What's wrong with boxing?

[Chinxkid]

Maybe alot of posters on this forum would agree that boxing as a sport has seen better days. I'm still new to this forum, so if this has been over-discussed on previous threads I apologize. I have a few ideas of what I believe is wrong with boxing. One would be just how many "champs" there are today. Back in the day, there were what, 8? And sometimes not even that many, since one fighter could and often did hold the title to more than one weight class at a time. How 'bout the lack of regulation, benefits; boxing truly is a feast or famine business. Ever consider boxing as a team sport? I believe there were some moves in that direction at some point in boxing history, where each major city would "field" a team of fighters, in every weight, at least in the original eight, and the Cleveland Clouters would face the Miami Maulers. At least boxing would benefit from the emotional, civic-pride factor, the way that team sports do. Agree with any of this or none? Maybe you think there's nothing wrong with boxing as it is, but if you have any ideas for how boxing could be improved let's air 'em out.

[GazOC]

It's the obvious one is 1 champ for one division. General sports fans don't truely understand how boxing works anymore.

[teeto]

Well, the alphabet-titles are nothin good for our sport imo. But , i dont know if its just me , but i do think that The Ring's lineal title policy (and in most cases, the Ring title is the lineal title), has gotten much more widespread respect in recent times, this was allways gunna be a long-term process. No real fan would ever class an alpha-title-holder as the champ solely on the basis of holding an alpha-strap. But it does cause chaos, just look at the clowns on the general forum!!!

Lately though, i have been thinking a lot of the fight-towns in the 40s, what an era that was, living in say- Pittsburgh or Philly, or any 'fight-town' you mustve been able to see special action all the time with the schedule the pugilists kept during that time

[Rebel-INS]

The obvious problem with boxing today is money.

[teeto]

Racking up the posts arent u now Chinx? I like how you dont seem to have wasted posts just to get past the newbie status, your post seem that they have all been about subjects you feel strongly about or are genuinely interested in. You've fit right in on the classic!

[GazOC]

I like the Rings title and rankings. Cynics say it just means another champion to add to the others but its the way forward IMHO if it retains its integrity.

[Thread Stealer]

Too much alphabet soup.

Lack of TV sponsors.

The obvious problem with boxing today is money.

Yeah, it's like a good thing for the fighters is a bad thing for the fans.

The big name fighters tend to get paid more so we don't see them as often in the ring.

In the past, we often had the inactive (well-paid) HW champs, but the champs and contenders in other weight classes generally were pretty active.

[Bokaj]

I think UFC is a great example of how to succesfully organize a sport. They have had great marketing and, more importantly, have a limited number of weight divisions (only 5 actually) and only one champion for each. That's the basics that boxing have to get back to.

UFC also have "galas" where even the undercards are really interesting. So they have four or five galas each year where most of the important fights are decided. Their champions defend pretty frequently too compared to the standards of todays boxing, and the best of each division always meet each other sooner or later, often several times.

[Chinxkid]

Racking up the posts arent u now Chinx? I like how you dont seem to have wasted posts just to get past the newbie status, your post seem that they have all been about subjects you feel strongly about or are genuinely interested in. You've fit right in on the classic! Thanks Teeto. Truth is, I'm not such an all around boxing expert, and I was taught that when I don't know something to keep my mouth shut.

[Chinxkid]

The obvious problem with boxing today is money.

I think that's a big part of it myself. Just like anything else, largesse spurs growth, but too much, too unjust, too corrupt, too geared towards the lowest common denominator and you get a sickness. Just like television, music, movies and America.

