Boxing is DYING! (And has been for 100 years)

So what? Neither my parents, nor my grant-parents would have recognized the name of Muhammad Ali (or Cassius Clay). Absolutely majority of population on Earth simply didn't care about boxing, and even if they heard Ali's name somewhere on TV or radio or in newspapers, they didn't remember him. But they would recognize the names of idols like Elvis Presley, Marylin Monroe, Michael Jackson, etc. Ali and Dempsey are out of their class.

 

But you're judging everything on the very biggest fights, not the smaller local venues which don't put on nearly as many shows as they did in the past and not taking into account the rise of low-cost airlines- and more scheduled flights. For example, families here didn't start going to spain and the like for their hols regularly until the 70s and 80s. It's far more commonplace today, as is football fans flying abroad to see their team play a European side, something that was rare in the 70s and 80s- due to cost.

Like I mentioned, Hatton was definitely as popular as some of the old guys, and I doubt 8,000 (or whatever) it was flew over to see McGuigan vs Cruz, for the reason stated below. Still, Barry's world title fights were watched by a 1/3 of the UK population- which is incredible really. So it is often a case of 'apples and oranges'- Barry was more known to the general public, the 'casuals', than Ricky, who has a massively loyal fan base.

The big fights are as popular as ever I agree, boxing as a whole, has a hardcore fan base and is not as mainstream as it once was. Led Zeppelin weren't a mainstream act and they sold a shitload of records but they didn't reach out to as many people as, say, The Beatles did and talking about concert sales doesn't really tell you the whole story about the popularity of each band. Zep broke those concert attendance/revenue records; but the Beatles were bigger, no doubt about it.

Good question this, this is difficult to answer in all honesty. Again, just judging boxing on the biggest fights doesn't tell the whole story about the state of the game. But the sad thing is, people will always harp on about "the good old days" just like some of them will about today.

I don't think this hurts sales, just the reputation of the sport.

 

Yes, it's not about the sport, as football will always **** over everything in popularity here, it's about how much crossover appeal the 'name' has. Like Bolt has, and Beckham has, sadly, who's obviously famous in most parts of the world due to, well, what he looks like mostly.

 

People who've grown up in most western democracies would disagree. Ali was a very famous name, even if many do still call him "Clay".

 

Muhammad Ali became known by almost everyone. He's world famous and still famous, like those you mention.
Almost everyone knew Frank Bruno and Mike Tyson here in the UK when they were fighting.
I'm not saying every old lady in the street would know, but it wasn't unlikely. It doesn't matter if you "care about boxing" or not.

Actually, I was genuinely asking the questions.
Can you honestly tell me that Floyd Mayweather Jr. is as famous as Usain Bolt and Serena Williams in America, or that boxing covers the same amount of space in general ?

 

When Ali dies, the story will be all over the front pages and take up a good slice of that news that day- and the next few days. I've no idea what some 89 year old twins, who still live with their mum and dad in an old shack in Omsk, will make of it though.

 

Ok, thanks for answering my query. :good
Here in the UK he's not as well known as that. His name might well draw a blank, and his face even more so.

 

Yeah, MDWC's Beatles-Led Zeppelin analogy is spot on.

 

Ali is not, not here anyway. A lot more people would recognize Mike Tyson's name, and I mean *a lot more*. Not even all boxing fans would know who Frank Bruno was.

 

Looking at ppv numbers from today vs 20 years ago is bogus. Not everyone had the capability to get ppv years ago. Today if you have a tv set you can get ppv.

 

I sense you're getting a little frustrated here, and I don't mean to be a dick about it. Just having a discussion here is all.

What you presented may well be facts, but they're kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Why I say this:

1 - Inflation IS a factor. It just is. Ergo, one cannot reasonably present raw modern-day PPV dollar numbers and use that as any barometer that because of the sheer dollar amount involved, boxing MUST be more popular now. It doesn't work that way.

2 - The fact that sales of PPV might outpace inflation (and I'm not sure I believe that, but that's not the argument I'm making here) is also irrelevant. How else is a fan today going to watch a fight? Any idea how many households watched fights on TV back in the day? Or per capita? The point being, there were much easier ways (and cheaper, too) to watch fights back then. Nowadays, all big fights are PPV, so that all fans have to be funnelled down this one narrow avenue to be able to see a fight. It skews the numbers terribly.

How am I convinced that boxing was more popular across-the-board back then? Well, I seem to remember a whole lot more crossover media things like commercials, for example......Ali, Duran, Leonard, Arguello, Holmes, Hagler.......all of them had commercials to their credit. That's crossover appeal, and more or less all concentrated in one era. Who has that now?

Take a look at old issues of a very mainstream sports publication, Sports Illustrated. Go back and look at their history and how many covers were adorned with boxing images in years past. What have you got now? Look at the articles inside, and look how many you have these days compared to what it used to be. Again, we're talking mainstream media, not boxing magazines. One more example of crossover appeal.

How many newspapers now cover boxing? Does your local paper cover it? Mine used to. Up until the mid-80's, I'd say. Hardly a blip now, a small snippet of dry results on the back page is all, if that. In older times there were full-length articles in local newspapers about boxing. I'm not making this up.

You wanted examples because you felt my argument was nothing but a "gut feel." Well, here you go.

 

I don't know of anyone who does not have cable or satellite tv. Vast majority does and that number is higher today than 20 or more years ago. You also need to factor in economic conditions at the time of the bout. But the idea is there is always boxing public who will fill up stadiums and buy ppv no matter what. The question is how is boxing transcending that boxing public into the sporting and lay public. Years ago everyone knew who the boxing champions were. Today I don't even know who they are. That disconnect is true with most everyone and is why the sport is no longer in the headlines, no longer on major network TV (CBS, NBC, ABC etc). As an example MMA has an regular section in USA Today...not a mention of boxing at least on a regular basis. I can't find Ring, BI etc at the local store anymore..one time I could. It's not even carried by Barnes and Noble anymore but they do carry MMA magazines...quite a few of them.