BoxRec

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

I've just finished reading this 2010 interview with boxing historian Mike Silver, in which he claims that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955"
"In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York City than there are licensed in the entire world today"

What do you guys think? Could he be right... or is he making these numbers up?

It's true there were a lot more fighters in the 1920 than today, some 50,000-60,000 according some sources, but several sources contradict the 1955 number.
The number of pro boxers fell steeply during and after WW2.
The Ring stated in 1950 that there were an estimated 20,000 pro boxers world wide.
Boxing Illustrated stated in 1989 that there were only approx 9000 active professionals, saying boxing was in dire straits (sound familiar?).
In 1999 Boxing Digest had the overall number of active professinals at 10,000.
In 2008, Boxrec had 14,000 registered fighters as active.
As of December 31st 2015, Boxrec listed 20,808 fighters as active, so we're back to around the the 1950 number stated by The Ring.

-KOKid- wrote:It's true there were a lot more fighters in the 1920 than today, some 50,000-60,000 according some sources, but several sources contradict the 1955 number.
The number of pro boxers fell steeply during and after WW2.
The Ring stated in 1950 that there were an estimated 20,000 pro boxers world wide.
Boxing Illustrated stated in 1989 that there were only approx 9000 active professionals, saying boxing was in dire straits (sound familiar?).
In 1999 Boxing Digest had the overall number of active professinals at 10,000.
In 2008, Boxrec had 14,000 registered fighters as active.
As of December 31st 2015, Boxrec listed 20,808 fighters as active, so we're back to around the the 1950 number stated by The Ring.

Thanks.

So, since 2008 we have seen a 50% increase of active fighters - and a doubling since the start of the century (if we are to believe the Boxing Digest numbers). Very interesting!

Much of the growth comes from countries in which pro boxing did not exist until a decade or two ago, like former Sovjet states/eastern Europe, China and African countries.
The UK and Mexico has seen an increase of fighters, but the US has probably seen a decrease.
Boxing is much more spread out accorss the world than before.

Bundana wrote:So, since 2008 we have seen a 50% increase of active fighters - and a doubling since the start of the century (if we are to believe the Boxing Digest numbers). Very interesting!

I think don't think the numbers provided by Boxing Digest should be relied on. I can imagine that they were able to come up with a reliable figure for the U.S. and likely Europe / Australia, but outside of that I think it's just an educated guess. As far as Boxrec is concerned, the database is continuously being updated with 'older' fights - we might simply be more complete for 2015 than we are for 2008 (yet).

In general, I don't think are as many professional fighters nowadays as there were in the 1950s, and there were nowhere near as many in the 1950s as there were in the 1920s.

wouter wrote:

Bundana wrote:So, since 2008 we have seen a 50% increase of active fighters - and a doubling since the start of the century (if we are to believe the Boxing Digest numbers). Very interesting!

I think don't think the numbers provided by Boxing Digest should be relied on. I can imagine that they were able to come up with a reliable figure for the U.S. and likely Europe / Australia, but outside of that I think it's just an educated guess. As far as Boxrec is concerned, the database is continuously being updated with 'older' fights - we might simply be more complete for 2015 than we are for 2008 (yet).

In general, I don't think are as many professional fighters nowadays as there were in the 1950s, and there were nowhere near as many in the 1950s as there were in the 1920s.

I'm aware, that there are thousands and thousands of fights from earlier times that you guys know of - but simply haven't had time to put in yet.

However, I thought, that in recent years you were pretty much "up to speed", so to speak! Are you saying, that there are lots of fights from as recent as 2008, that are known to have taken place - but still haven't been registered in your database?

In any case, I've added up all the active fighters today from each nation in Boxrec and come up the the number 21,794.
This number will vary frequently due to fighters being listed as inactive, retiring, debuting, etc.
Top 5 nations per numbers are:

1. Mexico - 3326
2. USA - 3320
3. Japan - 1475
4. Argentina - 1185
5. United Kingdom - 984

According to my notes, a 1950 edition of the Ring mentions approx 5000 US professionals, so that seems to back up the impression in the US about there being fewer fighters now than then.
I have a 1959 number from BBBC that says 644 registered pro boxers in the UK - those numbers should be accurate.
I have no problem believing there are more boxers now than 60-70 years ago in the other countries listed here.

But as for numbers from earlier times, we will never know any exact number or formula they used to come up with them.
I tend to think though, that the research methods of the time should not be disregarded by guess work several decades later.

