Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

[RINGNEWS24]

http://ringnews24.com/media/k2/items/cache/75243a09d8c0db3da78d7f7210f2a53a_S.jpg

Boxing used to gather a great deal of attention back in the golden days of the sport, now it seems like it just cant crack the upper echelons of world sport on the whole.

 

 

More...

[robprosser]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

I think some of the points raised in the article have contributed to boxing's declining popularity but the biggest factor is the almost complete absence of fights on free TV (on both sides of the Atlantic). It's puzzling why ITV haven't dipped their toes back in the water since boxing always delivers solid viewing figures (certainly more than sports like F1).

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

I think some of the points raised in the article have contributed to boxing's declining popularity but the biggest factor is the almost complete absence of fights on free TV (on both sides of the Atlantic).

 

--- In America that was due to the 3 ring circus farces staged by King, he was embarrassing the networks.

 

But cable tv also limits boxing. A huge factor is the corruption of Olympic boxing with non pro regulations and idiocy run ama orgs. There are no new stars coming in from the Olympics, the last gold medal winner being the lamentable Ward who could walk down any main street USA with complete anonymity.

 

Certainly there are still plenty of poor kids who were the traditional stock from which pro boxing grew, but they follow other sports with more status. Boxing has done little to attract new fans, something the UFC took advantage of by staging real fights that have new fans boxing could have had, so there it is......

Edited September 4, 2013 by LondonRingRules

[selij]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

One word = swerving. The proper boxers of yesteryear would fight anyone, anytime, anywhere, each other, in the street, [Mitch Green and Tyson], unify the division, lose and do it all over again. By the time the swerving "greats" of today have got their arses into gear and studied every imaginable way they can win some mediocre belt with the least amount of fights by beating the least amount of fighters and time it to perfection when their opponent has got a cold, we've all lost fucking interest.

 

Its like a game of chess to watch how these modern day fighters perform, in and out of the ring, and you're lucky if your fave fighter has 2 fights a year. Very lucky.

 

LRR is right, [for once], the UFC have got it right and attract the new blood amongst the fans who would have traditionally followed boxing. I can't see the attraction myself, but there's no swerving...............I will give em that much.

 

Footnote:

Plus, what was once the big cheese............the heavyweights...............we have the two 20st + steroid monsters. Hardly compulsive viewing are they.

Edited September 4, 2013 by selij

[iamasadlittleboy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Boxing has moved. The traditional power of the US has gone and we're now seeing more and more players at the big boys table. Whilst the likes of the UK and Germany are still big as they've often been, their has been a big shift in Belgium, Namibia, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe/Western Asia.

 

Look at the number of shows THIS year in Yemen (sure, sure they aint big but they are growing in number with the lad of Ali Raymi), Belgium and the rise of their young generation (same with them in football) and of course Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

 

Yes the biggest names in Ukrainian boxing are plying their trade in Germany (and the US), same with Kazakhstan but both are growing domestically.

 

And how can we forget boxing's now hotspot of Macau?

 

You only need to look at the crowds Murata, Inoue and Tso get to see that the sport is alive in the East (love him or hate him Uncle Bob seems to see the potential too snapping up a co-promotional deal with Murata and putting Tso on his last show).

[mofo2]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Boxing is still Massive and is on an upward curve, but the negativity continues!

[davemurphy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Part of it is simply that some sports raised their games. The NBA for example was in Boxing's shadow as recently as the 1980's and left us in their dust. NASCAR was just a blip on the radar back then, it's not ALL about boxing shooting itself in the foot, although there's certainly enough of that, but in many cases it's been great marketing by sports that used to rival us and now grabbing the headlines better.

 

If your going to ask this question rhetorically, you could make a case that boxing has been losing fans since the 1900's when it and horseracing were the two major sports. As bad as we've done, at least we've stayed ahead of the horses :)

[brooklynbrawler]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Personally, I think it comes down to a combination of 3 things;

 

1. Media Coverage; When boxing was a mainstream sport, it was covered in newspapers, it was well documented under any general sports topic you could care to mention.

