DF, You are right about numbers but ALL fighters take the money over the exposure. That is a sad fact. Adios.
Building fighters is the killer in our support. Building is a code word for protecting, hyping and rinsing all financial worth from them! A fighter builds himself in the gym and in competative fights. Boxings culture sees to it that not enough fighters are travelling for hard sparring and not enough fighters are getting genuine experience. Do you honestly think a fighter learns anything beating up a southpaw for 6 rounds. He doesn't learn **** about fighting a southpaw and he doesn't get the rounds in. He'll learn more sparring with a good south paw and road work + hard sparring will get his conditioning up. If a boxer loses then he genuinely rebuilds. We all knew David Haye had stamina problems but he had to get exposed first. We all knew Khan may have a dodgy chin but he had to get exposed. These losses made them better fighters. FACT - a heavy loss does more for a fighter then 5 **** wins. If a fighter doesn't have the mental strength of hard work to come back from it in confidence and technically then he doesn't belong at the top. **** BUILDING FIGHTERS IS ALL I GOT TO SAY. It's a load of bollocks and killing boxing.
a lot of valid points,but a few with which i have to disagree.i would suggest that,generally speaking,any loss,but particularly a heavy one,can virtually end a fighter's marquee value in one fell swoop.once that perceived all important '0' is replaced by a '1,'the promoters/tv companies and,most importantly,the fickle fan,quickly lose interest and move on to the latest new kid on the block.only few fighters,such as khan,seem to have the kind of backing which allows them to carry on where they left off.criminal,but true.
I look at Mitchell, Khan, Haye amongst many others and I see nothing but good come from a heavy loss. That is because they have the mindset to bounce back bigger, better, stronger, more determined, blah blah blah The perceived 0 is a load of bull**** too. Humans were born fallable and always will be fallable. The invincibility factor is fun but highly unrealistic. The few who seem to attain that level rightly leave us spell bound but to believe Nathan Cleverly or John Murray is one of them - well thats just a load of shite! Losing the 0 never has or never will hurt the marquee value of a TRUE fighter. It hasn't hurt Pacs or Haye or Khan or Wlad or Dos Santos or Overeem or Nadal or Federer or Man Utd or Man City or Arsenal or Tiger Woods or whatever ****ing sport you choose! Eventually, elite competitors lose if they mix in the same company HOWEVER in boxing this loss is always delayed and avoided thus killing the growth of the fighters and the sport. Hence the reason the standard of boxing is so poor, even on the top flight.
Nope, agree with achilles. Loads of the well known greats have suffered a defeat and still manage to maintain interest, look at pac for instance. Plus the public like to see a comeback. True talent comes back stronger and usually learn from the mistakes.
I remember ITV showing boxing more like once a week, for a spell in the mid-80s ('86 and '87 particularly). and no just main events. There was often boxing on BBC on wednesday and saturday nights too.
"Im really excited by BoxNation and it takes me back to my early years when I was at ITV doing a show a week" http://www.boxingfutures.com/news/0922-******-launches-new-boxing-channel
The real reason that boxing isn't getting exposure right now is simple - the viewer demographic is not lucrative enough for the broadcasters and potential advertisers do not want to be attached to the sport. There are many reasons why this is the case, several of which have been mentioned in this topic and no quick fix. The sport needs a complete overhaul to reverse this predicament.
Anyway, I think BoxNation should be given a chance. The schedule at the moment doesn't look so good but presumably fights will be added. We got a couple of months for free, and on Sky it's 6 months for £50. It's worth giving the channel a chance. People moaned about Setanta, and then missed it when it was gone. If you just consider the boxing, then BoxNation is probably better than Setanta.
That could be difficult, because boxing is very much driven by different promoters. One thing would be good: if there was some pressure to stop all the early stoppages. But I doubt that will happen. It will be: "better too soon than too late".
And that is a bad thing? I would rather see a thousand fights stopped too soon, than have another Stone, McClellan, Watson, Goult, Ali...
If boxing could somehow be given a competative architecture, the sport would thrive. As it is, no one knows who is the best, who is next in line etc People only bother when the media tell them to and hype the fight i.e. Wlad vs HAye, Floyd vs Pac etc Otherwise, mainstream fans aren't going to go out of their way to figure boxing out because its got ridiculous. The closest thing we have to a competative architect is domestically through the BBBofC and that is why I want Frank to embrace it as much as possible.