again and of course
not six times. so old records tend to be inflated by at least some
fights that would not happen today and would be more qualified
as (very) intense sparring sessions. but this is not the fault of
the fighters back then or a quality of the fighters today. this is
just different times. people then had no TV and watched fights
to see the fighters and not only because the outcome was unclear.
today i think we all would not like to do that. you don't want to
see an interesting fight, the outcome of which is clear. actually
one could argue that probably many of greb's easy fights were
not that interesting, but if i am a boxing fan then i'd rather see
him fight anyone than not to see him at all.

i am with alp that people today tend to fight too little and back
then they fought too often. though, just record wise, we might
have to take into account that people today sometimes have
very intense amateur experience. i do not know how it was
back then, but my guess is you are a boxer or you are not.
either you fight in a ring for money or there is no ring at all.
my guess is that lennox lewis had at least a hundred amateur
fights ... with much less you probably dont make it to olympic
gold. of course these are not pro fights, they wear helmets and
so on, but nevertheless ... you face many, many opponents.
and arguably better ones than you had back in the day, where
you had local champs rather than an international selection.

the other thing of course is that life in general was way tougher
then. and i do not want to imagine the speech problem of the
average retired boxer at age 52.

and as alp said, quality of opponents matters big time. look at
DLH, his record is stunning. nothing easy in there. in my opinion
he had the same attitude as the people back then. stay in shape,
fight everyone everywhere. no excuses.

Yes but I actually think that those guys fighting each a bunch is a lot better and more conclusive. Today a guy loses one fight and his career is over in most peoples eyes. Look at Gene Tunney. He lost in about as one sided and bloody a beating as anyone can lose in. Yet he and Greb fought 5 times and he was able to come back, and learn, and show what he was made of. By your logic he shouldnt have gotten a second fight with Greb. Greb's first two fights with Tommy Gibbons were very one sided losses against Greb yet he was able to come back and fight Gibbons both times, beating him the third and dominating the fourth in what was to the point the most important and publicized win of his career. By your logic that would have never happened and we might just think of Greb as a footnote today and not the legitimate top 3 P4P fighter he is. Those multiple fights shows what a guy is made of. Some arent made to be champions (Roper) others were (Loughran, Tunney, etc).

klompton wrote:Yes but I actually think that those guys fighting each a bunch is a lot better and more conclusive. Today a guy loses one fight and his career is over in most peoples eyes. Look at Gene Tunney. He lost in about as one sided and bloody a beating as anyone can lose in. Yet he and Greb fought 5 times and he was able to come back, and learn, and show what he was made of. By your logic he shouldnt have gotten a second fight with Greb. Greb's first two fights with Tommy Gibbons were very one sided losses against Greb yet he was able to come back and fight Gibbons both times, beating him the third and dominating the fourth in what was to the point the most important and publicized win of his career. By your logic that would have never happened and we might just think of Greb as a footnote today and not the legitimate top 3 P4P fighter he is. Those multiple fights shows what a guy is made of. Some arent made to be champions (Roper) others were (Loughran, Tunney, etc).

Tell you what, I can't agree enough. Rematches and rivalries made the sport great. Shocks me how many modern fans don't want to see rematches.

In other sports teams and individuals play each other multiple times throughout history/careers. Look at football clubs, tennis players, etc... Even the very best lose but it's no big deal. They compete against one another over and over.

Bob Roper was not a bad fighter by any means. He also was very dirty, and even though Greb continually won handidly, I'm sure the fights were good action fights for the spectators, especially seeing two dirty, tough guys go at it. I'd rather see 3-4 fights like that in a span of a few months then see a guy fight twice a year, and both fights might end up sucking.

you mistunderstood me. i am not seeing any bad in fighting
guys again which you have conquered already. my point is
that today you could not do that as reigning champ. this is
why you cannot have easier fights in between big ones and
consequently more fights on your resume.

the other thing is that today there is a whole global elite of
local champions available for world class champs. in the day
of greb my guess is that it was not that common to fight
british or russian champs. today this is routine.

to sum my opinion up. many fighters today have more amateur
experience. elite fighters today are not allowed to take on easier
opponents repeatedly and overall they have tougher competition
since the global scene produces more talent. having said all that
there are many boxers today that fight too little. if a world champ
today fights 4 times it is considered an awful lot.

I agree that there are now nations that produce talent that did not used to in the past. (Though it was common for top Britsh fighters and other western European fighters to fight American fighters.)
However, their certainly is not greater overall talent. The biggest reason is the United States. Boxing was the # 2 sport in the United States until the 1960s. Now there are a dozen sports more popular. There are only a small fraction of boxers in the United States as compared to the first half of the 20th century. This is important because the United States alone used to produce more quality fighters than there are worldwide today.

You also have to consider that there are more weight classes now. The talent pool gets divided up and spread out over way too many weight classes. As a result, there is seldom much depth in a particular weight class at any one time.

You may be surprised at how many fighters did have extensive amateur expierence back in the olden days; some didn't. After a certain point, more amatuer experience is not going to help a fighter in the pros anyway.
It is important to note that prospects usually did not fight "carefully chosen" opponents in their first 3-4 years like they do now.

Contenders used to fight each other much more often they do today. Now if you are in the Top 10, there is little incentive to risk fighting another top 10 fighter. There are 4 "champions" and if you bide your time you will eventually get a title shot.

It is very common today for a "champion" to have been a pro for about 6 years and really only had to fight one or two world class fighters. Therefore, he does not have the experience of fighting several quality opponents of varying styles. You often really don't know how good someone is until they have been a "champion" for 3 or more years.

Fighters used to get tested sooner, and much more often.