Nowadays though, given a lot of it is tucked away on PPV or on subscription channels, mainstream media has stopped doing what is essentially marketing for these channels.

I think there is a direct correlation between mainstream coverage and general public interest.

If casual sports fans were reading about boxing over their morning coffee, they would at least have an interest in some fighters and the outcomes of fights, but the coverage is simply not there, meaning by and large, the interest is also not there by virtue.

 

2. The large number of trinkets/alphabet titles affording many underwhelming fighters an opportunity to call themselves "World Champions" whilst they sit back avoiding any real challenge of note, is off-putting to fans; If someone tuned in to watch a world title fight, they should at least have the satisfaction of being able to expect some quality on display, but whether it's High-Level Fighter A against Low Level Fighter B, or Mid-Level Fighter C against Mid-Level fighter D, mismatches and low-quality boxing, will always turn away fans.

 

3. Money;

Top level boxing IS currently tucked away on subscription channels because it's where the most money is.

Fighters have been given ridiculous sums of money for fighting nonsense opponents, and if someone has the luxury of fighting in a walkover for a large amount of money, not only is this counter-productive to pushing the best and closest fights out there, even worse; it is actually CAUSING fighters to WANT to avoid any real challenge so they can keep a high level of income rolling in, once they've reached a certain status.

Why would anyone take a significant risk to their income (boxing is ultimately a job after all - a means to an end for many) when they don't have to and when TV networks are paying them the same figures to face underwhelming opponents?

 

 

So over time, PPV and subscription channels are essentially like a parasite.....they will push boxing out of the mainstream - this in turn, means the interest will deteriorate, meaning the subscriptions will deteriorate, meaning the money they pay will deteriorate and the PPV/subscription channels will drop their coverage...boxing will eventually go full circle to the point where it goes mainstream again and they have to build back up the interest from almost nothing.

It might reach a point where the cost > interest level becomes sustainable for a while, but if they can't attract new fans, then the outcome is inevitable, and without mainstream coverage, it's difficult to attract new fans...

[gavpowell]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

The proper boxers of yesteryear would fight anyone, anytime, anywhere, each other, in the street, [Mitch Green and Tyson]

 

The Tyson who paid off Lennox Lewis to keep out of his way?

 

The Sugar Ray Robinson who wouldn't fight Burley, for whatever reason?

 

The Dempsey who wouldn't fight Harry Wills?

 

 

Who are these fighters who wouldn't duck anyone? The only guy I can immediately think of in the modern era who genuinely would fight anyone and fought for the fans is Erik Morales.

 

Personally, as I've said before, I think a big problem with boxing is that the prices have gone through the roof. I live in the middle of nowhere, so I'm always gonna have ti travel for fights, even if they're relatively local like Manchester. If it's a long way, I need to book accommodation as well. So having paid 50 quid in fuel and another 50 or so for a hotel, I am significantly less inclined to pay 175 pounds for a decent fight ticket.

 

When Haye was scheduled to fight Wlad first time around, I spent the thick end of a grand all-in for flights, hotel, fight ticket, drinks etc.

 

If I'm a dedicated fan and am balking at ticket prices, how on Earth is a casual fan going to be persuaded to drop a few hundred quid for an evening at the fight?

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

If your going to ask this question rhetorically, you could make a case that boxing has been losing fans since the 1900's when it and horseracing were the two major sports. As bad as we've done, at least we've stayed ahead of the horses :)

 

--- Lots of factors since the glory days of the 20s like stock market crash, several in fact, several big and little wars, better promoted alternative sports with less "mafia" connections, and the feminization of the male who prefers his violence masked but anonymous face masks and armor where the blood and guts can't be seen so graphically. Then computer games.

