Do modern day fighters get punished unfairly in ATG lists due to lack of fights?

Here a question to ponder.

We all know boxing has change a hell of a lot over the last century. Back in the old days it was almost common place fighters to be having 100+ fights, using greats likes of Robinson, Pep, Greb, Moore, Langford, Armstrong etc as examples

But with the changes we have nowadays, you generally find fighters at the top fight around 3 times a year, and you don't see many going over 50-60 fights throughout there career. With that said, is it possible for a fighter of today to have around 50 fights and make the top 5 in the ATG lists, or is it that now a closed shop due to them not fighting enough throughout the careers?

If so, is it fair to punish the elite fighters of today like the Manny/Floyds of this world for the way boxing has matured over the past 100 years, with TV/PPV/Media, and generally the timeframes they have to fight in, which is dictated by the TV/Media.

I think that something like 40 fights still represents a bar below which great fighters don't often dip. Sugar Ray Leonard and Pernell Whitaker, for example, were just above that number. Not many truly great fighters would have had fewer than 40 fights throughout history, although I'm fairly sure that there are exceptions, such as Michael Spinks, perhaps.

I don't think it's to do with the number of fights although it no doubt plays a part, Valuev and Juan Carlos Gomez had great records but we know that doesn't count for much.

Kev does put them at something of a disadvantage but for me would say it is more a question of who they fight. My argument is with fights four to six month apart it allows plenty of recovery time so no real reason you need to fight any chaff as you ain't getting miles on the clock from constant activity. Personally tend to have Leonard in my top ten who was not particularly active and would have no real issue with Floyd pushing for a place if he was to take out Manny and say for instance Martinez on the back of Ortiz, personally would much prefer fighters to be more active but it ain't the bee all and end all

alma wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:I think that something like 40 fights still represents a bar below which great fighters don't often dip. Sugar Ray Leonard and Pernell Whitaker, for example, were just above that number. Not many truly great fighters would have had fewer than 40 fights throughout history, although I'm fairly sure that there are exceptions, such as Michael Spinks, perhaps.

I thought Ray Leonard was 36-3 ?

He drew with Hearns.

Depends on who they fight primarily, for example Leonard only fought 39 times in his career but included in that were wins over Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler which is a very impressive series of victories, by and large fought the best around with the exception of a tenuous link to McCallum.

No I think it's meaningful fights that count....So what if Chavez has 100 fights???? It's the names that matter along with other contributing factors such as longevity, skill etc..

Do feel however that present guys are overlooked in alot of these lists though... and unfavorably compared to names of the past under the past is better because it's more romantic than the present scenario..

also past fighters suffer less scrutiny..

rowley wrote:Kev does put them at something of a disadvantage but for me would say it is more a question of who they fight. My argument is with fights four to six month apart it allows plenty of recovery time so no real reason you need to fight any chaff as you ain't getting miles on the clock from constant activity. Personally tend to have Leonard in my top ten who was not particularly active and would have no real issue with Floyd pushing for a place if he was to take out Manny and say for instance Martinez on the back of Ortiz, personally would much prefer fighters to be more active but it ain't the bee all and end all

Certainly agree with most of that Jeff, the problem with the chaff is that sometimes this can be down to some fighters being so good they make other decent fighters look that way.

Also as Trussman mentioned about fighters suffer less scrutiny back then, if you look at the TV/Media/Internet coverage fighters of today get now. Every fight they have gets picked apart to the Nth degree by everyone, where back in the day you may have an old transcript of a fight and thats it. Of course this is not to say those fighters back then don't deserve the position there are in, but more to point out the extra level of scrutiny you now find with fighters of today. Seems a little unfair to me.

Agree Kev, there is a flipside to that though that certain things that were not seen as the case at the time get a life of their own with the passage of time, you only have to see the Dempsey thread from Cmoyle, is largely repeated nowadays that Wills was avoided by Dempsey and whilst undoubtedly they should have fought as me and Windy have argued very much the prevailing view at the time is Wills would have been beaten had they fought, although this does not tend to be the view put forward and the tale is often told as if Dempsey was only champion because Wills was shut out.

Do agree with your point about blanket coverage though, although I should say we as fans have a lot to answer for, we have been conditioned to believe anyone with more than 1 loss on his record is a bum, this view simply did not exist many a year ago and in all reality should not exist now given Manny's achievements but you spend any time on forums like this and the minute a fighter picks up a loss he is a hype job or some similar guff.

i think ATGs are considered more closely after their careers are finished. if a fighter is still active, one poor (in comparison to the standard they usually set) performance and people critise and focus that. example would be pacquiao against mosley, i've no doubt in 5 years time people will be remembering his wars with barrera, morales, JMM, de la hoya and hatton when considering him in ATG rankings

kevchadders wrote:
If so, is it fair to punish the elite fighters of today like the Manny/Floyds of this world for the way boxing has matured over the past 100 years, with TV/PPV/Media, and generally the timeframes they have to fight in, which is dictated by the TV/Media.

~ Why yes sir, yours is a valid question, but it must be painfully pointed out that your examples above are poor matching examples of your essential inquiry.

Mr. Money will be fighting in only his 42nd fight at age 34, a modest career total whilst Mr. Manny will be in his 59th fight at age 32, a fair number of fights for any generation.

Moreover, Mr. Wlad will be in his 60th fight perhaps by the end of the year at age 35, a total not reached by heavyweight champs since last accomplished by Mr. Joe Louis who was considered a very active fighter in his day.

The difference in the old time eras that answers your question can be found in the big bucks available for top modern matches with more fighters holding titles, meaning that negotiations are more involved and ongoing which reduces the number of risky fights a fighter might keep active with, necessitating longer training camps with more rounds sparring in place of fights.

But there are always exceptions as Mr. Manny and Wlad point to, putting them way out in front of their peers on top of their other accomplishments. Even they had to slow down as the money and acclaim got bigger and bigger.

I would also point to IBRO all time lists which honor most every era with a wide mix of fighters, so no, modern fighters are not diminished by fewer fights.

yawn.......