Boxing, boxing everywhere - British boxing in 1930 compare with now...

By Miles Templeton

In March 2011 there were 23 professional boxing promotions in the UK and Ireland. This is a higher than average number compared with recent years and, on the face of it, British boxers currently have plenty of scope for activity. In March 1930 there were 484 professional promotions.

To say that domestic boxing has changed out of all recognition in the last 80 years is to state the obvious. The dramatic decline in the number of active boxers and promotions demonstrates this extremely clearly.

What might be hard to fathom these days is the sheer number and range of towns and cities that held regular boxing events in the old days. Colne in Lancashire currently has a population of around 20,000. In 1930 it was a mill town in the depths of an industrial depression and with about the same number of inhabitants as today. During March 1930 this small town managed to sustain nine professional boxing promotions. West Stanley, a pit village in Durham, held 13 such events within the month. Boxing occurred more than once per week in places as far afield as West Hartlepool, Salford, Preston, West Bromwich, Norwich, Morecambe and Leicester, as well as in the major cities of Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow and London.

On the evening of 7 March one could have chosen from any one of three professional boxing shows held in Preston, at the Marathon Stadium, the Majestic Rink or the Prince’s Theatre. Of the twelve contests that took place in the town that night, six were over 10 rounds, five were 12-rounders and one was a 15-rounder. None of them were less than ten rounds. Hard times bred hard men.

Weekly shows took place at Alfreton, Ammanford, Ashton-under-Lyne, Aston, Bedminster, Belfast, Birmingham, Bishop Auckland, Bradford, Catford, Castleford, Chesterfield, Coventry and Crewe. And these are only the towns, cities and districts beginning with the letters A to C that held weekly shows. The full list covers 60 different venues across Britain where one could see boxing every week. There is nowhere in the UK doing the same today.

Boxing took place during March 1930 at towns that have rarely seen boxing at all since the war. These include the likes of Torquay, Penrith, St Ives, Edenbridge, Sevenoaks, Treorchy, Blyth, Rugby, Kidderminster, Barnoldswick, Sidcup, Tylorstown, Helston, Dartmouth, Swindon, Rhyl, Goole and Weston-super-Mare.

Continue reading:

http://blog.boxinghistory.org.uk/2011/10/boxing-boxing-everywhere.html

A real shame that it isn't quite as popular any more, isn't it? Must have been an embarrassment of riches back then.

Very interesting article.

Alex have you ever come across anything resembling reliable statisitics on registered boxers across the years. I know the question has come up a number of times in the old vs new debate but the stats people have put forward have always seemed a little contradictory or unreliable.

Jeez, the forum is turning into an uncovered rings, hitting with sticks of rhubarbs, my grandma could've hit him etc etc....

What todays figure has accounted for is the whitehat element, kinda. I know friends who train and use these 'shows' (as you know basically constitutes a sit down meal, bar etc in some nice hall/marquee) as a means to earn a few quid. Naturally they're properly covered with paramedics etc and they're usually for charity. Finding one of these is alot easier than a local boxing (properly promoted) show in my area, discounting London of course as that's only 25 mins from me and there's probably quite alot i could go to in theory.

rowley wrote:Alex have you ever come across anything resembling reliable statistics on registered boxers across the years. I know the question has come up a number of times in the old vs new debate but the stats people have put forward have always seemed a little contradictory or unreliable.

Rowley, sorry, missed this.

Prior to 1929 pro boxers were unregistered, and during the '30s, after the BBB of C introduced its first licenses, plenty of men boxed professionally without buying a license. So no proper pre-war figures were recorded.

The most reliable figures I've come across on the number of active pro fighters in Britain are from Miles. The fight results that underpin them have been sourced from original newspaper reports (with the bouts then assigned to the relevant boxers). Miles has transcribed every result ever published in Boxing News and its forerunner Boxing, plus a good many provincial fight results that weren't. From what I recall of the figures (which I've quoted in MY BOOK - 'scuse the plug - on a chapter about the rise and decline of boxing in Britain), during the '20s and '30s there were around 10 times as many active pro fighters as there are in Britain today.

