The Decline of Boxing

The Eastern Europeans will dominate now, and will have big fanbases.

Lots of idiotic fans don't like it if an American isn't dominating, but I'm sure the sport will continue to thrive elsewhere.

Saying that, two Eastern European (or one Central Asian and one Russian really) HAVE caught on with the American public it seems.

Boxing can turn itself around. There are only a few tweaks needed to return it to its past glories.

 

my theory is that you can't have a sport doing as well as it potentially could among casual sports fans if you have no champions.

now, that might sound daft with all the champions boxing has....but...if you have 4 belt holders at a weight...and more with wba various belts....what you effectively have is no true champion in any weight...so 'champions' become diluted, even if they are by far the best in their division, the effect of all the other belts in all the other weights, means casual fans and sports media may not be paying them the attention they deserve.

kids need proper champs in sports to look up to and admire.

mind you, look at china getting behind zou shiming and that big dong fella...so boxing will live on propped up by the likes of that.

still...you need clear, proper, champs.

 

Hi Flea. I mean no disrespect, just want to throw in my $0.02.
Boxing can't 'turn itself around'. It will continue to be a 'sport' but any semblance to the old days is long gone. For pete's sake, the UFC crap is twice as popular now.
You'de need a thousand 'tweeks' to save it.
I've lost all interest in the last 20 years.
Simple reasons:
What happened to: Fly-Bantam-Feather-Light-Welter-Middle-Lt. Heavy-Heavy (I'll conceed the necessity to have created a Cruiserweight Division)
Now we have a new division and a new 'champion' every 3-4 pounds??
Not to mention 5-6 'ruling bodies' who dub their own 'champion'??
Not to mention none of the ruling bodies has anyone but their own rated as a top-10 'contender'.
Now we, in effect, have 50 some 'top-10' contenders?...and as the poster said, all have 'sparkling' records. Who the hell are they fighting???
Sadly, I'm forever done with the sport that my dad and I bonded with when I was a young, sports loving child.
I have no idea who's what now! As I've mentioned in other posts, in the old days, you knew who was champion and you knew who were THE top 10 contenders in every division.
My childhood passion and interest has been forever destroyed and nothing will ever bring it back. :-(

 

jowcol.....despite what i posted i dont see why it should turn you away from the sport...you who say you loved the sport.

while lots of things are wrong in the politics side of things...sanctioning bodies, promoters etc.....what is still the foundation of the sport, the boxers themselves...and the trainers even...are there to be admired.

 

Its hard to admire the boxers when you dont know if they are all they are hyped up to be because the level of competition is no longer there. These guys just dont fight each other anymore, at least not when it matters, when they do the fights are so politically charged that the deck is usually stacked guaranteeing an unsatisfactory outcome. I get so sick of these cherry picked opponents. People went nuts when Golovkin was fighting Rubio. FFS who cares, did anyone seriously think Rubio had any chance at all? I dont get excited watching the old game "What round WILL he knock him out in?"

 

people went nuts for dempsey carpentier too. There has always be 'cherry pickers' and there are currently guys who'll fight anyone, and not because they have too to feed their famillies like the row ect did.

There are (a lot of) reasons to get pissed at the current state of affairs but some things are better and most is the same.

Look at froch groves, champion fighting one of the best available, 2 great fights, public interest(helped by the semi controversial ending to #1 admittedly), and both guys got paid.

 

Jowcol, I don't agree with the acceptance of the cruisers. IMO it was the creation of the cruisers that created the fat-arse heavyweights. When I got into the sport die-hard wise in the early '70s, the then prospect Ron Lyle, nicknamed the Denver Giant weighed 215. The cruiserweight division took the locks off of the refrigerator for the heavyweights. I would return to 11 divisions (keeping 130, 140 and 154 because of the history involved).

Secondly, we all say one champion and 15 round fights and I agree on both counts. But it would take all the money-hungry Associations to disband and let's face it, they didn't dream up these alphabet groups for the betterment of boxing. They are self-servants feasting on boxing's carcass. Even by creating a national commission it would only contain it to these shores. They would just take their show on the road.

Regarding the stellar records that Pat Lowe mentioned, it really gained prominence in the early '80s when network TV in the States said they would only televise fights for a world title. Everything was about marketing from then on. They wanted to see a 25-0 record going against the champ, regardless if it was 25 goat-herders he just beat up on. Remember back in the day when ABC would televise Holmes against Ossie Ocasio with his undefeated record but would not televise Holmes against Mike Weaver because of his poor record. We all know who put up a fight.

So, there are multiple failings with the sport as a whole. Failings that can be fixed. But I can't see it happening without removing greed from mans persona.

 

This is the best of all possible worlds.

The sport has never been performed at a higher skill level by better athletes.

Tomorrow will be better.

 

You all just need to get the hell off my lawn.

 

I don't think 130, 140 and 154 have great history.

You can name on one hand how many fighters are generally considered all-time sort of guys who only held a belt in those divisions or were most famous for their exploits only there.

 

What a great post.I remember a time when ESPN used to put on quality fights and you would start to follow certain fighters after getting to watch them-I mean look at ESPN in the eighties and look how many contenders,champions,future champions and such appeared on ESPN-now you might get a decent fight every now and then.Now if a boxer shows any promise his manager tries to get him on a pay per view undercard which back in the day would have been a ESPN fight.

 

Highest earning Athlete 1920s Jack Dempsey

Highest earning Athlete 2014 Floyd Mayweather jr

Wembley stadium just had a sold out fight


Never was or will be

 

Just to show how far boxing has declined in popularity today, I read not one
column in the New York Post sports pages about the results of the Bernard Hopkins vs Sergey Golavkin fight last Saturday night...Not one word...
In the time of my youth the 1940s, there were 6 or more newspapers reporting results of a fight held in a NY area boxing arena each night sans Sunday....I would go to the Golden Gloves finals held at the old MSG, where
they had THREE boxing rings going full blast at the same times, so popular was the sport of pro boxing...What killed boxing was the advent of television
which ruined the small boxing arena's where fighters learned their craft by
fighting often, allowing everyone to make a living...Why go out of your house on a cold snowy night to travel by subway to go to a bout when you had your
12" tv set to watch the bouts sipping a brew ? But this tv comfort slowly but surely hurt boxing immensely...Those halcyon days [for me], we would go
most every night to the fights in NY area, and then Friday night go to the
mecca of boxing MSG to watch Harry Balogh and Artie Aidala introduce the
fighters and watch great bouts. Then Saturday afternoon I would go to
Stillman's gym on 8th Ave where for 25 cents I would watch the greatest fighters in the world train in 2 rings, and rub shoulders with them...The past is the past and cannot be brought back...