Comparing this boxing era to the 15 round era is crazy!
If you’ve ever spent time inside of a boxing forum or commented on a boxing Facebook post, then you’ve more than likely heard people speak of today’s fighters as being softer than fighters of old, but what warrants this type of opinions?
It’s true that fighters back in the day fought more often and to round 15, and they were known to have careers that led them closer to 100 fights, if not over, unlike now, where the fights usually stop in-between 30 and 60 fights. Have you sat back and wondered why that is, or do you automatically assume that boxers are simply weaker and less competitive? I’m going to help you out with that question because it’s a little complex.
Have you ever heard anyone say that men could never bare the pain of pregnancy and that we have a lower tolerance of pain? This is an acknowledgment that can’t be proven because when the said party (Men) does not have to, and can’t, go through the said pain (Pregnancy), it is pushed out there as almost a fact because it can’t be unproven either. But the truth is, if men were built to have babies, why wouldn’t we be able to? If boxers now were trained to box for 15 rounds, why wouldn’t they be able to?
Also, if you look into the lives of a boxer back in the 60’s 70’s, etc, you would realize that they had a different focus because of the times.
A boxer back then didn’t have the option of fighting twice a year and grossing a six figure income, but if they did, how many do you think would have selected that career path over the one where they have to fight, at least quarterly to make a living? They had to fight all of those fights a year to make the money they wanted, so it comes down to the options. So when you fix your mouth to say “Boxers now couldn’t fight as much, and for as long, as the fighters did back then!” I want you to think about this: Fighters back then wouldn’t have fought as much as they did if they could make the money the sport is paying now!
I believe a legacy is important to most fighters, retired and current, but I think its meaning has altered a little over time. With the need to fight a lot of fights to generate the needed money, I believe legacies were unavoidable because the bigger name you fought meant the more money, so that became a focus. The person with the best opponents on their resumes, especially the winners, meant they made more money, but it’s different now. Oscar De La Hoya is one of the highest grossing boxers in history and he is nowhere near the greatest of all time, but he was marketable. He won some fights to get his name out there, but when he really started making money, it was because he was a household name and people would pay to see him in their homes via Pay Per View! PPV… Modern Technology, this was not an option back in the day… Times are different!
So with new rules, like no more 15 round fights which was setup to help boxer’s health, and media outlets being nonexistent back then, why wouldn’t focus change? The fighter with the best legacy or resume has been replaced by the biggest PPV draw.
There are many other discrepancies that make the old days and the new similar to apple and oranges, but when it comes down to it, no matter what year, every fighter that steps foot in that ring has enough heart to do it and should have some form of respect for that feat alone!
I dislike the comparison because it’s like trying to look at a mirror image of movies made in the 80’s, which lacked the special effects to a remake today.. The original is usually better, but it’s more because of the sentimental value and story-line, but never for the visual effects.