There were good fighters back then but lets not forget the quality we have had recently we have had Lewis, Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Froch these guys are all absolute quality some of Britains best ever fighters imo plus lets not forget the quality we have coming through guys like Brook will end up class acts

Waingro wrote:There were good fighters back then but lets not forget the quality we have had recently we have had Lewis, Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Froch these guys are all absolute quality some of Britains best ever fighters imo plus lets not forget the quality we have coming through guys like Brook will end up class acts

I think the point is there was more boxing shows on then than there is now rather than the actual quality. I'm with you people are very nostalgic when they look back. Britain over the last couple of decades have had a lot of very good fighters with the exception of Lewis who was a class act but I just don't consider him British.

Yeah, the point of the article was to highlight how staggeringly popular and widespread boxing was in the 1930s.

Whether the fighters of those days were better than the modern ones is another matter. Personally I believe that if you've got 10 times as many boxers competing, the overall standard has to be higher, as the 'talent pool' is far bigger. Also, back then, you didn't get the long manufactured unbeaten runs where fighters are fed a stream of 'no-hopers', as you often do today. The young prospects in those days were often thrown in with older, far more experienced opponents: inevitably they lost a few, but they became better fighters as a result, and really 'learnt their craft', as they say.

Having said that, exceptional fighters would have shone in any era. It's all speculation of course, but I think Hatton, Calzaghe, Hamed, Benn, Eubank and Froch would have been top-liners and big crowd-pullers in the 1930s, but they might not have won titles with the likes of Len Harvey, Jock McAvoy and - in Hamed's case - Nel Tarleton and Seaman Tommy Watson on the scene.

Lennox Lewis is a different kettle of fish. On average men were much smaller back then, and he'd have probably been too big for the likes of Jack Petersen and Tommy Farr. He might have boxed his way to a world title fight, but I can't imagine him holding the crown while a certain Joe Louis was around.

The problem is Alex that you have guys who turn pro and then sign contracts with a promoter and get a weekly wage. The promoter doesn't want to take risks with them because they are ploughing so much money into them and the fighters are earning money for training so they do what they are told. Fighters back then fought to earn a living probably more so than gaining experience or looking to further their careers.

Socially Britain was a different place as well with poverty being very relevant and people being a bit tougher than they are now due to the harshness of life back then in a lot of cases.

I agree with you most modern fighters are nowhere near as active as they should be.

Poverty is by no means a good thing but in a lot of cases it is very true that it helps breed great fighters. The standard of living that some Latin fighters for example have grew with is unthinkable to us.

prettyboykev wrote:The problem is Alex that you have guys who turn pro and then sign contracts with a promoter and get a weekly wage. The promoter doesn't want to take risks with them because they are ploughing so much money into them and the fighters are earning money for training so they do what they are told. Fighters back then fought to earn a living probably more so than gaining experience or looking to further their careers.

Socially Britain was a different place as well with poverty being very relevant and people being a bit tougher than they are now due to the harshness of life back then in a lot of cases.

Kev, I realise the 'manufactured' unbeaten runs aren't usually the fighter's fault and that it's done for business reasons. I was just pointing out that that approach stunts a fighter's learning.

As you say, certainly some men in those days fought merely to put food on the table, and had no long-term career aspirations or belief that they'd reach the top. However, a good many others did take up the game with the belief they'd make a name for themselves and on the way up they took on all-comers, losing sometimes, but profiting from the experience.

You're absolutely right, Britain was different socially - and poverty breeds great fighters.

Lewis would have beaten Louis imo he would have been champ in any era although if Ali was not banned as we all know maybe things would be different then but I reckon Lewis still has a chance against him and it would be close

alexd wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:The problem is Alex that you have guys who turn pro and then sign contracts with a promoter and get a weekly wage. The promoter doesn't want to take risks with them because they are ploughing so much money into them and the fighters are earning money for training so they do what they are told. Fighters back then fought to earn a living probably more so than gaining experience or looking to further their careers.

Socially Britain was a different place as well with poverty being very relevant and people being a bit tougher than they are now due to the harshness of life back then in a lot of cases.

Kev, I realise the 'manufactured' unbeaten runs aren't usually the fighter's fault and that it's done for business reasons. I was just pointing out that that approach stunts a fighter's learning.

As you say, certainly some men in those days fought merely to put food on the table, and had no long-term career aspirations or belief that they'd reach the top. However, a good many others did take up the game with the belief they'd make a name for themselves and on the way up they took on all-comers, losing sometimes, but profiting from the experience.

