The Decline of Boxing

Not in the US they won't - if that is what you are suggesting.

That's a delusional fiction. It is not the ethnicity or nationality that matters - it is the level of competition (which is a product of high participation rates) and the athletic quality (that develops and results out of great competition) that is necessary to produce a substantive US fan base.

Compared to the US - pretty much anywhere else is "thriving".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they haven't. Not in any relevant sense. While the country is large enough with a high enough standard of living and economic quality to provide "success" for most people specializing in almost anything that is a far cry from being "known". They're far less famous than most rodeo stars - and almost no one knows ANY rodeo stars. After all these years, no one in America has a clue who Klitschko is - and he's the heavyweight champ "of the world". That puts Kov's and Golovkin's "fame" in perspective.

Not in the US - if that is what you are suggesting. If that were true (i.e., possible), the sport wouldn't be in a steady decline for the past fifty years. Substantive change can only happen (here) by boxing attracting some portion of the best talent in the US. That can only happen if an opportunity for an education is availed. Without that (or a subsidy), there is no adequate incentive. The decline may ebb and flow with periodic successful instances but in the aggregate - within the US - boxing is entirely a second rate niche sport pursued by minimal numbers. And, the quality of talent and level of competition within the US reflects that reality. Without consistent high level competition all you end up with is "one-offs". Boxing can never sustain any level of "importance" under that condition.

The standard is not "what it was" (the country is different, larger, more diverse today, and "what it was" is nostalgia) but rather what it might be. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to change what has already long occurred. It is effectively a cultural shift and it has encompassed America's youth - across ALL ethnicities.

Boxing's decline has occurred steadily over many, many generations. The "fault lines" can be traced back to cultural shifts like the period in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which minorities began to be able - step by step - to attend colleges without discrimination and with the breaking of the color lines in the major three sports (effectively in the late 40s but really not de facto until the mid-50s). The demographic shift was gradual and steady from still low levels in 1970 to current levels. There was also expansion in these sports which steadily added more professional teams which meant more players. These sports have experienced expansions in players (rosters), number of teams, and number of games. The real explosion though has been at the collegiate level. The number of televised games here dwarfs the pros. The number of athletes performing as college players in the three sports is huge. The economic impact incredible. It is these immense participation numbers at the collegiate level that ensures the pros remains at the highest level of athletic quality. Great competition in college leads to great quality in the pros.

The demographic shift has had a definite impact upon boxing. The often heard European "argument" that "these (other) sports have always existed" is fallacious when participation rates are correctly considered.

For example, demographically, the NBA went from 0 to 5% many generations ago to 80% (African-American) twenty years ago. Professional football went from the same levels many generations ago to 60%. Both sports have experienced expansions in players (rosters), number of teams, and number of games. All the while, the African-American population remained static at 13% of the US population.

The huge growth in these sports was due to the opportunity to gain a college education from participating in these sports (which was not (and is not) available to an athlete who might have wanted to box). Decade by decade these sports have boomed into behemoths - financially/economically (both as professional sports and as HUGE money machines for universities - which funds a myriad of non-athletic programs), in terms of participation rates, and culturally or in terms of popularity. Across the board, all of America's youth has come to love and desire success in these sports. Boxing has fallen off steadily in lock step. Parents aren't going to "subsidize" their son to become a boxer when there is no educational opportunity afforded (i.e, scholarship availability) like in the other sports. A declining professional environment in which only a couple major names (e.g., FMJ) makes a great income adds to the risk profile which deters young athletes from the sport (and any backers of those athletes).

The youth in America can rattle off the names of (obscure to you or I) college basketball and football players. It has been like this for many decades.

None of them know who Thompson, Jennings, Wilder, Ward, Dirrell, Quillen, Kirkland, Trout, Bradley, Porter, Thurman, Alexander, Malignaggi, Peterson, Broner, etc,. etc. are. When I state they are unknown that means that only some marginal, inconsequential, miniscule minority of US sport fans have ever heard of these athletes. That is the reality.

Boxing's decline is directly related to a lack of interest from America's youth. [It doesn't matter your color or ethnicity. You can be an Asian-American that may well never grow big or large enough to make it in the NFL or NBA, you are still playing basketball and football or baseball as a kid. You are buying jerseys of players in these sports. You are not boxing. It is related to why there is a dearth of boxing magazines, articles, or media interest compared to the distant or somewhat distant past. This cultural shift has been occurring for nearly fifty years. Boxing has declined in a relative sense (even with the occasional great boxing talent that has emerged from the US) and in the aggregate. The participation rates tell the story.]

A non-American should simply ask themselves a couple questions. Why is the athletic quality consistently at the highest level across a larger number of players (due to prior expansion(s)) both professionally and at the university level in the country's three major sports - generation after generation - sports which are booming economically? Why are the US boxers generally so poor in the aggregate with so few examples of great talent (out of a population of 310 million)?