Bundana wrote:However, I thought, that in recent years you were pretty much "up to speed", so to speak! Are you saying, that there are lots of fights from as recent as 2008, that are known to have taken place - but still haven't been registered in your database?

Mexico is still far from complete, but more and more local commissions are cooperationg. Without their help, it takes a lot of time and effort to come up with a complete picture.

Interesting stuff guys

Bundana wrote:So, since 2008 we have seen a 50% increase of active fighters - and a doubling since the start of the century (if we are to believe the Boxing Digest numbers). Very interesting!

I think good part of it is not related to the actual number of fighters, but simply to better availability of internet (and thus also more data) over the world.

I could be wrong, but I am guessing that the farther you go back, the more fighters are not counted. There are probably a lot of 0-1 or 0-2 fighters that are missing from way back.

Bundana wrote:http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

I've just finished reading this 2010 interview with boxing historian Mike Silver, in which he claims that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955"
"In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York City than there are licensed in the entire world today"

What do you guys think? Could he be right... or is he making these numbers up?

Sounds right to me. If not more. You gotta remember boxing was much bigger than the NFL or the NBA then.

Bundana wrote:http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

I've just finished reading this 2010 interview with boxing historian Mike Silver, in which he claims that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955"
"In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York City than there are licensed in the entire world today"

What do you guys think? Could he be right... or is he making these numbers up?

YES... He's making that crap up... In the 50's there was a severe shortage of fighters, particularly Heavyweights... There were plenty of big, strong guys, but they weren't boxing because it didn't pay well and stunk out loud back then... The Dempsey-Tunney fights of the 1920's pulled more fans and bigger bucks than any fight of the 50's -- and that's NOT adjusting for inflation.. The mafia and Jim Norris dominated and that killed off a lot of interest.. WWII and Korea killed off a lot of boxer aged athletes in the population...

Marciano had no big, tall, strong, tough, athletic challengers like Antony Joshua, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Deontay Wilder, Luis Ortiz, or even Joseph Parker to fight... Rocky had to fight Light Heavyweights like 42-year old Archie Moore.. And when Marciano retired little 182-pound Floyd Patterson had NOBODY to fight to win the heavyweight title -- except who??? -- that little old Light Heavyweight, Archie Moore again..

Kalan wrote:

Bundana wrote:http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

I've just finished reading this 2010 interview with boxing historian Mike Silver, in which he claims that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955"
"In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York City than there are licensed in the entire world today"

What do you guys think? Could he be right... or is he making these numbers up?

YES... He's making that crap up... In the 50's there was a severe shortage of fighters, particularly Heavyweights... There were plenty of big, strong guys, but they weren't boxing because it didn't pay well and stunk out loud back then... The Dempsey-Tunney fights of the 1920's pulled more fans and bigger bucks than any fight of the 50's -- and that's NOT adjusting for inflation.. The mafia and Jim Norris dominated and that killed off a lot of interest.. WWII and Korea killed off a lot of boxer aged athletes in the population...

Marciano had no big, tall, strong, tough, athletic challengers like Antony Joshua, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Deontay Wilder, Luis Ortiz, or even Joseph Parker to fight... Rocky had to fight Light Heavyweights like 42-year old Archie Moore.. And when Marciano retired little 182-pound Floyd Patterson had NOBODY to fight to win the heavyweight title -- except who??? -- that little old Light Heavyweight, Archie Moore again..

Interesting, and yet when you walk around any college campus with their team pictures posted in the halls, the INTEREST seemed to be there in those days....the boxing teams were on the wain, but still nearly as big if not bigger than the football teams, and then as the years went by, into the 60's and beyond the gun clubs/teams, and the boxing teams slowly fizzled.

Speaking of making crap up, here's Kalan!

I wouldn't be surprised if there were twice as many professional fighters in 1955 than at the present time. In my opinion, there were a tremendous number of professional boxing shows taking place during the Twentieth Century up to 1955, but far fewer afterwards.

- Chuck Johnston

You're dead wrong Chuck... You didn't have deep talent because the World Population was 1/3rd what it is today and Boxing wasn't in over 100 countries worldwide... Marciano had no formidable young challengers to fight that even weighed 190.. When he retired the 2 best claimants for the Heavyweight Championship were 182-pound Floyd Patterson and 43-year-old Light Heavyweight Archie Moore...

A pretty dismal pair compared to the top dozen big, powerhouse brutes of today.

