BoxRec

I've been thinking a lot about this recently as someone who spends most of his time on Twitter. However, given that it's a lousy format for discussing anything in depth, I figured I'd head to a message board where I already have an account and posting history and blahblahblah.

The "Dark Age" of MMA took place roughly between UFC 20 and UFC 53, which is a period of 6 years. Long to us, but not necessarily to the world in general. You could expand on this a bit to basically make it the era of MMA from inception as we know it (1992/1993) to the TUF Season 1 finale about 15 or so years later. That makes it longer, and doesn't fundamentally change anything. I mention this specific era because fighters would fight many, many times. Guys like Travis Fulton would fight multiple times a week, sometimes across multiple disciplines. This is because at this time, aside from tape sales for non-UFC, non-major Japanese promotions, their primary revenue stream was live gate. There were no TV deals in place, and in the US the sport was illegal across wide swaths of territory, making promoters do things like set up events in the middle of the desert (like Soboba Casino in California). I cannot think of another parallel in living memory that we can use then to compare to the early pre-war, pre-TV era of boxing.

So about that now - Harry Greb went 45-0 in 1919. Everyone knows that, and when you discuss the history of boxing, it generally means that someone will assertively enter the conversation to remind everyone that Greb is clearly, unquestionably the best fighter who ever lived. But let's look at that 45-0 record through the prism of knowing what a combat sport reliant totally on live gate (like boxing of 1919) resembled for a moment.

1) The vast majority of Harry Greb's 45 wins are Newspaper decisions. They were exhibitions without any official method of victory. Hardcore boxing fans and historians know all about these, at least, in theory they know all about these. The problem is that these are fights in which there was never intended to be an official winner. They were not intended to be treated as full on contests, and many posters of the era describe bouts such as the ones Greb or other stars were booked in as "exhibitions". Because, rather plainly, that's what they were. Exhibitions. A form of paid, professional sparring.

2) We can see in the modern era that fighters often train no less than 8 weeks in preparation for almost any significant bout. Harry Greb in 1921 fights Chuck Wiggins twice in one month in nearby but separate markets (South Bend and Terre Haute, both cities in Indiana, but hours apart). Both fights are draws, with Greb being believed to be the superior fighter though he is credited only with draws. Interestingly, this also happens in Michigan one year prior with bouts between Greb and Wiggins taking place over a three week span in Benton Harbor and Kalamazoo, Michigan, with Greb winning both bouts. And it happens in 1919 as well, with Greb winning two decisions against Wiggins in Detroit and Toledo in the same week. No one points out at all that this is weird, because presumably, they've never thought about this at any length.

We do have examples of this in MMA, and almost always in MMA, what you find are fixed fights or bouts which appear that they may have been fixed. Shannon Ritch and Dan Severn fought nearly identical bouts in Alaska and Hawaii one month apart in 2005 in one of the more famous examples. Ritch has been frequently pointed at as a guy with many "worked"/"thrown" fights on his record, and for that matter, the same is true for the ex-pro wrestler in Severn. Also, in what are known to be "full shoots" or non-fixed contests under rules sets that permitted for an automatic draw should time limit be reached, MMA again provides us evidence in the likes of Gracie/Shamrock II or Bustamante/Erikson. We know that fighters will simply try to run out the clock rather than make any effort at winning when they are assured to not be capable of losing under those circumstances. It's not surprising, but again, it is not discussed in this context at all.

Now that MMA is on PPV, Showtime, and ESPN, things like one night tournaments and the sorts of short notice, low level talents appearing against noteworthy fighters has come to a screeching halt. It doesn't happen. And certainly not with this specific structure.

3) Perhaps the most baffling aspect of all comes from the dramatic difference in activity between biggest star of this era in boxing and everyone else. Jack Dempsey's two layoffs between the Firpo and Sharkey I fights as well as the bouts between Carpentier and Gibbons would have gotten him stripped of his belts in pretty much any era of boxing. We all know why - Dempsey was the biggest star in the world at this time and would remain such in the US unchallenged until well after Babe Ruth winds up in a Yankees uniform. Dempsey was trying to get into movies and radio; he did not need to box. People like Harry Greb, however, had to box to earn a living. And when you are a touring a-side as many of the fighters of this era were, you need to look good in front of crowds to continue earning a living. Looking good against local drawing cards in exhibition fights would certainly be helpful in making fighters bigger stars.