[mcvey]

Maybe alot of posters on this forum would agree that boxing as a sport has seen better days. I'm still new to this forum, so if this has been over-discussed on previous threads I apologize. I have a few ideas of what I believe is wrong with boxing. One would be just how many "champs" there are today. Back in the day, there were what, 8? And sometimes not even that many, since one fighter could and often did hold the title to more than one weight class at a time. How 'bout the lack of regulation, benefits; boxing truly is a feast or famine business. Ever consider boxing as a team sport? I believe there were some moves in that direction at some point in boxing history, where each major city would "field" a team of fighters, in every weight, at least in the original eight, and the Cleveland Clouters would face the Miami Maulers. At least boxing would benefit from the emotional, civic-pride factor, the way that team sports do. Agree with any of this or none? Maybe you think there's nothing wrong with boxing as it is, but if you have any ideas for how boxing could be improved let's air 'em out.
Nothing wrong with the Sweet Science that a great Heavyweight wouldnt cure IMO.

[Chinxkid]

I think UFC is a great example of how to succesfully organize a sport. They have had great marketing and, more importantly, have a limited number of weight divisions (only 5 actually) and only one champion for each. That's the basics that boxing have to get back to.

UFC also have "galas" where even the undercards are really interesting. So they have four or five galas each year where most of the important fights are decided. Their champions defend pretty frequently too compared to the standards of todays boxing, and the best of each division always meet each other sooner or later, often several times.

Sounds totally sane and reasonable to me. I'd rather have a bunch of fighters making a living than have a handful making a mint and the rest of the sport this side of starving.

[GazOC]

I think UFC is a great example of how to succesfully organize a sport. They have had great marketing and, more importantly, have a limited number of weight divisions (only 5 actually) and only one champion for each. That's the basics that boxing have to get back to.

UFC also have "galas" where even the undercards are really interesting. So they have four or five galas each year where most of the important fights are decided. Their champions defend pretty frequently too compared to the standards of todays boxing, and the best of each division always meet each other sooner or later, often several times.
Thats a great post. UFC is really easy to follow for the average guy. 5 weight divisions and the champoins fight the top challengers all the time (who've usually been on the undercard of the last promotion to keep them in the fans minds). I can't see it working for boxing with its different promotors and managers but its a good way run a sport from a casual spectators point of view.

[redrooster]

no stand out fighters in the sport, too many organizations. Over decades, the rulling organizations have contributed to the sport self destructing. Network fights could help but boxing is definitely on the way out soon to be replaced by UFC. Good riddance.

[ripcity]

Bigest problem is a heavyweight division without a marketable star.

[Chinxkid]

But it does cause chaos, just look at the clowns on the general forum!!!

Lately though, i have been thinking a lot of the fight-towns in the 40s, what an era that was, living in say- Pittsburgh or Philly, or any 'fight-town' you mustve been able to see special action all the time with the schedule the pugilists kept during that time
Just my luck I came in just after boxing's glory days. I got to know a few of those guys, not well but had been around them when they were about ten to fifteen years out of the ring. Pittsburgh had a lot of great fighters, and some of the boxing statistic guys might correct me if I'm wrong, but I think five of the eight world champs, maybe in the thirties, fought out of the Pittsburgh Lyceum, the Lower Hill District gym run by Epiphany Catholic Church, where my father went to grade school and was an altar boy. He grew up literally doors away from the gym, and when he was a kid he and his friends would stand outside, waiting to see the fighters coming in and out. Some of the fighters would get bugged and tell them to get the fuck outta the way. Now and then, "Hey Chinaman", Billy Conn would yell, on his way into the gym, a name my dad had picked up in his predominately Italian neighborhood due to his high-cheekbones and almond shaped eyes. My ten year old father would go runnin', and Billy would pick 'em up, hide him in his overcoat, and walk him right into the Lyceum. Nobody else just him. Beleive me, my father felt ten feet tall.

[Mendoza]

Thats a great post. UFC is really easy to follow for the average guy. 5 weight divisions and the champoins fight the top challengers all the time (who've usually been on the undercard of the last promotion to keep them in the fans minds). I can't see it working for boxing with its different promotors and managers but its a good way run a sport from a casual spectators point of view.

There are many MMA groups. The UFC is just one. Who can say for sure if the UFC Champ beats the pride champion or the K1 champion or the cage fighting champion, or insert your own MMA group champion.