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Luis Ortiz... 3. Deontay Wilder... 4. Tyson Fury...5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Bryant Jennings... 11. Carlos Takam... 12. Hughie Fury... 13. Kubrat Pulev... 14. Johann Duhaupas... 15. Erkan Teper... 16. Bermane Stiverne... 17. Lucas Browne... 18. Malik Scott... 19. Charles Martin... 20. Mike Perez... 21. Christian Hammer... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Ruslan Chagaev... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Otto Wallin... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Dominic Breazeale... 31. Amir Mansour

And then you have Cruiserweight Oleksandr Usyk... Who's much bigger and stronger than Patterson or Moore -- and jabs and defends a lot better.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Bundana wrote:http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

I've just finished reading this 2010 interview with boxing historian Mike Silver, in which he claims that:

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955"
"In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York City than there are licensed in the entire world today"

What do you guys think? Could he be right... or is he making these numbers up?

YES... He's making that crap up... In the 50's there was a severe shortage of fighters, particularly Heavyweights... There were plenty of big, strong guys, but they weren't boxing because it didn't pay well and stunk out loud back then... The Dempsey-Tunney fights of the 1920's pulled more fans and bigger bucks than any fight of the 50's -- and that's NOT adjusting for inflation.. The mafia and Jim Norris dominated and that killed off a lot of interest.. WWII and Korea killed off a lot of boxer aged athletes in the population...

Marciano had no big, tall, strong, tough, athletic challengers like Antony Joshua, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Deontay Wilder, Luis Ortiz, or even Joseph Parker to fight... Rocky had to fight Light Heavyweights like 42-year old Archie Moore.. And when Marciano retired little 182-pound Floyd Patterson had NOBODY to fight to win the heavyweight title -- except who??? -- that little old Light Heavyweight, Archie Moore again..

Interesting, and yet when you walk around any college campus with their team pictures posted in the halls, the INTEREST seemed to be there in those days....the boxing teams were on the wain, but still nearly as big if not bigger than the football teams, and then as the years went by, into the 60's and beyond the gun clubs/teams, and the boxing teams slowly fizzled.

And when you opened the sports section of daily paper. (people read newspapers in those days) you never read about college boxing teams.. You read about college Football, Basketball, and Track teams... Boxing was a dead assed sport in college, I'll tell you that... Who were the Top-10 College Boxers in the History of Boxing??? ... All the greatest boxers never even WENT to college in those days -- it was a poor man's sport and a sport for minorities, outcasts, and 2nd class athletes.. guys who couldn't get into college.. I think the first college graduate who won a Heavyweight Championship was James Smith---who sure as Hell didn't box in college.

-KOKid- wrote:In any case, I've added up all the active fighters today from each nation in Boxrec and come up the the number 21,794.
This number will vary frequently due to fighters being listed as inactive, retiring, debuting, etc.
Top 5 nations per numbers are:

1. Mexico - 3326
2. USA - 3320
3. Japan - 1475
4. Argentina - 1185
5. United Kingdom - 984

According to my notes, a 1950 edition of the Ring mentions approx 5000 US professionals, so that seems to back up the impression in the US about there being fewer fighters now than then.
I have a 1959 number from BBBC that says 644 registered pro boxers in the UK - those numbers should be accurate.
I have no problem believing there are more boxers now than 60-70 years ago in the other countries listed here.

But as for numbers from earlier times, we will never know any exact number or formula they used to come up with them.
I tend to think though, that the research methods of the time should not be disregarded by guess work several decades later.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. There's no way any of us can know for certain, what the numbers were many decades ago.
What Silver is saying is pure guesswork - coupled with wishful thinking, most likely!

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:
YES... He's making that crap up... In the 50's there was a severe shortage of fighters, particularly Heavyweights... There were plenty of big, strong guys, but they weren't boxing because it didn't pay well and stunk out loud back then... The Dempsey-Tunney fights of the 1920's pulled more fans and bigger bucks than any fight of the 50's -- and that's NOT adjusting for inflation.. The mafia and Jim Norris dominated and that killed off a lot of interest.. WWII and Korea killed off a lot of boxer aged athletes in the population...

Marciano had no big, tall, strong, tough, athletic challengers like Antony Joshua, Wladimir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Alexander Povetkin, Deontay Wilder, Luis Ortiz, or even Joseph Parker to fight... Rocky had to fight Light Heavyweights like 42-year old Archie Moore.. And when Marciano retired little 182-pound Floyd Patterson had NOBODY to fight to win the heavyweight title -- except who??? -- that little old Light Heavyweight, Archie Moore again..