You're absolutely right, Britain was different socially - and poverty breeds great fighters.

I agree with you most modern fighters are nowhere near as active as they should be.

Poverty is by no means a good thing but in a lot of cases it is very true that it helps breed great fighters. The standard of living that some Latin fighters for example have grew with is unthinkable to us.

Waingro, each to their own, but personally I think Lewis is overrated.

I don't think he'd have beaten a prime Mike Tyson or a prime Evander Holyfield, and I don't think he'd have prime-for-prime beaten Ali, Larry Holmes, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Rocky Marciano or Jack Dempsey either.

And certainly not Joe Louis.

There seem to be alot of people on this site that dont rte Lewis not sure why that is the guy was quality he beat everyone he faced beat Holyfield and stopped Tyson and Klitschko and Bowe was too chicken to face him that is not an overrated fighter imo

Tyson was well past it and Holyfield had seen better days as well. Lewis is rated n this site e was voted as a top 10 ATG heavyweight. What more do you want?

Whilst I disagree with Alex's assessment of Lewis (for me he beats all but about 3 or 4 heavyweights in history) I do find your insistence that modern is best pretty strange at times waingro, each fighter should be judged on their merits regardless of their era.

You say other people are saying he was over rated then you say he would beat Louis.

prettyboykev wrote:You say other people are saying he was over rated then you say he would beat Louis.

What is wrong with that?

Waingro wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:You say other people are saying he was over rated then you say he would beat Louis.

What is wrong with that?

Who under rated him? Like I said before he got voted on this site as a top 10 ATG what more do you want? If anything you are over rating.

prettyboykev wrote:

Waingro wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:You say other people are saying he was over rated then you say he would beat Louis.

What is wrong with that?

Who under rated him? Like I said before he got voted on this site as a top 10 ATG what more do you want? If anything you are over rating.

I guy above posted that he thought Lewis was overrated I said I dont agree and I think he would beat Louis. Just my opinion mate.

Waingro wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

Waingro wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:You say other people are saying he was over rated then you say he would beat Louis.

What is wrong with that?

Who under rated him? Like I said before he got voted on this site as a top 10 ATG what more do you want? If anything you are over rating.

I guy above posted that he thought Lewis was overrated I said I dont agree and I think he would beat Louis. Just my opinion mate.

I hate it when people say fighters are over rated because it is an opinion you rate them as highly as you want but I can't agree with you on Louis. He could do everything. He threw almost every punch in boxing to perfection had a solid defence and his movement was outstanding.

alexd wrote:

rowley wrote:Alex have you ever come across anything resembling reliable statistics on registered boxers across the years. I know the question has come up a number of times in the old vs new debate but the stats people have put forward have always seemed a little contradictory or unreliable.

Rowley, sorry, missed this.

Prior to 1929 pro boxers were unregistered, and during the '30s, after the BBB of C introduced its first licenses, plenty of men boxed professionally without buying a license. So no proper pre-war figures were recorded.

The most reliable figures I've come across on the number of active pro fighters in Britain are from Miles. The fight results that underpin them have been sourced from original newspaper reports (with the bouts then assigned to the relevant boxers). Miles has transcribed every result ever published in Boxing News and its forerunner Boxing, plus a good many provincial fight results that weren't. From what I recall of the figures (which I've quoted in MY BOOK - 'scuse the plug - on a chapter about the rise and decline of boxing in Britain), during the '20s and '30s there were around 10 times as many active pro fighters as there are in Britain today.

Thanks for this Alex, does give away the fact I haven't bought your book yet but promise you it is on my christmas list. Will not get dragged into the old vs new debate as my views on it have been repeated to the point I suspect everyone knows then down pat. However will say your argument that in an environment where 10 times as many people participate it stands to reason the standard will be better is one I have made countless times and agree with wholeheartedly.

It is purely ridiculous to compare the popularity of boxing in the pre-TV days to that of now.

In the '30's , with no TV coverage and a terrible transport system, the only way boxing fans could get to see boxing was by attending local shows. This is why there were a large number of small poor quality local events. With the advent of TV, and radio, coverage fans had the choice of staying at home and watching top quality events instead of going out to watch a dustman v the local butcher in a circus tent.

Agree 100% without the advent of TV we may have been denied classics like Enzo Mac vs Bobby Gunn or Khan Salita.

