What happened to the popularity of boxing from the 70s to today?

You can find the "rest of the world" fighters on P4P lists, for starters. The Ring only has 3 Americans on the list.

The rest seems like you arguing for the sake of arguing. Chavez and Whitaker arent even 70's fighters.

 

You were forced to watch what was on T.V there was no internet or satellite T.v,no cell phones ,no digital media of Apps, streams or even VHS. Sports were way more simple then and really secluded to a U.S based sport really .....

Boxing isn't less popular now because its more global . I think the big myth that boxing is not as popular stems from just a more variety of things to watch so the casual viewers don't pay attention as much but there is a lot more people now ,you also have MMA around which does a way more better job at promoting guys like a UFC brand. Once DAZN really lifts off you will see it gain a lot of momentum to the casual base.

In the states there is no longer a Don King or Ali /Foreman/ Mike Tyson so it has lost a lot of followers . You really do need a HW champion for a mass amount of fans to want to follow it, NOT a wilder promoted debacle one and even Lewis had trouble attracting fans despite being in a Holyfield and Tyson era .

What it comes down to is a HW champion that brings an invincible aura around him is needed ...its Always been the case and the one who can do that is Joshua ,Fury will Never be fan friendly with his style and wilder looks like he cant box.

In short if Joshua is not leading the way it equals...NO chance it once again being talked about ...you NEED that guy, that's what drives popularity a polarizing figure and one that brings knockouts dominatley .

The Wilder vs Fury fight is evident of this over here, if that cant generate interest it tells you the state of boxing, but it doesn't mean boxing itself is less popular.

 

Ah, okay. Got it. They like things that are familiar to them. Well, we lowbrow Americans sure could learn from you cosmopolitan bunch, now couldn't we?

 

Your opnion. Mine is Lomo's competition wasn't that special even in the amateurs , and being a great amateur doesn't guarantee your going to be a great pro, see Jackson, Breland,and Curry for reference, and his competition hasn't been special as a pro if one looks at it reasonably. The reason I lumped fighters from different eras is to show a pattern of how great boxing was from the 30's through the early 90's and the skillsets, power with proper technique, and the speacialist of those eras compared to the lack of so the last 20 yrs or so. Question where is the next Pep? Or Ali? Or Tyson? All had different styles and different attributes that made them great. Wilder and Joshua fight very similar. Even of being winded by the 5th rd and losing all technique when their tired . Lomo fights like fighters from earlier eras , and is well schooled but where's the competition that would make or break him. Canelo was taken to school by a 90's fighter, who 's almost the entire Male side of his family where contenders or champs from the 70's and 80's You don't think what Mayweather Jr learned from them didnt have anything to do with his greatness ? Canelo won against that other hype job Triple G. A much bigger man, and supposedly have a devastating and unstoppable attack.(I noticed you mention him but if he'd won, some of you would be saying he would beat Hagler and Monzon on the same night)Crawford didnt dominate a fighter with a recent gun shot to the leg, and clearly was hindered by it. Spence and Uzyk are lucky they fight in today's era, in past eras they may have been a contender, nothing more. They simply don't pass the eye test. Look I'm in my 50's I fell in love with boxing in the 70's I did the sport, and trained under the best trainers in this area. Also I've trained fighters myself in the 90's and had a good program going for underprivileged kids, before the city closed us down by jacking up the insurance to a rate they knew we couldn't pay because we used a city gym, after they closed us down, almost all the kids we had ended up incarcerated. And Ive watched videos of almost every fighters that have been filmed. Believe me when I say their is a difference and a drop off in skill level the last 20yrs.

 

Your opinion on Lomachenko is false, quite ludicrously false. The beauty of the amateurs is that you have to fight the best. The rest of what you are saying is no less ludicrously false. It is amusing that you criticise Crawford for failing (what fight were you watching!) to "dominate a fighter with a recent gun shot to the leg, and clearly was hindered by it" right after mentioning Monzon, I guess you must think Napoles and Valdez were pretty crap huh.

Also I don't care whether you have, or have not trained boxers.

 

In 1950 the 3 most popular spectator viewed sports, in no order, were:
Baseball
Boxing
Horse Racing
Things have clearly changed, mostly because of all the previous comments.

 

I didnt mention Monzon or Napoles other than to say how good they were. Sorry I hurt your feelings about Lomo, obviously too you hes the greatest fighter ever with a total of 15 pro fights Beating a never was in Russell, a old and natural bantamweight in Rigo, and nothing really special in Linaires. And again 15 total fights. TheGOAT ! Your welcome to that opnion. I think its premature to say hes the best of his own era, much less the GOAT. But have a good evening never the less.

 

I never said they were, neither is K Chocolate, or Gavilan.

 

I think my comment about Monzon and Napoles and Valdez has went over your head, here is a clue: Monzon was shot in the leg.

I said that Lomachenko was arguably the greatest amateur boxer ever, you are jumping to conclusions.

 

Where? You mean the US? Not sure if that is true but it might be, certainly Baseball would be number 1 in the US at that time. However you realise that there is a big world outside of the US?

 

But Monzon was properly healed. And probably shot with a much smaller caliber firearm. Thus he showed very little effects from his gun shot, as opposed to Benavides whom was plainly limited. Look, its obvious that someone who has a different opinion than yours, and explains their opinion seems to upset you. But your on the classic section and you should expect a different opinion than what your trying to sell. I dont consider Lomo the best amatuer or pro. Esp when one looks at the careers of great amateur like Breland,C.Jackson, Curry and the great Cuban kids who came through from the 60's through the 90's. Its impossible to prove, but I can pretty much guarantee that he didn't face the level of competition those fighters faced during that era. But let's call it a draw, you have your opinion, I have mine. Have a good day.