 

When TV started showing boxing in the late 40s and 50s 2-3x a week, supposedly that dried up all the club smokers where fighters were first developed, yet boxing went on a fairly high level at the top even if overall boxer numbers and interest dropped. The 80s Olympics were huge boosters for those fighters along with the advent of Mike Tyson who boosted everyone who fought him. Then Oscar/Tito/Mosley rivalry along with Barrera/Morales/Pacquiao got the juices going again, and yes, Roy was drawing big HBO numbers, folks forget how big he was, but he thought small in the end when he failed to make the big fight against Michalzewski. Even so, had he retired after the first Tarver fight, the vacuum would have left every American looking small anf forced to fight better opponents. Jones' sudden demise put the fear of big punchers in too many American fighters which has left us in a stew of mediocre "greats."

[WelshDevilRob]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Boxing hasn't died or got less, it is probably expanding. You don't realise it cos your newspaper or local TV paper ain't covering it. Them entities are dieing but the internet keeps growing and so does boxing.

[davemurphy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

--- Lots of factors since the glory days of the 20s like stock market crash, several in fact, several big and little wars, better promoted alternative sports with less "mafia" connections, and the feminization of the male who prefers his violence masked but anonymous face masks and armor where the blood and guts can't be seen so graphically. Then computer games.

 

When TV started showing boxing in the late 40s and 50s 2-3x a week, supposedly that dried up all the club smokers where fighters were first developed, yet boxing went on a fairly high level at the top even if overall boxer numbers and interest dropped. The 80s Olympics were huge boosters for those fighters along with the advent of Mike Tyson who boosted everyone who fought him. Then Oscar/Tito/Mosley rivalry along with Barrera/Morales/Pacquiao got the juices going again, and yes, Roy was drawing big HBO numbers, folks forget how big he was, but he thought small in the end when he failed to make the big fight against Michalzewski. Even so, had he retired after the first Tarver fight, the vacuum would have left every American looking small anf forced to fight better opponents. Jones' sudden demise put the fear of big punchers in too many American fighters which has left us in a stew of mediocre "greats."

 

TV certainly played a factor, don't forget that Boxing used to enjoy huge success for LIVE attendance, and when people stopped going to those local cards (unless you lived in NYC and could go to boxing every single night somewhere in the city) then it hurt the feeder system by which fighters grew a strong following. When it started coming into your living room for free, the appeal to going looking for it was forever altered. Certainly the advent of HBO and the disappearance of network TV in the USA was a huge blow, but don't forget that TV was changing around that time anyway. Boxing was drawing flack for being too violent by Medical and Womens Groups, enough so that CBS, NBC, and ABC ignored pretty solid ratings numbers rather than deal with the hassle. It found it's niche on HBO, but in the process became a niche sport.

[davemurphy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Boxing hasn't died or got less, it is probably expanding. You don't realise it cos your newspaper or local TV paper ain't covering it. Them entities are dieing but the internet keeps growing and so does boxing.

 

 

That's a great point, Rob. The whole Media industry is changing. In Boxings case, I think it's as much that the newspapers realize that so much boxing info is available online that they simply take the approach that boxing fans will go there, so why even bother with printing the results.

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

That's a great point, Rob. The whole Media industry is changing. In Boxings case, I think it's as much that the newspapers realize that so much boxing info is available online that they simply take the approach that boxing fans will go there, so why even bother with printing the results.

 

--- Most every newpaper is also online and they usually ain't covering boxing.

 

When boxing was big news, it got covered big. Now only a few events are big news worthy. Currently there is no coverage of K/Povetkin or Alvarez/Mayweather on two of the biggest "liberal" media sites, Huff Post and NPR. We know conservative Fox covers boxing as part of the Murdoch empire, but not even a mention of Tommy Morrison dying on NYTimes or any of the others above. 95% of all boxing coverage is through boxing specific media, effectively negating much of the promotion of boxing to a dying breed, at least in US where the biggest potential purses are.

[davemurphy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

--- Most every newpaper is also online and they usually ain't covering boxing.