4) Boxing's early promoters were people from carnivals and show business, so it's worth looking to see what the structure of those industries were. Vaudeville and Victorian/Post-civil war age theater generally operated in that there was a theater in practically every town with a local troupe of actors, and they would do different plays every week with touring A-C class stars booked in to work with them as headliners. As theater splintered between the sort of "professional" aspects we know opera and musical/dramatic theater today and Vaudeville, Vaudeville also retained the traditions of variety acts. You'd see Shakespeare, but you'd also get some singing, and magic, and maybe a sword swallower. Pro wrestling was built in carnival tents and moved into a territory system. Everyone knows that. Boxing until the 1950s with the advent of TV basically followed the formula, built around the "boxing club" or "club show" as we know them now with a seemingly infinite number of Blue Horizons across the nation.

These are the people then who created boxing in America. So, why not assume they'd use the same promotional tricks they had before when they were booking Jenny Lind instead of Sam Langford?


IN SUMMARY:

-I don't believe it is remotely defensible to assume that all newspaper decisions were fully legitimate bouts from this era of boxing. While it certainly lionizes the fighters of this era and makes them appear superhuman, we know what the functional capabilities of the human body are and it simply doesn't make sense that they would be capable of full on combat 20+ times a year.

-The circumstantial evidence on how promoters operated, comparable sports with similar results in the modern televised era, and just some degree of common sense all suggests that perhaps the majority of these exhibitions were likely completely or partially staged "works"/"thrown"/"fake" contests, or at least contests where the competitors felt there were no real stakes so long as they completed the mission of sustaining verticality (not unlike some of the trial horses today that have 90%+ losses on their ledger). The lack of footage from this era both prevents us from examining this and also prevents it from potentially being exposed.

I know there are things which I have not fully considered or contemplated, but I'm feeling exceptionally strong at this point that his is likely the case. The more I've read about the interwar and immediate post-war/TV era of boxing and how it operated politically, it seems even stronger that this was likely the way things went. I'd love to get feedback, mostly from people who may have information which proves me wrong. I think it would actually be way cooler if the likes of Tommy Gibbons or Young Striblings were really that durable vs. the professionals of today. I just don't think it's true. I think it's a lie that we've told ourselves for more than a century in service of long dead writers who didn't know what was happening.

Good points. Some people are sold on fighters performing hundreds of times. Yet often it was against a clearly lower level of opposition and clearly without proper preparation from both sides. Using your name at little events to make little, but frequent money.

Max Baer is a great example. After he became a champion, he started to fight exhibitions. He fought King Levinsky for the 3rd time in an exhibition, after two official fights. In those two official fights he decisioned King. In the exhibition he decided that King was doing too harsh, after he pushed forward and KOed King. Probably Levinsky didn't even trained for that bout and he wasn't expecting fireworks.

After Baer lost his title, he fought about 20 bouts through the following year. All of them were official, not newspapers, but they were against the lower level of opposition. Barely those guys or Max were preparing for that. Baer simply was having a good time doing what he loves, frequent little paydays and a$$-kicking.

Fighting too often, especially against the same opposition, reminds me of a lottery dependant on different circumstances. It's not equal to a situation, when fighters distance themselves from outside factors, live like Spartans, focus on the preparation and go against each other both in top conditions, without effects of the third parties.

In the pre-war times you could lose not because your opponent was better, but because you didn't have a good meal for a couple of weeks or was screwed at the factory accident a day ago trying to make a living. Back then boxing often appeared in a role of fighting, other than a professional sport.

DrDuke wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 16:21 Good points. Some people are sold on fighters performing hundreds of times. Yet often it was against a clearly lower level of opposition and clearly without proper preparation from both sides. Using your name at little events to make little, but frequent money.