Rendall Munroe is a dustman.

Without TV you'd never have got to watch anyone of the calibre of Khan, or even Enzo Mac.

Boxing back then was entertainment not sport.

Yeah its one thing saying they had all these shows going on back in the 30s but theres no real indication of what quality was on offer.

Kind of ironic aswell that nowadays where anything less than a Pacquaio v Mayweather fight is viewed as being some kind rip off or sham that people would look back on those kind of local shows so fondly.

Given the high standards amongst fans todays I just dont think there would be a market for them.

manos de piedra wrote:Yeah its one thing saying they had all these shows going on back in the 30s but theres no real indication of what quality was on offer.

Kind of ironic aswell that nowadays where anything less than a Pacquaio v Mayweather fight is viewed as being some kind rip off or sham that people would look back on those kind of local shows so fondly.

Given the high standards amongst fans todays I just dont think there would be a market for them.

Exactly.

If there are 5 local shows on in a town at the same time think of the quality of the bouts. Are they British, Euro or even regional title fights? no. It'd be the equivelant of the hardest guy in the local pub v the toughest guy from the next pub. I'll stick to watching top quality world title fights thanks.

Am sure there were shows that were poor, as indeed there are now. However with countless shows to choose from and no TV revenue to prop them up would seem more likely to me there was an interest in promoters making shows as competitive as possible because consumers had options and the success or failure was solely dictated by how many people turned up.

Would also add I attend several shows and have done for a number of years, would be hard pushed to name more than 2 or 3 shows I have attended in 20+ years of going to them where there have been more than 3 fights which start as anything more than 65-35 match ups so would hardly argue the advent of the TV era has led to us fans whoi actually attend being spoilt rotten.

I wouldnt neccessarily doubt the competitiveness of the fights back then. As you say, with more rival promotions competiting with each other the honus would be on providing the most entertainment. However its remains ambiguos as to what the actual quality of the bouts were. Prizefighter is pretty popular these days and usually sells out but the actual quality is generally rubbish. But as Jukebox says, its more about the entertainment aspect of a night out rather than the idea you are going to see top class fighters and athletes at work.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It is purely ridiculous to compare the popularity of boxing in the pre-TV days to that of now.

In the '30's , with no TV coverage and a terrible transport system, the only way boxing fans could get to see boxing was by attending local shows. This is why there were a large number of small poor quality local events. With the advent of TV, and radio, coverage fans had the choice of staying at home and watching top quality events instead of going out to watch a dustman v the local butcher in a circus tent.

It isn’t ridiculous at all, but drawing conclusions without knowing the facts is.

The popularity of boxing dwindled long before TV sets appeared in every home. The rise in popularity of other sports, such as athletics, speedway, greyhound racing and all-in wrestling helped draw fans away from boxing after World War 2. Improvements in cinema also had an effect, but the biggest blow to boxing’s popularity was delivered by the UK government. A 33.3 per cent entertainment tax introduced in the 1952 budget put most of Britain’s small hall promoters, who had low profit margins, instantly out of business. The tax was lifted in 1956, but by then the damage was already done and boxing never recovered.

In the 1930s there were boxing shows staged several times a week in towns and cities across Britain. This wasn’t because of a poor transport system, but because the demand to watch fights was huge. People still travelled to London for big fights, and the transport system wasn’t nearly as bad as you imagine. Certainly buses, trams and tubes in London worked fine, and connections with the midlands and the north were at least reasonable – certainly boxers had no trouble travelling from one end of the country to the other by train.

And as for ‘circus tents’, you’re confusing booth fighting with small hall shows – two entirely different things. The small halls were a breeding ground of champions. Their importance to the sport cannot be overstated, and the lack of them today is a great pity. The booths, incidentally, produced plenty of great fighters and champions too: Freddie Mills, Benny Lynch, Tommy Farr, Joe Beckett, Jim Driscoll to name but a few.

Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries).

Take a look at this video clip for some idea of how popular boxing was:

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=3448

Can you imagine, today, a similar crowd turning out for a British featherweight who’d just failed in a world title challenge?

As for the quality of the fights back then, speaking as someone who’s spent a great deal of time studying old fighters' records and reading through old papers, I can assure you competitive matches were the norm in the inter-war years. You simply didn’t get the strings of mismatches seen today as part and parcel of raising a young fighter's profile.

