The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science

Anyone who has been around old fight fans have heard it ad nauseam -- "These younger fighters couldn't have hung with the guys from my hey-day!" Well, the nice thing about this book is that it actually fleshes out that argument and makes it more compelling than the rantings of an embittered old fan.As someone who came into this read extremely skeptical (I'm 32), I have to say I might actually be convinced. The core four arguments that got me thinking were --1) Simply put, less athletes are taking up boxing.As he points out, at one point in the 40s or 50s, NY state had thousands of licensed boxers on the books -- by the mid-2000s, it was around 50. A sport is only as strong as the athletes that compete in it... and boxing has been on the decline for quite awhile. Top athletes that might have once considered boxing are now playing in the NFL, NBA, and other big money sports rather than the sport of boxing. Now, only a very small percentage of fighters are truly the elite athletes of today. The ranks of boxing were much deeper with talent -- not because people back then were any more special, but because far more people were participating in the sport.2) The frequency of the old-school boxing schedule.I think the authors says that in the "golden era", fighters tended to have a bout every month or more whereas the fighters of today at the elite level do it twice a year at most -- and I am a believer that the more you do something, the better you get at it. The book puts forth the idea that fighters learn better defense as a bad beating or injury will put you out of work for too long and are exposed to a greater variety of styles simply through the sheer number of fights and the depth of each weight division (and there were only 8 then).3) Weight divisions render the "bigger, stronger" element that you see in other sports a non-factor.At least with weight classes under the Heavyweight Division. 160 pounds is 160 pounds... and while I'm a believer in evolution, I think it takes a little bit longer than a few decades to kick in, so there's nothing intrinsically superior about the modern human being versus the one from the 1950s as long as size is equal.However, they also make the point that boxing has always had plenty of "giants" -- he lists quite a few boxers from the golden age's HW division that were 6'5" or even more. Guys who were beaten by the likes of Joe Louis or Archie Moore.4) The book actually has top boxing trainers -- like Emmanuel Steward, Angelo Dundee, Freddie Roach, and Teddy Atlas -- breaking down modern fighters and fights, critiquing the boxing technique used and offering alternatives that worked for past fighters, all explained by some of the top boxing coaches of all time. Defense is the top thing criticized, which makes sense when you factor in the points above.But, on the negative side...The one thing you usually have to give the athletes of today is the superior science they have on their side, from training equipment, nutrition, supplements, etc. I feel the book makes a weak case as far as saying modern strength-training creates muscle-bound fighters, picking out fighters who used weight-training and have lost. This is a bit of a straw man argument -- you could point to a ton of fighters who use a speed-bag and have lost.Also, the critics of this book are right -- the book needed a good edit as by the last few chapters, you start to hear the same thing over and over from certain experts -- "But could so-and-so compete with golden age fighter-x? No way, he would get KO'ed in the third round and be nothing more than a club fighter." Even if true, how many times do we need to hear it over and over? And since it's pure speculation, even from an expert (and let's face it -- take a look at past predictions from sports experts and you're not seeing an extraordinary level of accuracy), it's hardly real evidence.Still, this book is truly a pleasure -- you get a quick but deeply informative lesson of boxing history since its modern inception, a depper insight in boxing strategy and techniques, and a panel of coaches that are a pleasure to hear from.Highly recommended!

The finest and most intelligent book on boxing in many, many years, perceptively assessing where boxing was and where it is now. Gennady Golovkin is one of my two favorite boxers of all time, a devastating puncher. As of 2018 he has fought a total of some 37 times. That is also his age, I believe. Fine a fighter as he is, I must concede that he'd have little chance of beating Jake Lamotta. Lamotta had 103 fights in his career, continually fighting the best middleweights in the world, ducking no one, in an era when there were probably more great middleweights than at any time in history. His nemesis, Robinson, fought some 200 times. Carlos Monzon fought 99 times. Not a chance in the world my favorite, Golovkin, beats either of those guys. Gennady simply never got the ring experience he'd need to stay with them. Plus, Golovkin never had to endure the ultimate test: 15 rounds of grueling punishment in a great championship fight. No fighter of recent time ever has had to.You could say the same for other divisions. Joey Maxim, 113 fights as a light heavy. Kid Gavilan, 144 as a welter. The great Ezzard Charles, 117 as a HEAVYWEIGHT. For Archie Moore, the record book says "219," but every boxing aficianado knows that it's far more than that, much as no one can ever say how many games Satchel Paige REALLY pitched. For Willie Pep, it's 241 fights. Marcel Cerdan died at his fighting peak at just 33, yet managed 109 fights in that time.The great old ball player Duke Snider once spoke of how incredibly much his skills increased when he moved from playing the relatively small number of games he played in high school to the vastly bigger schedule of professional minor league baseball. He said that simply playing so much more was the key. If it made such a huge difference in baseball, how much more in boxing? Not to mention the 15-round championship fights. And that in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s boxing was second only to baseball in popularity. These days no one cares much about boxing except a few hard core fans. The best athletes in America would prefer to play football, baseball, basketball, even some preferring soccer. The pool of talent today is much smaller. If my fighter Golovkin could take a time machine back 70 years, I'd pull mightily for him to beat any of the great old middleweights of those days but, in my heart, I'd know he'd do well to simply make 12 rounds, let alone 15. And no way does Gennady win.We tend to egotistically say that the best fighters ever were the guys we saw, the guys from "our day." Unfortunately, I never saw Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Henry Armstrong. But I've seen the films, which counts for a little, and I've read about them and seen their astonishing records. It's not even tempting to say that the fighters of the last twenty years or so could win, not even Gennady.

I was actually surprised at how good this book is. It’s very thorough, well written, and has plenty of interesting photos. You’ll definitely have a good idea of what it takes to become a boxer after reading this book. Better than most.

This is a great book! If you are a fan of boxing you need to read this book. Mr. Silver brings together a panel of experts and poses questions to them, primarily comparing boxers of old with the more current boxers, from say the 1970's on. The experts provide information on why the "Golden Age of Boxing" was really from the 1920's through the 1950's. Sometimes there is just general agreement among the experts as to why the current generation of boxers falls short, but sometimes they will provide very specific information about what's lacking, and this is very helpful. It gives you direction in what to look for. It points out the flaws and makes you aware.

Accuracy, history, references, interviews with knowledgeable trainers, writers, boxers. Very convincing argument that boxing was much better in every way in the golden era 20s-50s.

Repetitious content. This book could have been 1/3 the pages if redundancy was eliminated.

As a competitor and nearing 60 years as a Boxing fan. I found this book to be both a great and a troubling read. Great as it revives lost history and troubling because it's honest appraisal of the problems with this once great sport today.

I would recommend this book with high praise. I agree with the author's views that boxing was at its apex from 1920s through 1950s. Go to YouTube and watch those great fighters. The difference is amazing.

There is no boxing tome like it ,puts forward many ideas and backs each one up with sound logical arguments from the most renowned historians and experts on the planet.I am astounded by the original and insightful as well as original methods Mike Silver uses to tear apart the sorry state of modern boxing's disarray ,anybody that falls for Mayweather's lies and self promotion about the sorry state of his skill set ,when all he is a self promotionist and marketing man who isn't worth 1 percentage point of what he has earned and that is being exceedingly generous and you will agree with me and Mike Silver and Teddy Atlas when you read this masterwork believe us.

I new little about boxing before this book and now I have finished I want more. From a historical and current perspective The Arc is an excellent read because it compares and contrasts all eras and top fighters. In my opinion it should be compulsory for all fighters to research into the history of boxing. This book would be a great start for anyone who is interested in the lost art.