The Decline of Boxing

Dubblechin, you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. I'm not berating technology. I think it's great and i'm up to speed on most everything. But that's not what this discussion is about. We're talking about what happened with boxing and it has nothing to do with tech. I see it as a group of greedy human beings who have taken a once glamorous sport, where the common man (Not die-hard boxing fan) could name you several world champions and give you a little synopsis on his career. It's just not there today. When the common man cannot follow a sport, interest is lost.

 

I long for the old days which for me were the late 60's to late 70's. It seemed every division had it's fair share of hungry contenders and very good, if not great champions. I remember my 3rd grade teacher took an opinion poll of us students who we thought would win the FOTC between Ali and Frazier. I think I was the only kid who picked Frazier and when he won I felt like the cat's ass. How many kids today even know who the HW champ is? Or any champ in the lighter divisions for that matter? It would be tough for them though since there are 3 champs per division.....and something like 16-17 divisions? Talk about watered down and diluted! Plus fighters today are afraid of losing just once and losing thier potential drawing power and of course the big bucks. As a result we have the cherry picking syndrome prevalent in Boxing today. It's really a shame. Way too much money...in all sports for that matter. Pride in being the best by fighting the best has taken a back seat to fighting the least for the most money. Give credit to Hopkins for fighting Kovalev. He showed more cajones than someone like Mayweather who has made tens of millions while cherry picking his opposition. WBA champ/Wbc champ/IBO champ/IBF champ...in one division? Gimme a break! I watched the Holmes/Norton fight on channel 5 with my father on a portable color tv on the kitchen table and it was one of the best fights....and best nights of my young life. Now you have to shell out 50 big ones to watch a fight on pay per view. I'll take the old days thank you.

 

In the United States during a period of fifteen years right after World War II.. there was a dramatic change in professional boxing due to a massive societal change in the country and the advent of television. I have read that the number of professional boxing clubs decreased in from 250 or 300 to about fifty within a ten-year period in the United States by 1960.

Yes, there were so many memorable televised boxing bouts which were seen by millions of people in the United States during the 1950s, but it also meant that people could see many attractive televised fights in living rooms or local bars for free rather than pay to see boxing shows, often featuring bouts between virtually unknown fighters, in person.

The middle class grew by leaps and bounds after World War II with a huge number of white and blue-collared workers earning large enough incomes to qualify to become apart of it. Such people often moved from old city neighborhoods to the suburbs. After such a move, a large majority of people in the suburbs lived farther away from the old boxing venues than they did before.

With the rapidly decreasing number of boxing clubs, less fighters were being developed in the United States because of a greater lack of opportunities to fight. With a diminishing supply of fighters, televised bouts became less popular in the United States. In other words, it was a vicious cycle. The result is that professional boxing has a greatly diminished presence in the U.S. at the present time than it did fifty to one hundred ago.

- Chuck Johnston

 

For every Mayweather with a perfect record not fighting anybody there is a people's champ with some losses who is still popular. At light middleweight where Mayweather fights there is Cotto and Alvarez. At super middleweight where Ward fights there is Froch who draws more than Ward even though Ward beat him. Hopkins draws at light heavyweight with several losses. Pacquiao and Marquez draw at welterweight. Matthysse earns the same kind of money as the undefeated Danny Garcia at light welterweight. Below that, there's no money, so it's barely an issue.

 

Perhaps we are mixing concepts?

I have the impression that we mistakenly compare boxing's popularity and boxing's lucrativeness

As a bussines, probably boxing is now in an all time high, at least at the top. Huge contracts, a thriving PPV market, etc. Just ask Floyd

But as a sport and from a popularity perspective boxing right now is in a low time.

Sure eastern europe and southeast asia are hot markets for boxing thanks to national/regionall heroes like Pacquiao, Klitschko, etc.

But overall, boxing is now a niche sport. Gone is the massive exposure and popularity that boxing had in the past. Gone are the larger than life champions. Gone is the excitement surrounding the huge bouts.

Sadly that level of popularity is gone and not coming back anytime soon

 

A nascent factor is we keep mentioning this decline.

Over here in Britain there are a number of (media pampered) prospects who Sky are doing a good job of drilling into the public conscience.

And of course Froch-Groves II, the first boxing event to headline Wembley Stadium since 1995, was quite a statement.

 

D, a dollar went a helluva lot further than it goes today...You could go to a local boxing arena for a buck or less...The tax rate was miniscule, and going out with a young chick on a date cost just a few bucks, and my favorite pastime Stillman's gym cost
about 25 cents ,where I would spend hours watching great fighters train a few feet from me...Life was tougher, but we were more content than today...

 

I like Wlad...a clean, decent sort of guy. He's brought, along with his brother, a touch of class to boxing. They're both very decent gentlemen in a sport full of...uh, bad actors. Don't get me wrong now, I love the bad actors too, but for their ring accomplishments, not for their personae, as in one of my very favorites, Carlos Monzon. It's refreshing to see two (now one) educated, classy gents such as the Klitschkos ruling the heavyweight division. There were others in the past, like Tunney, Loughran, Louis, Walcott, Charles, Marciano and Patterson, just to name a few....but they were in the minority.

 

Excellent points.

 

Everybody always thinks they are living in the worst ever era for something they're passionate about (except, perhaps, tennis fans). It's a seductive outlook. People like to yearn about things they can never bring back, because they don't have to apply critical thinking to them. They get to remember them exactly as they want.

Boxing has suffered a decline in popularity, certainly. Quality would be harder to quantify.

 

While boxing may have declined in the US, it has flourished in other parts of the world. In Germany, you have fights on large channels (ARD & ZDF) for free a couple of Saturday nights every month. In Eastern Europe and Russia it's getting bigger. Even China and Asian countries are producing more fighters now.

There's also still a lot of talented American fighters, i.e. Ward, Mayweather, Garcia, Wilder, Crawford, Spence, etc

 

Couldn't agree more Scar! But, sadly, I don't think the failings can ever be fixed.

 

Great words, Mr. Jowcol:good!

 

40 years ago when I was an amateur boxer I bought the boxing news every week and the ring every month.I knew the champion of every weight class and lived and breathed boxing.
If I wasn't competing I'd go and watch my mates if it wasn't a training night.
These days I haven't watched a heavyweight fight with much interest since Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson.
I prefer coaching the kids at our boxing club and have told the kids I'd sooner watch them
than mayweather or paq.
As for the "classy" klits I'd sooner watch water boil and fail to see why they are classy ??? Just dull !!!!

 

I feel your pain...