* I should also add that improvements in living standards meant far fewer men needed to fight for a living.

Is a simple case of basic business for me. If you are operating in an environment as a promoter where there are three or four other shows in your town each and every week and you receive a repuation for not putting on competitive shows it stands to absolute reason that given you rely solely on public attendance to pay your way you will not remain in business for long. Couple this with the fact that a couple of losses on a record did not spell the death knell for a fighters ambitions and seems fair to assume cards would on the whole be more competitive when they were more frequent.

rowley wrote:
Thanks for this Alex, does give away the fact I haven't bought your book yet but promise you it is on my christmas list. Will not get dragged into the old vs new debate as my views on it have been repeated to the point I suspect everyone knows then down pat. However will say your argument that in an environment where 10 times as many people participate it stands to reason the standard will be better is one I have made countless times and agree with wholeheartedly.

Thanks Rowley. No worries. It fits conveniently into most stockings!

Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries).

In football 90% of league matches aren't televised live for this exact reason.

Popularity isn't just about live audience attendance figures. Didn't Tyson Fury have a Tv audience in the region of 2 million for his last fight!!Tyson Fury???

The clip you showed was very impressive, but we've just had Ricky Hatton who's prob the most popular Brit boxer ever.

Did Seaman Tommy Watson have 50 000 fans follow him over to the US back in the days when the transport system was so good?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries).

In football 90% of league matches aren't televised live for this exact reason.

Popularity isn't just about live audience attendance figures. Didn't Tyson Fury have a Tv audience in the region of 2 million for his last fight!!Tyson Fury???

The clip you showed was very impressive, but we've just had Ricky Hatton who's prob the most popular Brit boxer ever.

Did Seaman Tommy Watson have 50 000 fans follow him over to the US back in the days when the transport system was so good?

90% of league matches aren't televised because there's not enough space on the programming schedule to show them.

"Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries"

It has. Attendences in the lower leagues have been dwindling for decades and small local clubs have suffered because people would rather go to the pub or stay at home and watch Man Utd or Liverpool play rather than go down to their local League 2 team play. Less kids are also playing football (sport in general) due to playstations, dvd players, xboxs and so on.

It doesnt mean the quality of English football has neccessarily fallen though. Its just led to the redistribtion of it and a far greater gap between the top teams and the bottom.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries).

In football 90% of league matches aren't televised live for this exact reason.

Popularity isn't just about live audience attendance figures. Didn't Tyson Fury have a Tv audience in the region of 2 million for his last fight!!Tyson Fury???

The clip you showed was very impressive, but we've just had Ricky Hatton who's prob the most popular Brit boxer ever.

Did Seaman Tommy Watson have 50 000 fans follow him over to the US back in the days when the transport system was so good?

90% of league matches aren't televised because there's not enough space on the programming schedule to show them.

Its more to do with the demand. Nobody wants to watch the likes of Grimsby Town vs York City these days when they can watch the top teams play instead.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
In football 90% of league matches aren't televised live for this exact reason.

Popularity isn't just about live audience attendance figures. Didn't Tyson Fury have a Tv audience in the region of 2 million for his last fight!!Tyson Fury???

Not quite sure what your point is here. If Tyson Fury attracted that many viewers, then that’s encouraging; but it doesn’t change the fact that boxing has declined to the point where it's now a fringe sport and seldom makes the national papers, with far fewer shows, far fewer boxers and far fewer followers. I wouldn't class casual Channel 5 TV viewers as passionate boxing fans.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The clip you showed was very impressive, but we've just had Ricky Hatton who's prob the most popular Brit boxer ever.

Ricky Hatton… the most popular British boxer ever???? That very comment shows a complete unawareness of the 80-odd years that preceded Ricky Hatton. Ever heard of Jimmy Wilde, Len Harvey, Teddy Baldock, Jock McAvoy, Freddie Mills, Randy Turpin, Henry Cooper, etc., etc.?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Did Seaman Tommy Watson have 50 000 fans follow him over to the US back in the days when the transport system was so good?