In essence, the UCF, is its own alphabet group. I do like less weight classes though.

What's wrong with boxing is a long post, but the arbitrated version is the promoters don’t make the big fights at the right times, alphabet politics prevent the right fights from being made, and the judging and officiating at times is really bad. Yet none of that seems to matter on the night of a big fight as the fighters walk into the ring.

[salsanchezfan]

............The biggest problems are lack of regular exposure (e.g., marketing) and the proliferation of sanctioning bodies.

I don't buy the money thing. There's always been big money in the game, even in eras when the sport was healthy. I also don't like the idea of the "team concept." Perhaps a big part of the attraction to boxing is the solitary aspect of it. This would be lost if such a team concept were introduced. Hell, back in the 80's I didn't even like Kronk fighters because they reminded me too much of a team. :lol:

[Bokaj]

There are many MMA groups. The UFC is just one. Who can say for sure if the UFC Champ beats the pride champion or the K1 champion or the cage fighting champion, or insert your own MMA group champion.

In essence, the UCF, is its own alphabet group. I do like less weight classes though.

No. Pride has merged with UFC, so UFC is the only major MMA. K1 is a different sport since no grappling is allowed, which make it really different, so that shouldn't be confused with UFC.

[PaddyD1983]

From a UK perspective, we suffer the same as US in terms of too many belts but for me the main problem is lack of media interest and therefore lack of public interest. Its a vicious circle really, without the public being interested, the media wont report but without the media reporting the public wont be interested. There has been an upward turn in the sport with Hatton, Calzaghe and Amir Khan grabbing some headlines but ask the man on the street the name of the HW champion, MW champion or LW champion and I'd bet 9/10 couldnt answer you!

The reason for the drop in interest over here, I feel, occurred when boxing was taken from prime time TV. Also the fact that many fighters feel the need (rightly so given the stick they get when they dont) to fight in the states. This means that a fight at 3am on sunday morning will not appear in the papers until monday - by when other things have happened in other sports and suddenly boxing loses out to a three paragraph article on the last page of the sport section.

Not sure how to go about resolving this issue, other than to hope terrestorial TV wins boxing back!

[fists of fury]

Boxing's problems are many, in my view.

For one thing, I feel that an exciting heavyweight star would only flimsily paper over the cracks. A young Ali or Tyson would be good for boxing because as the heavyweights go, so does the rest of boxing to a point, but it's problems go deeper.

1) No big fights on mainstream TV. All the big fights are PPV now, which does not bring boxing to the attention of the average Joe Public.

2) The sanctioning bodies are a malignant cancer which must be eradicated. They all pull in different directions, have their own agendas, and their own champions. Case in point: When Tyson was ruling the division, the newly formed WBO, instead of rightlfully recognizing Tyson as champ, laughably recognized Francesco Damiani as champion. Situations like that make boxing a laughing stock.
It doesn't help when boxing publications give recognition to these fledgling organisations either. The American mags rightfully refused to even speak the words WBO, IBC etc, but the European and African publications embraced them, something that rankled me.

3) To follow on from point #2, there is no one governing body. American Football has the NFL, world football has FIFA, athletics have the IAAF etc. Who rules boxing? Nobody in particular. It's a free-for-all where anyone can set up an organisation and hand out belts and dish out a set of rules. Welcome to the club, boys.

4) With so many belts on offer, fighters and their management rarely seek out the really meaningful fights. Hey, you don't want to fight the number one contender? That's okay. Dump the belt and fight for another, there's plenty of them to go around. These days our ears perk up when the word "unification" is mentioned. It's a rarity, let's be honest. 50 years ago though, it would have just been another mandatory defense for the champ, or maybe just another title defense. There are too many "champions" today that would barely be contenders 50 or 60 years ago.
In short, the best fights out there are rarely made.