I have access to academic libraries now, and in turn, lots of old newspapers. As such, I can see articles from this era and interpret them myself rather than simply rely on the words of others. One thing I recently came across was an article for the Harry Greb/Eddie McGoorty contest held in 1918 in Fort Sheridan. IL. McGoorty was a middleweight boxing champion in the Army, and Fort Sheridan used to have a military base present there until 1993. The bout was an exhibition intended to provide revenue to a local military charity. The part that you can't see on Boxrec is that Battling Nelson was on the card too, as described:

"Besides these well known headliners, there will be quite a number of bouts by stars of lesser not on the bill and every fan is guaranteed his money's worth in fast and hard milling. Battling Nelson, the hero of Hegewisch, has offered his services for the afternoon also, and wants to bring along his Kaiser dummy and show the soldiers and student officers in these parts what he would do to the Kaiser if he was given a good opening."

Now, is the dummy actually a thing of straw, or is it a guy dressed up as Kaiser Wilhelm II? Guess we'll never know. Seems kinda weird though, doesn't it? Sounds a little like it's not a serious contest....

Fighting too often, especially against the same opposition, reminds me of a lottery dependant on different circumstances. It's not equal to a situation, when fighters distance themselves from outside factors, live like Spartans, focus on the preparation and go against each other both in top conditions, without effects of the third parties.

In this era, the opportunities to make money were more limited. By the time we hit the 50s, pro wrestling 's business is better and you see a lot of the Jersey Joe Walcotts and Joe Louises doing that. Under the circumstances and given the population's desire to go to live fights at the time, it makes a lot of sense for those kind of touring champions. I compare what many of these bouts were more to our modern exhibitions like Arce/JCC 1-3 or JAB/Soto-Karass except that they took place during the fighter's prime rather than after.

In the pre-war times you could lose not because your opponent was better, but because you didn't have a good meal for a couple of weeks or was screwed at the factory accident a day ago trying to make a living. Back then boxing often appeared in a role of fighting, other than a professional sport.

Now as then, it was entertainment commercially first and foremost. For the competitors, the nature of that commerciality is I think the major difference. You wouldn't look to fight once a week in the 2020s because there aren't enough cards and you couldn't possibly get enough money in purse and board/per diem to make it worthwhile.

Have never followed MMA, so I can't speak to that.
As for No-Decision fights, that is a gray area. You and others consider these exhibition, or sparring. Others consider count them as regular fights and rely on the "Newspaper Decision".

I am sort of in the middle. Why they should not be considered exhibitions or sparring is this: You have to keep in mind that in no-Decision fights, a fighter can win by KO or stoppage. Many of those fights that we see in the record database that say KO 9 (or whatever) were in fact fights that would have ended in in a No-Decision had it went the distance. So if you were a fighter in a No-Decision fight, you would have incentive to try hard to stop your opponent.

Also, even if you knew the bout would not have an official decision, there was still incentive to try your best even if the fight went the distance. Why? Your reputation. If you are fighting front of a thousands of people, you want to look good. You want them to want to see you fight again. And of course in some fights there were many newspaper writers from several cities. You wanted them to put you in the best favorable light.

Of course there were situations where one or both of the fighters probably didn't care much and just went through the motions.

some of the pre-war fighting was hilariously crude, like 2 actors badly overacting the roles of boxers. i just dont see a lot of these supposed atgs hanging with the best of later generations (about 40s-50s on). it was like a different sport both in the ring and as a business

does remind me a bit of the 'dark' mma age actually, good call

zorndeslammes i think you will like this geezer chanel interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY9a_Q75CRk&t=2s

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 11:18 some of the pre-war fighting was hilariously crude, like 2 actors badly overacting the roles of boxers. i just dont see a lot of these supposed atgs hanging with the best of later generations (about 40s-50s on). it was like a different sport both in the ring and as a business

does remind me a bit of the 'dark' mma age actually, good call

There were a ton of good-great fighters in the 1930s and prior. Some people consider the 1930s in particular to be a great era in boxing in general. Fighters fought dangerous opponents on their way up which helped in their development. A prospect didn't automatically start off 20-0. He had to beat other prospects and veterans who still had something left. Then when a guy became a contender, he usually had to fought other contenders before getting a title shot.
This gradually changed through the decades. Obviously you can find bad fighters in any era including before World War II. You can fights in any era to be hilariously crude. You also have to take into consideration the quality of the film which sometimes warps things.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 11:09 Have never followed MMA, so I can't speak to that.
As for No-Decision fights, that is a gray area. You and others consider these exhibition, or sparring. Others consider count them as regular fights and rely on the "Newspaper Decision".