Your comparison between trans-Atlantic travel and the British transport system of the 1930s is an erroneous one. Plane tickets were beyond the reach of working-class Brits in the ’30s but bus and train tickets weren’t.

manos de piedra wrote:"Ask yourself why televised football hasn’t put people off going to matches. It's because football’s popularity is immense, and boxing’s pre-war popularity in Britain was much the same (albeit without the sponsors and ridiculous salaries"

It has. Attendences in the lower leagues have been dwindling for decades and small local clubs have suffered because people would rather go to the pub or stay at home and watch Man Utd or Liverpool play rather than go down to their local League 2 team play. Less kids are also playing football (sport in general) due to playstations, dvd players, xboxs and so on.

It doesnt mean the quality of English football has neccessarily fallen though. Its just led to the redistribtion of it and a far greater gap between the top teams and the bottom.

Your wrong there, Manos, as the English Championship is the 4th most attended league in the world. That says a lot.

alexd wrote:

Not quite sure what your point is here. If Tyson Fury attracted that many viewers, then that’s encouraging; but it doesn’t change the fact that boxing has declined to the point where it's now a fringe sport and seldom makes the national papers, with far fewer shows, far fewer boxers and far fewer followers. I wouldn't class casual Channel 5 TV viewers as passionate boxing fans.

There is an interesting article in Boxing Monthly this month where a couple of mainstream press editors are questioned about where boxing is in the grand scheme of things and the frustrating thing is they are both in agreement that boxing can sell papers, think the Guardian online editor says in the run up to Haye Wlad seven out of 10 of their most viewed articles were boxing related, which does suggest if the fight is right there is still a massive appetite for the sport but as always they cite the same old reasons that drive fans to distraction as the reason this is the exception rather than the norm, such as the infrequency with which mega match ups are made, the confusion the alphabet soup brings to the sport, the occasions these maga matches don't deliver. One also makes an interesting point about the long held view the lack of terrestrial coverage hurts the sport in that football has flourished since Sky bought it up.

For me there is an audience for the sport and always will be but the sport needs to do more to nurture that support. Such things as boxnation does not help as nobody but the hardcore fan is going to sign up so no matter how compelling the fights it shows are they are simply not going to be seen by enough casual fans to hook them into the sport long term.

Like jeff, I've argued the new v old issue so many times that I'm weary from it. However, I'd just make a couple of points.

There being so many ' world ' titles, these days, boxing titles have become subject to a kind of inflation. British, Commonwealth and European titles no longer carry anything like the clout that they used to and it could be argued that when each division sports nearly so many world title belts as there are continents, world titles, now, mean about as much as European titles did when I first became hooked on boxing.

I vividly recall, as a youngster, negotiating with my father if there had been a British, European or world title fight during midweek. The deal would be that I would go to bed early and then be permitted to get up to listen to the fight on radio. Radio coverage was superb in those days, and the Beeb would often augment this coverage by showing the fight the following night or at the weekend.

When Tommy Farr went out to fight Joe Louis in 1937, millions sat up till the small hours glued to radios. Had I been alive I would have been one of them. Contrast this, then, with the fact that I consider myself to be a hardcore boxing fan and that I live in Germany, which means that I receive RTL free, yet I elected to sit and watch a film with my wife rather than watch Klitschko v Adamek live. The fight simply didn't interest me, and the heavyweight division which thrilled me as a youngster, courtesy of Liston, Ali, etc., is about as exciting to me, today, as filling the car up with petrol.

Each to his own, but competitive fights are what rock my boat, and not the question of whether or not there is some tawdry bauble of a title at stake.

What kind of petrol? Spot on when you say:

Each to his own, but competitive fights are what rock my boat, and not the question of whether or not there is some tawdry bauble of a title at stake.

HumanWindmill wrote:Like jeff, I've argued the new v old issue so many times that I'm weary from it. However, I'd just make a couple of points.

There being so many ' world ' titles, these days, boxing titles have become subject to a kind of inflation. British, Commonwealth and European titles no longer carry anything like the clout that they used to and it could be argued that when each division sports nearly so many world title belts as there are continents, world titles, now, mean about as much as European titles did when I first became hooked on boxing.

I vividly recall, as a youngster, negotiating with my father if there had been a British, European or world title fight during midweek. The deal would be that I would go to bed early and then be permitted to get up to listen to the fight on radio. Radio coverage was superb in those days, and the Beeb would often augment this coverage by showing the fight the following night or at the weekend.