Interesting, and yet when you walk around any college campus with their team pictures posted in the halls, the INTEREST seemed to be there in those days....the boxing teams were on the wain, but still nearly as big if not bigger than the football teams, and then as the years went by, into the 60's and beyond the gun clubs/teams, and the boxing teams slowly fizzled.

And when you opened the sports section of daily paper. (people read newspapers in those days) you never read about college boxing teams.. You read about college Football, Basketball, and Track teams... Boxing was a dead assed sport in college, I'll tell you that... Who were the Top-10 College Boxers in the History of Boxing??? ... All the greatest boxers never even WENT to college in those days -- it was a poor man's sport and a sport for minorities, outcasts, and 2nd class athletes.. guys who couldn't get into college.. I think the first college graduate who won a Heavyweight Championship was James Smith---who sure as Hell didn't box in college.

Did you just miss my point? I think he just missed my point. Did anyone see it fly over his head? Or is it just me?

"Interest" is the key word I was hoping to have you and perhaps others read. And by the way.....newspapers almost always carried the pro results of boxing.....which you never see these days.

Now shape up and fly right.

Using the BoxRec website, one can find how many recorded events (essentially professional boxing shows) took place in given country each year. The following is the number of recorded events that took place in the United States during selected years:

1908- 1,631
1916- 3,295
1926- 5,356
1929- 6,952
1939- 3,028
1948- 3,135
1955- 1,223
1960- 754
1967- 703
1980- 930
2015- 617
2016- 623

Based on such information, one has to conclude that the amount of professional boxing activity decreased substantially in the United States since the 1910s. Also keep in mind that there may be a lot of unrecorded American professional boxing shows that took place during the first half of the 20th Century while there are few, if any, such American shows of recent vintage. Societal change and the presence of television resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of professional boxing shows and clubs during a period of fifteen years after World War II.

- Chuck Johnston

Chuck, why must you confuse the situation by presenting hard cold facts?

They can be irritating and annoying to those attempting to make a point that is fictional.

In all honesty,It goes against the grain. Creates tension, and becomes controversial.

For 2017, maybe we can all just get on board the Kalan "go along get along" Express.


I only wish I could get on board. but he canceled my pass.

BoxBuzz wrote:Chuck, why must you confuse the situation by presenting hard cold facts?

They can be irritating and annoying to those attempting to make a point that is fictional.

In all honesty,It goes against the grain. Creates tension, and becomes controversial.

For 2017, maybe we can all just get on board the Kalan "go along get along" Express.


I only wish I could get on board. but he canceled my pass.

Roger!

- Chuck Johnston

BoxBuzz wrote:Chuck, why must you confuse the situation by presenting hard cold facts?

BuzzBox there are 3 ways to deceive people. Lies, damned lies, and statistics... Read my next post if you think the number of American shows dictate strong eras

Chuck1052 wrote:Using the BoxRec website, one can find how many recorded events (essentially professional boxing shows) took place in given country each year. The following is the number of recorded events that took place in the United States during selected years:

1908- 1,631
1916- 3,295
1926- 5,356
1929- 6,952
1939- 3,028
1948- 3,135
1955- 1,223
1960- 754
1967- 703
1980- 930
2015- 617
2016- 623

Based on such information, one has to conclude that the amount of professional boxing activity decreased substantially in the United States since the 1910s. Also keep in mind that there may be a lot of unrecorded American professional boxing shows that took place during the first half of the 20th Century while there are few, if any, such American shows of recent vintage. Societal change and the presence of television resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of professional boxing shows and clubs during a period of fifteen years after World War II.

- Chuck Johnston

So the 'nure that you're trying to spread is that quantity equals quality??? ... You're implying that Boxing peaked in 1929 which had roughly 10 X as many shows as 1967..and 6 times as many shows as in 1955.. That's very nice, but as I said above about the 1950's you have to look at quality.. Were there a lot of quality young Heavyweights when Marciano was champ??? NO!!

The Heavyweights challengers of the 1920's weren't much better.. There were NO Heavyweight Championship Fights in 1922.. 1924.. 1925 and 1929 -- Dempsey defended the title against 3 real Heavyweights in 7 years.. Miske, Brennan, and Firpo — not an impressive lot.. I concede Tunney was an outstanding Boxer, but he retired after defending against Dempsey and the pedestrian Tom Heeney -- a fight Tex Rickard lost his shirt on.