5) Increased competition from other sports.
In Jack Dempsey's day, the only sport that competed with boxing for the affections of the public was baseball. Ditto in Louis' time and also in Marciano's time. From the 60's though, the NFL got it's act together and overtook boxing as a spectator sport. Then so did the NBA. Recently, a whole new generation of sports have come along, such as extreme sports, the UFC/Pride, motorsports, college basketball/football etc. All are well marketed and well organised. Boxing has languished behind, and actually devolved into administrative anarchy.

In these times of increased competition from other sports, boxing needs to be a tightly run ship. It's not.

[PaddyD1983]

5) Increased competition from other sports.
In Jack Dempsey's day, the only sport that competed with boxing for the affections of the public was baseball. Ditto in Louis' time and also in Marciano's time. From the 60's though, the NFL got it's act together and overtook boxing as a spectator sport. Then so did the NBA. Recently, a whole new generation of sports have come along, such as extreme sports, the UFC/Pride, motorsports, college basketball/football etc. All are well marketed and well organised. Boxing has languished behind, and actually devolved into administrative anarchy.

In these times of increased competition from other sports, boxing needs to be a tightly run ship. It's not.

Very well written post mate :good

I see your avatar is a Liverbird too... is right!

I agree with all the points you made with the exception of 5 which I've quoted. Just from a UK perspective, football has always been #1 and then cricket and rugby have always been popular too. Motorsport is growing in popularity but I wouldnt say it was any bigger here than it was 20 years ago, 50 years ago I'm not so sure. Again sports like snooker and darts have always been popular.

So boxing has consistently had to compete with all of these. One major difference however is that footballers are now paid by the bucket load. You ask a kid who loves football and boxing 'Do you want to get paid the same money to kick a ball or to get punched all night?'. What do you think he's gonna pick? So I agree that that could be a reason that we dont get as many boxers any more, but I dont think its a reason for a fall in popularity of it as a spectacle

[Ezzard]

Essentially the bodies are just pawns of the promoters. Promoters have their own agenda and are not really there to govern fair play etc but they have the power.

All we really want to see are the best fights made consistently. Other than a unified title or a lineal title the rest are meaningless promotional tools.

Maybe the whole sport needs to change...but it won't...

I'd bring back 15 rounds.

Get the WBA and WBC to rank one another's champions as contenders, that way they would soon become mandatories and the titles would become unified (or at least come together more often than they currently do).

[Bokaj]

2) The sanctioning bodies are a malignant cancer which must be eradicated. They all pull in different directions, have their own agendas, and their own champions. Case in point: When Tyson was ruling the division, the newly formed WBO, instead of rightlfully recognizing Tyson as champ, laughably recognized Francesco Damiani as champion. Situations like that make boxing a laughing stock.
It doesn't help when boxing publications give recognition to these fledgling organisations either. The American mags rightfully refused to even speak the words WBO, IBC etc, but the European and African publications embraced them, something that rankled me.


I think this is the main problem. Boxing need ONE sanctioning body who recognises one champion for each division and have a ranking for contenders. There should be demands on champions for a minimum number of defenses and on who he should defend against.

I mean, look at the 1990's HW-division. You had four outstanding perfomers in Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe, and yet Lewis and Bowe never met, Tyson and Bowe never met, Holyfield and Lewis didn't meet until 1999, and the fight between Lewis and Tyson didn't take place until 2002. In the lower division match-ups like Eubank-RJJ, Eubank-Toney and RJJ-Benn was missing altogether. That's really making a hasch of things.

[PaddyD1983]

I think this is the main problem. Boxing need ONE sanctioning body who recognises one champion for each division and have a ranking for contenders. There should be demands on champions for a minimum number of defenses and on who he should defend against.

I mean, look at the 1990's HW-division. You had four outstanding perfomers in Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield and Bowe, and yet Lewis and Bowe never met, Tyson and Bowe never met, Holyfield and Lewis didn't meet until 1999, and the fight between Lewis and Tyson didn't take place until 2002. In the lower division match-ups like Eubank-RJJ, Eubank-Toney and RJJ-Benn was missing altogether. That's really making a hasch of things.