 

If we focus upon the heavyweight division - a prior bastion of US success - we can be specific. I don't adhere to the idea that the past greats from US boxing that were fifty pounds lighter and six inches shorter would defeat Wlad today merely because they came from some "better" period for boxing. Size matters - all else being equal. But, I do believe that this current era for heavyweights is lousy. It is lousy because of the consistent lack of competition - a product of low participation rates from one of the largest pools of talent on the planet. It is lousy compared to what it might be if a substantial number of quality athletes were participating. It doesn't matter that there are lots of belts, orgs, divisions, weight-classes, etc. compared to the past. A sport can thrive if the numbers are there. There are tens of dozens if not hundreds of major US colleges and universities all with sport programs, teams, and lines of athletes competing to represent, achieve, and succeed. Boxing is not "thinned out", reduced, or "watered-down" by expansion or division - it is reduced by the paucity of athletic participation.

What matters is the scarcity of quality large-sized (super heavyweights, as an example) athletes pursuing boxing. If decade after decade the best large-sized US athletes are performing at a consistent high level in three major professional sports then US boxing would be and should be no different. But it is. Obviously and undeniably. The US representatives are regularly third rate, often unfit, and the antithesis of what exists in our other sports.

But, the cultural impact crosses most weight classes. Little guys still want to be in the NBA or NFL even if they should know by their parents that they will never get big enough. And still they spend their youth practicing these extremely popular sports.

One person stated that FMJ was a once in a lifetime boxer. I don't think that attribution would be close to accurate if boxing was popular and pursued by ample numbers of our youth. It would be like saying Lebron James is a once in a lifetime player. There are already a number of athletes that were at his level within this lifetime or our lifetimes.

The very reason that many here contend past (heavyweight) greats were as good or better than Wladimir is due to the weaknesses exhibited (against Sanders most specifically), the panic, or the clinching when he is usually the larger athlete and more fit than his opposition, etc. These apparent weaknesses may well still exist - but, no decent athlete of comparable size has entered the ring to discern that truth. It is difficult to improve, learn new skills, fix weaknesses, and get better when you never face someone who can force you to implement them under real fire or pressure. If you never have a viable opponent in an actual fight - what should one imagine is the representative quality of the athletes sparring with you, challenging you, and acting as the foil for you to get better in practice?

The cultural shift away from boxing in the US has meant the talent pool is significantly lessened. Out of poor competition often comes less convincing champions. The decline of boxing has been the result.

Perhaps some (like you) believe that the "flag" can be borne solely by non-US athletes. That really remains to be seen.

It will not be sufficient to knock down second-rate athletes and expect that could ever result in a boxing renaissance or cultural shift within the US. Just as posters here can be critical of this or that fighter, kids are quite able to see when one athlete succeeds because his opposition is simply terrible or unexceptional. Without captivating America's youth, boxing can never really "recover" here.

 

Very interesting posts.

Some quick thoughts: there are plenty of boxers making six figures a fight. A fair few making seven.

This isn't chump change by any means.

You raise some very interestim6g points, and it was great to read.

I will also add that both Golovkin and Kovalev have done over a million views in the States. In todays climate, those are very good numbers.

Perhaps the sport will migrate away from having the States as its main base. I personally don't see a problem with that. Soccer is a huge, global sport with a massive amount of money in it, and the biggest league in the world is in my tiny s h it hole of a country.

As many others have said, with todays fights and coverage being so readily available to us all, if the hub of pugilism ends up outside the states, and even if the best fighters come from outside, it won't be a loss. It will be a change.

Korea used to be a major player. They have gone off the map in the last 20 years.

Perhaps the Americans are about to go off the map. They've had a great run of over a century, and I can hardly write them off as wimps with no fight in 'em when, as you correctly pointed out, many of the larger athletes are participating in the hellacious sport of American football.

The Latin American countries are still producing quality fighters. Canada is opening up as a big market it seems. It won't be a massive loss that one of the biggest potential talent pools may be moving away from pugilism, just as it wasn't in previous eras when other huge pools went untapped in terms of their potential.

I will look at your posts more in depth when I'm at my computer, but I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

 

I will say that no kid is going to be able to tell whether or not a fighter is taking on unremarkable opposition or not. That seems a pretty bizarre notion.

 

You make a lot of points, some more valid than others in my opinion.

Here you revert to a familiar stateside mantra of the pool of large sized male athletes in the US being drained by the three big time US sports and that crippling the quality of the entire division worldwide.