When Tommy Farr went out to fight Joe Louis in 1937, millions sat up till the small hours glued to radios. Had I been alive I would have been one of them. Contrast this, then, with the fact that I consider myself to be a hardcore boxing fan and that I live in Germany, which means that I receive RTL free, yet I elected to sit and watch a film with my wife rather than watch Klitschko v Adamek live. The fight simply didn't interest me, and the heavyweight division which thrilled me as a youngster, courtesy of Liston, Ali, etc., is about as exciting to me, today, as filling the car up with petrol.

Each to his own, but competitive fights are what rock my boat, and not the question of whether or not there is some tawdry bauble of a title at stake.

I agree with you 100% on the belts situation but are fights today less competitive than in the past really? A function of fighting more often back then was ineviteably the top guys would engage in far more mismatches. Louis and Ali fought their fair share of mismatches too.

Hard to say isn't it, manos?

I agree with you about Louis and Ali - and every other long term champ - having had his share of stocking fillers but we did, at the very least, know that these champs would also fight the best available at some stage. The situation, today, around lightwelter / welter certainly doesn't provide the same assurances.

I find it hard to say also. However it seems to be the case both modern and history that a fighters popularity or status will still more than make up for a lack of competitveness. How many packed into the MEN simply to see Tyson steamroll Julius Francis? The Klitschkos in Germany have no problem selling out a venue regardless of who the opponent is or what his chances are. Likewise with Ali and Louis in the past. Anytime Ali visited the UK he could be sure of a huge following regardless of his opponents chances.

Not quite sure what your point is here. If Tyson Fury attracted that many viewers, then that’s encouraging; but it doesn’t change the fact that boxing has declined to the point where it's now a fringe sport and seldom makes the national papers, with far fewer shows, far fewer boxers and far fewer followers. I wouldn't class casual Channel 5 TV viewers as passionate boxing fans.

Casual channel 5 viewers? Is there such a thing? In the days of 100's of free TV channels, a 2 mil audience on a fringe channel is very good. There are fewer shows, but they are much better quality with much larger audiences. Big fights get huge media coverage, small fights don't.

Ricky Hatton… the most popular British boxer ever???? That very comment shows a complete unawareness of the 80-odd years that preceded Ricky Hatton. Ever heard of Jimmy Wilde, Len Harvey, Teddy Baldock, Jock McAvoy, Freddie Mills, Randy Turpin, Henry Cooper, etc., etc.?

Randy Turpin?? Henry Cooper?? as popular as Ricky Hatton...er no not in any way you try to measure it.

A quick question, how many people do you think got to see Jimmy Wilde fight?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Casual channel 5 viewers? Is there such a thing?

Well, yes. People who watched it because it was on a free-to-view channel, who don't follow boxing and wouldn't dream of purchasing a subscription to watch boxing.

Randy Turpin?? Henry Cooper?? as popular as Ricky Hatton...er no not in any way you try to measure it.

You apparently know nothing about boxing predating your own lifetime. Turpin, Cooper, Wilde, Harvey, McAvoy, etc. were the heroes of schoolboys all across Britain, much in the way that Premier League footballers are today.

Hatton is an idol to the few schoolboys today who follow boxing, but he can only dream of the widespread hero-worship these guys enjoyed. It's a reasonable bet that a fair percentage of the British public couldn't tell you who Ricky Hatton is; go back to the days when Cooper, Turpin, McAvoy, Wilde, etc. were boxing and these men were household names... practically everybody knew who they were, much as almost everyone knows who David Beckham is.

Go back to the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s and the British champions were household names. How many people today (outside of the hardcore boxing fans) could name our British champions?

A quick question, how many people do you think got to see Jimmy Wilde fight?

6,456,152 people. What a daft question.

Basically, you should stop jumping to wild conclusions. Read about the history of the sport and then post your opinions. If you haven't studied boxing's history, delved into old newspapers, spoken to people who were there for it, then you simply aren't qualified to pass judgement on it.

The fact that you haven't done these things is abundantly clear in everything you've written on this thread.

[quote="alexd"]

Go back to the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s and the British champions were household names. How many people today (outside of the hardcore boxing fans) could name our British champions?
quote]

To be honest Alex there have been points recently where outside of the hardcore fans few if any people could name all four heavyweight champions. I have asked friends in the past and am yet to see anyone get all four. This is meant to be the greatest prize in sport, if that is beyond all but the hardcore the British title has next to no chance.