I agree, but the reason this wont happen is that the respective governing bodies will not relinquish their control as they are each making too much money to do so.

All the cards are in the hands of the top boxers. Example;

PBF; recognised (almost) universally as the best P4P boxer at the moment. If he and his management team decided that they were going to ignore titles and just fight the best then what would the governing bodies do? Their first reaction would be to strip him of his title. Then, as time goes on and they no longer have the best boxers as their champion (thus losing credibility and more importantly - money) they would have to reinstall him as champ.

Now it would be long term - this wouldnt happen overnight and it would have to happen across all divisions to work. But left to their own devices, governing bodies will not unite - why would they?

Another suggestion - football is the biggest sport in the world and it is ruled by one governing body in FIFA and its sub-departments (UEFA etc). How? The world cup!

The biggest tournament in football is staged, organised, seeded and regulated by FIFA. If you're not a member of FIFA you cant play in the world cup - and thats where the money is! Now if someone could come up with that kind of tournament and that kind of appeal then you would be half way to creating a governing body with total control.

You cant have the stick without the carrot, if there is to be a governing body which is universal then it needs to be rewarding enough for boxers, agents and sanctioning bodies to get involved in!

[fists of fury]

Very well written post mate :good

I see your avatar is a Liverbird too... is right!


Haha...thanks. :smoke Just don't let Conteh hear you say that.

[PaddyD1983]

Haha...thanks. :smoke Just don't let Conteh hear you say that.

Haha, he's old now I'd be too quick for him! Still wouldnt fancy taking a smack off him though, so I wont go into any Everton jokes!

BTW - good article on the ESB site about Conteh today. But dont think he'd beat Calzaghe though

[fists of fury]

I was talking about the poster, not the boxer. Now you're in trouble...:lol:

[PaddyD1983]

I was talking about the poster, not the boxer. Now you're in trouble...:lol:

:patsch
:bbb

[Chinxkid]

3) To follow on from point #2, there is no one governing body. American Football has the NFL, world football has FIFA, athletics have the IAAF etc. Who rules boxing? Nobody in particular. It's a free-for-all where anyone can set up an organisation and hand out belts and dish out a set of rules. Welcome to the club, boys.
This has to be the first and the last problem. If no one's callin' the shots, and there's money to be made, how could it end up anything but a, "free for all?" I'd like to know how many "Championship" fights there were, say in 2007 versus in 1947. If a promoter can bill a fight as a title fight, and we've already established that most fans don't know the difference, then I guess up to a point, he can count on a bigger gate, and more importantly more TV money. But if every other fight is a title fight obviously the term "title fight" is diminished, doesn't mean as much and is less exciting; just as it would be if every other beautiful girl you passed on the street screeched to a stop at the irresistable sight of you and begged to be bedded and right here and now...ok, ok, bad example. I'll allow Fists to follow up on our point to keep us focused...

4) With so many belts on offer, fighters and their management rarely seek out the really meaningful fights. Hey, you don't want to fight the number one contender? That's okay. Dump the belt and fight for another, there's plenty of them to go around. These days our ears perk up when the word "unification" is mentioned. It's a rarity, let's be honest. 50 years ago though, it would have just been another mandatory defense for the champ, or maybe just another title defense. There are too many "champions" today that would barely be contenders 50 or 60 years ago.
In short, the best fights out there are rarely made.
Thanks Fists!
:rasta

[McGrain]

"Nothing Serious" is my answer, though I'm not fond of weight-making or the alphabet titlists.

[Chinxkid]

"Nothing Serious" is my answer, though I'm not fond of weight-making or the alphabet titlists.

What about for the average fight fan? Maybe a guy or a girl who likes football or baseball and also likes boxing a little too; wouldn't boxing be more likely to attract and retain that kind of fan, and wouldn't the game benefit if it weren't such a maze?