Let's set aside the breathtakingly nationalistic bent and look at it a different way... If you put this assertion on its head and turn back to the glory days of the division, are we to assume that boxing drained Football and Basketball of its talent? If so, I am curious as to the potential for either sport exhibited by Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Holmes or Tyson? Like many here, I have read quite a lot about all the above (well beyond the usual bio's) and their attempts at other sports both before and during their time in boxing. Outside of Liston who never really had much chance to participate in organized sports, you will find the NFL (or AFL) most likely missed out on nothing with these all time great boxers. Ali was notoriously slow of foot over any distance beyond a boxing ring. Frazier undersized and underpowered. Tyson uncoordinated and foolish in any endeavor beyond the ring.

The NFL has had some success taking mediocre basketball players and transforming them into good or even occasionally great footballers. This simply isn't true in modern day boxing. Boxing is a special calling more than a sport. One does not "play boxing", one boxes. It is a very special and rare case to find one who can do it at the highest level... and it employs a skillset that is almost unique and non-transferable.

 

You don't recall being a kid and knowing everything? lol

There are young kids without the physical tools but can already do great crossovers and all kinds of trick moves as well as really young kids that are amazing at many endeavors - singing, playing instruments, dancing, etc. I wouldn't sell them short (so to speak).

Whether deserved or not, most youth are strongly opinionated about which athletes, which sports, which entertainers, which musicians, etc. are great and which are not and why. Don't you remember when you were young and could remember averages, records, and obscure stats like an encyclopedia?

How about the first fights you saw as a kid, and how you remember certain fighters as good or great and others as mediocre or poor? It's no different.

 

But you are making that last extension - just to be clear. I can surely live with it, though. Why? Because I have seen fairly little evidence of ample great quality in the "entire division worldwide". Have you?

No. That is an attribution of yours. I think we can look at it another way as well. The US is the combination of just about every group of people on the entire planet. Isn't that true? It has representation of most of the world's ethnicities. Athletically every possible combination is there to compete and demonstrate its abilities. It has long been the chosen destination of most of the world's immigrants and their families.

Nope.

But elaborate if you must. Which specific "glory days" are you referencing? I'm pretty sure we will be covering US athletic demographic periods and how that unfolded ....

Unfortunately those are two commonly said and entirely unconnected and thus, misrepresented points. One does not lead to the other.

The ability or inability of boxers (no matter how famous) to have been successful in other sports has nothing to do with the points I have made in my post.

Secondly, it is not a mitigation of my points to think that a history of athletes that played the other three sports and then went into boxing and were unsuccessful or unimpressive is a viable argument. Surely you could poke holes in this line of thought yourself. If a professional athlete later went to become a musician and was middlin' would that really mean anything at all? If I was a great tennis player but later in life a second-rate golfer would that be indicative of some theme or be applicable to some thesis about these sports? OR, would it merely be that all sports just like all endeavors take focus, practice, and time and rarely in life can we be exceptional in more than one thing? Generally, what we chose to make our life focus at that most opportune period encompassing youth will preclude the development of other areas and pursuits.

Finally, I could just lead you back to my "two questions" and ask you to answer those first. How you square that circle will be informative and avoid me having to address so much.


OTOH, the final contention and/or conclusion you then arrived at is simply incorrect. I have heard this before and do not agree with it.

It is not "very special". It is not "rare". It is not rare to find one who could do it at the highest level. But, it is a convenient excuse for one who wishes to believe that the talent pool is not poor and the level of competition is not miserly.

The skillset is not unique and it is transferable. It is why your earlier point is incorrect. Just as there are boxers that would not be exceptional football, basketball, and baseball players - there are football, basketball, and baseball players that would not be good or great boxers. Does that really need to be said?

We both know that right?

So, let's use yourself for a moment. You used to be a long-jumper. If a stranger walked up to you and said "long-jumpers are a special breed, almost no one can be like Bob Beamon or Carl Lewis". You might feel compelled to say "I am similar" because you would feel that you were close enough to see what they see, know what they know, and feel what they feel in the context of jumping. So, how can you conclude that a boxer is somehow unique? How do you square the circle of my two questions? There are LOTS of athletes that could easily - EASILY - make great combatants. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

An ****ogy might be needing a great computer to do some task. With a bad computer you can never do it. But, with a great computer you have a chance. Out of all the athletic participants in US sports it is fallacious to believe otherwise. There is nothing so unique about a boxer than is non-transferable from a multitude of great athletes with belief, desire, commitment, and will.