 

When boxing was big news, it got covered big. Now only a few events are big news worthy. Currently there is no coverage of K/Povetkin or Alvarez/Mayweather on two of the biggest "liberal" media sites, Huff Post and NPR. We know conservative Fox covers boxing as part of the Murdoch empire, but not even a mention of Tommy Morrison dying on NYTimes or any of the others above. 95% of all boxing coverage is through boxing specific media, effectively negating much of the promotion of boxing to a dying breed, at least in US where the biggest potential purses are.

 

Usually the mainstream media will go out of it's way to give boxing some coverage when it's in a negative light. I recall the NY Times running a story about an "Amatuer Boxer dying" and then as you read the article you found out that it was some kids goofing around with boxing gloves on a sandlot baseball field.........no ref, nobody in charge, no supervision. The only reason boxing was mentioned is because they happened to be using gloves. THAT's the type of coverage we get too often, just an excuse for liberal media to kick the sport and it's "savage nature". I was a bit surprised that the Morrison death wasn't mentioned more prominently, since that presented an opportunity to piss on the sport. Maybe we're to the point where they're just totally ignoring us, which considering the recent past, might not be a bad thing.

[LondonRingRules]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

Usually the mainstream media will go out of it's way to give boxing some coverage when it's in a negative light.

 

--- The American press was utterly shameless in coverage of baseball, fawning to owners and big shot players, the reason Ted Williams was always feuding with the press for the whole of his career.

 

Baseball had a Congress authorized monopoly going allowing them ownership of players as if they were racehorses. Any challenges to the monopoly were quickly crushed using this monopoly as they banned players at will. Thus baseball became the "All American" sport and boxing with it's more obvious mafia connections became the n'er do well black sheep of the sporting world with the obvious exception of when a big boxing star came along.

 

Not that many kids play baseball anymore because of expansion of other activities, and the few that do seldom last more than a couple of years of Little League. It's Caribbean and Latino's that keep the MLB afloat in talent as baseball is subsidized by the public weal, broadcasters, and corporate fatcats who buy up blocks of seats to hand out as promotions, favors, ect. So baseball is a fringe sport that promotes itself as a leisure activity for sports fans who can't play or know it's history, even having catered hot tubs and swimming pools set up where bleachers used to be in minor league outfields. Plus, it's a bloodless sport so as not to bother Missy or the Mrs....

[davemurphy]

Re: Why is boxing not as big as it once was?

 

--- The American press was utterly shameless in coverage of baseball, fawning to owners and big shot players, the reason Ted Williams was always feuding with the press for the whole of his career.

 

Baseball had a Congress authorized monopoly going allowing them ownership of players as if they were racehorses. Any challenges to the monopoly were quickly crushed using this monopoly as they banned players at will. Thus baseball became the "All American" sport and boxing with it's more obvious mafia connections became the n'er do well black sheep of the sporting world with the obvious exception of when a big boxing star came along.

 

Not that many kids play baseball anymore because of expansion of other activities, and the few that do seldom last more than a couple of years of Little League. It's Caribbean and Latino's that keep the MLB afloat in talent as baseball is subsidized by the public weal, broadcasters, and corporate fatcats who buy up blocks of seats to hand out as promotions, favors, ect. So baseball is a fringe sport that promotes itself as a leisure activity for sports fans who can't play or know it's history, even having catered hot tubs and swimming pools set up where bleachers used to be in minor league outfields. Plus, it's a bloodless sport so as not to bother Missy or the Mrs....

 

Good point that Baseball's popularity has waned, mostly due to the growth of the NBA. MLB started a program called RBI (stands for Reviving Baseball in the Intercity) as the number of Black players has dipped from 23% twenty years ago to roughly 6% now. The Latins have been carrying the game.

 

Boxing used to be the cheapest participation sport there was, but now with Gyms having closed all over the country, or the ones that are still open charging Gym fees that no youth could possibly afford, boxing wouldn't have it's feeder system even if the sports media DID still follow us. Simple economics don't work in our favor. Basically it's the problem that Hockey has had for years, you have to be rich to afford to have your kids play.