I am sort of in the middle. Why they should not be considered exhibitions or sparring is this: You have to keep in mind that in no-Decision fights, a fighter can win by KO or stoppage. Many of those fights that we see in the record database that say KO 9 (or whatever) were in fact fights that would have ended in in a No-Decision had it went the distance. So if you were a fighter in a No-Decision fight, you would have incentive to try hard to stop your opponent.

This also goes to how the bouts were reffed. Were the stoppages always legitimate? Were they merely overclassing, a la what we'd come to expect from some of the quick stoppages that appear on modern day boxing cards (I sometimes call these "Televisa stoppages" because they're more prevalent in lower level Mexican fights than most places)? I assume that there's a mix here. There's also the small and uncomfortable fact that B-sides may have taken dives. In the example provided of a modern comparison in MMA, Shannon Ritch lost by submission in both fights to Dan Severn. Different submission holds, but the lead up in terms of "action" was fundamentally the same which led to outcries about the latter fight being a fake.

Also, even if you knew the bout would not have an official decision, there was still incentive to try your best even if the fight went the distance. Why? Your reputation. If you are fighting front of a thousands of people, you want to look good. You want them to want to see you fight again. And of course in some fights there were many newspaper writers from several cities. You them to put you in the best favorable light.

Yes and no. Again, using Greb since he's the guy I've spent the most time doing searches on, you'll see that the NYT frequently relies on wire reports of his fights. They don't dispatch people to follow him or other guys around the country. Does the sports writer covering the fight for the Fort Wayne Tribune or the Hays Daily News know as much about boxing as the NYT or NY Post beatwriter? Ehhh, questionable. So you might be able to get one over on them. Heck, even now, fights are blatantly rigged and unless you have a GIF of the punch not landing from Tim Boxeo on Twitter, would anyone even know?

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 11:18 some of the pre-war fighting was hilariously crude, like 2 actors badly overacting the roles of boxers. i just dont see a lot of these supposed atgs hanging with the best of later generations (about 40s-50s on). it was like a different sport both in the ring and as a business

does remind me a bit of the 'dark' mma age actually, good call

I used to feel this way. I really did. You'd see old timey fights (mostly heavyweights) and they're like 12 FPS and guys look like they're mauling one another. There was an interview I read with an old-timer from NY, and he had some great recommendations for some weird gems on YouTube. Sure enough, I was watching a California state title bout from the 30s and realized, "my god, these guys can really go." Of course I can't find any links now, but when I do, I'll share them. Point is this: NY State had more fighters licensed in 1940 than we likely have licensed in the entirety of the US today. There were a lot of very, very, very good fighters and by the 30s I would say that most of what we know as modern boxing was already there. It's just that we wind up looking for classic fights and you're stuck with Primo Carnera or something like that 80% of the time.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑14 Jan 2022, 15:40
There were a ton of good-great fighters in the 1930s and prior. Some people consider the 1930s in particular to be a great era in boxing in general. Fighters fought dangerous opponents on their way up which helped in their development. A prospect didn't automatically start off 20-0. He had to beat other prospects and veterans who still had something left. Then when a guy became a contender, he usually had to fought other contenders before getting a title shot.

The argument I've heard from people I've come to trust is that the parallel development of TV (the networks of which loved to push white hopes that were often hopeless) and the end of WW2 and the economic boom basically devastated boxing because it led to people staying home instead of going to club shows and the club talent being appreciably less talented than pre-war. Sure, purses went through the roof, but it came at a cost. Same story can basically be told about when boxing transitioned to pay-cable and then again when it transitioned to streaming services. Overall viewership continued to decline and fewer people entered the sport even if people were making more money at the top level.