 

Excellent posts from all before. What I have culled from these posts can be
summed up with this admonition. "The greater amount of fighters participating in a country's boxing pool, equal's more fights, more boxing experiences against all opposition, invariably leads to greater fighters at the top"...The "golden age of fighters" were the 1920s,30s, and 1940s, 1950s, where there were the most licensed pro fighters, fighting often against the largest pools of talent, where boxing was a means to an end, namely to put bread on the table, unaided by welfare, home relief and food stamps...
Speaking to the fact that I growing up in the 1940s, had access to go to local boxing event EVERY night of the week except Sunday to see an 8 bout boxing card in the NY City area ALONE...And the top fighters fought about 100 fights or more in their career against great opposition learning and honing their
UNIQUE craft which was boxing....There were great, great fighters who reached the top by simply being the best of that large pool of fighters.
There were 8 divisions of boxers, and most every fight fan knew who the champions were...Boxing flourished in the 1940s because of the popularity
of the sport WITHOUT the aid of television which eventually killed the
local boxing arena's , taking away the place where multitudes of young boxers
learned their craft going up the ladder, and earning a living...Of course after those halcyon era's of great fighters, many great boxers also emerged who
I became fond of such as Mathew Franklin [non braver], Alexis Arguello,
Reuben Oliveras, Israel Vasquez, Marvin Hagler, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Manny Pac, Sergey Kovalev, and my present favorite
who compares with most anyone of my time Gennady Golovkin, and others
who would have done quite well, thank you, in the bustling 1940s ...Great individual talent will find a way...

 

Not true. Whwn I was a kid and got into boxing it was by watching Roy Jones. I didn't know the light heavyweights he was fighting were the pits. To me he was Superman and he wowed me.

Now I know differently.

 

That seems a most reasonable conclusion.

 

Damn right! And just because there were more shows in New York 50-60 years ago, doesn't mean that boxing has declined WORLDWIDE, over the last half century. On the contrary, pro boxing can now be seen in more countries than ever before, and there are a lot more fights today than back in the 50s, 60s and 70s - worldwide!

 

I'd say it is pretty obvious that PPV is a world wide phenomena, and therefore more people are PAYING to watch boxing than ever before. Hence fighters like Mayweather and Pac getting astronomical money for fighting mediocre opponents. All these companies sell on the rights that they pay for fights, which is why we in Europe can watch Hopkins / Kovelev, Pac / Algieri live if we pay, as opposed to relying on streams that may or may not freeze, or " buffer " (whatever the word is)

 

A couple quick points on the "basketball/football/whatever is stealing our heavyweights!" argument:

* Some athletes specialize early. Ali started boxing at 13, IIRC; Tyson also started around that time. Others specialize later, but boxing demands a lot of dedication. Since you don't see many successful multi-sport athletes in ANY sport, it doesn't surprise me that most boxers fail to transition to other sports after specializing in boxing for a long time. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have started out in other sports instead and built their athletic base from there.

* If Classic wants to debate seriously about "talent drain" from other sports, we should look at the champions AND THE CONTENDERS. The "talent drain" argument attacks the division's depth as a whole, so we should ask whether people other than the Alis, Tysons, and Fraziers might have been lured away from boxing. Especially since some contenders are just one lucky night away from a championship anyway.

 

The fact that the greatest champions of the last 60 years would most likely be chumps in these other sports speaks volumes.

Martial sports are intrinsically different than stick and ball sports. Having competed in both, and in one at a very high level, I humbly attest to this. Not the same ****.

 

Utter ****e. You harp on US athletes throughout your entire previous posts. Don't back out now. Here are some of your conditionals...

"If we focus upon the heavyweight division - a prior bastion of US success "

"The cultural shift away from boxing in the US has meant the talent pool is significantly lessened. Out of poor competition often comes less convincing champions. The decline of boxing has been the result."

"If decade after decade the best large-sized US athletes are performing at a consistent high level in three major professional sports then US boxing would be and should be no different."

Stop with your nonsense. "Your" talent pool is strictly a US talent pool, ignoring the other 4 billion males on the planet.

Are you contending that the US represents an accurate composite of the world's ethnicities? Wouldn't the US be 1/3 Asian or Indian at that point?

Seriously, have you traveled? Do you think the rest of the world gives a rat's ass about American Football or Basketball? Even in Spain, a country that was won silver medals in Bball, that sports takes a back page to football, tennis and motor sports.

I just sense some serious cultural myopia here.

Great retort. My position could not beg for better approval than such a response.

What might you say are the glory days of the sport then? I am going by the usual Classicist timeline of post WW2 thru early 1970's.

This is just absolute tripe. Anecdotally I believe any boxer or person who has spent time in a gym will agree. I have seen many a strapping lad enter the gym, maybe even have his way with some of the lesser fighters, but get his ass handed to him once by the betters and never return. I have even been on the giving end of this equation, as ****ty a boxer as I was. Most folks don't like getting hit in the face. I don't particularly like getting hit in the face. I moved to other sports precisely for this reason, even tho I demonstrated promise.

Boxing, or perhaps all serious martial arts, are unique far beyond other sporting activities. The skill set of attacking and taking punishment in return, when those is the sole objects of the competition, is just in another realm of what gets included in sporting activity.