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

First topic message reminder :

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

Povetkin, Wladimir Klitschko x2, Vitali Klitschko.

Well done Scott, but as a guy who spends nigh on half his time on a boxing forum am fairly certain you would have to fall into the category of the hardcore fan.

[quote="rowley"]

alexd wrote:

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.

My point exactly, Rowley, though obviously multiple titles in multiple divisions hasn't helped either.

It would be great to go back to just eight weight divisions, with one world champion at each weight. Though, of course, that'll never happen.

Think how much more competitive boxing would be with only eight weight classes; and that's precisely how it was in the old days, but with thousands more active boxers too!

Shouldn't be forgotten, either, that much of Hatton's fan base was derived from his affiliation to Manchester City and, therefore, could not be attributed to boxing, per se.

Agree Alex, do think there is a danger to talk about the past as a golden age and it would be remiss to eulogise it too much because it was not without fault, the exclusion of black fighters such as Langford and Burley from the title shots they deserved and the mob involvement are episodes that shame the sport, but like you I am firmly of the belief that there should only be one belt per weight class.

To me world champion means best in the world, to have four guys or potentially more what with interim champions, super champions, champion emeritus and diamond champions just devalues the title and adds nothing but confusion to a picture that should in theory be fairly simple.

Totally agree with you Rowley and Alexd eight weight divisions and 1 champ, non of this catchweight rubbish either, but sadly its all about promoters protecting their own interests and not willing to risk their fighters.
Won't happen but would love to see the old fifteen rounds back as well, wishful thinking.

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.

At the time, Ricky Hatton was more popular than any Premier league footballer!! 60 000 turned up to watch him fight Juan Lazcano, with Wayne Rooney relegated to carrying his belts. Over the last 15 years we've had Ricky, Bruno, Hamed, Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe, Khan.....even Audley Harrison was a house hold name.

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

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

It's not a daft question at all. You just realise how silly you will look answering it. Truth is more people watched Tyson Fury and Derick Chisora the night they fought than have ever seen Jimmy Wilde fight. It perfectly highlight how crazy it is comparing the different era's.

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.

And you're a huge follower of modern boxing?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

It's not a daft question at all. You just realise how silly you will look answering it. Truth is more people watched Tyson Fury and Derick Chisora the night they fought than have ever seen Jimmy Wilde fight. It perfectly highlight how crazy it is comparing the different era's.

I'm sorry but all that illustrates is Chisora and Fury had a different media available to them, Dmitry Salita has done more PPV's than Jack Demspey ever did, does not mean he is more popular than him.

How many would have watched Hatton v Lazcano had Ricky been a Torquay United fan?

HumanWindmill wrote:How many would have watched Hatton v Lazcano had Ricky been a Torquay United fan?

Do you think Hatton was the first fighter to support a football team? His popularity was down to Warren's promotioal grip.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:How many would have watched Hatton v Lazcano had Ricky been a Torquay United fan?

Do you think Hatton was the first fighter to support a football team? His popularity was down to Warren's promotioal grip.

Based on the fact that Warren had a captive fan base of Manchester City fans to tap.

Strange how no other boxer has managed to cash in on all these football fans.

Nothing strange about it. It was clever marketing.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to say that the majority of fans who packed out arenas for Hatton were Manchester City fans first, Hatton fans second, and boxing fans sometime later.

Again, I very much doubt he would have enjoyed such huge support had he been a Torquay United fan.

Ackh-rin'ton Stanleey? 'Oo're DEY?

Ricky Hatton was amazingly popular because Warren had the clout to keep him fighting in Manchester for about 20 'title' fights on the spin. Yes being a football fan of a well supported team helped him, but he was not the first, or last, to tap into football for support. No one achieved the level of support that he did though.

Don't know, JT; I'd say he was one of the first to exploit the increasing crossover between the fans of the two sports (at least at live shows). Before that, which world-class British fighters really used the power of the football audience to assist them? Jim Watt filled Ibrox in the early 80s, I guess, and McGuigan did likewise to Loftus Road. However, they didn't explicitly appeal to fans of a particular club in the same way that Hatton did. SINCE Hatton, Froch has made some capital of being a Forest fan, while Birmingham and Villa fans have always amused themselves by getting into fights at various cards up and down the country ("Defecate on the Villa" still rings in my ears from at least two such promotions). Overall, yes, I think that Hatton was the first top-flight boxer to tap into football.

Ha I'm a Villa fan captain, have to say the magnificent seven bill in Birmingham was not improved by having to listen to the Gavin Birmingham fans breaking into that particular number every two minutes.

I dont think theres any doubting that boxing has declined in overall popularity and has become marginalised. Theres no singular reason for that but rather a number of different ones combined. However television has changed the face of it probably more so then any other single reason.

I also think that theres few who would argue that the current structure in the sport is tolerable. Again its a reason I think the sport is becoming more marginalised and is hugely unsatisfactory and inaccessible for fans. Although it is worth pointing out that many if not most past eras had some kind of stigma attached to it be along the lines of mob fixes, the colour line, boxing politics and so on.

However in terms of general competitiveness Im not so sure. I would say that big prospects or cash cows are generally matched easier than in the old days at the beginning of their careers but at the top level or even domestic level is it really fair to say bouts are less competitive now? I take the point that we have protected champions and undermatched prospects nowadays but the trade off is that in the old days the fact that top fighters fought more meant their level of competition was generally more mixed.

Also in terms of accessability I think its slightly nostalgiac to look back and say one was surrounded by so many competitive bouts in the past but not acknoweledge the fact that t.v and inernet has actually made boxing more accessible nowadays. In the 30s, I would have to get a train to London or Manchester or wherever even just to see a domestic title fight. Granted there may have been two or three shows on locally I could go to but what were my chances of ever seeing a world title fight live? Or being able to watch the top fighters in the world box regularly? Nowadays I can go the internet and either through things like youtube or streaming I can see almost any top level fight at the push of a few buttons. In the past one would have to stay up half the night just to listen to a title fight on the radio in America. Now with things like Sky plus one can record it and watch the whole thing whenever it suits them or wait for a link to the fight to be posted online.

At first glance it would seem to me that the decline in boxings popularity has primarily seen the eradication of the lower level boxing and local shows due to the demand simply drying up over time thanks to an increase in alternative forms of entertainment. How this translates into overall competitveness or quality I think remains somewhat ambiguos though and very difficult to measure due to the huge shifts in emphasis in the sport brought about by television.

Hatton was born in Manchester, grew up in Manchester, fought almost exclusively in Manchester from novice, regional, British through to world level and then for about 10 defences, building support up gradually until it reached the stratospheric levels of the mid 2000's. To have that many fights locally is completely unique in boxing today, and more comparible to the '30's. It was Warren's promotional strength and foresight that enabled this and not Hatton's support of man city.

Of Hatton's first 39 fights up to including Tszyu only 16 of his fights were in Manchester, which is some way off fighting there almost exclusively and of his first 20 fights three were in Manchester which is nearer to virtually never fighting there as a novice than fighting there exclusively.

Hatton was quality and definately one of Britains most popular boxers look at the support he brought over to the Mayweather fight it was like a home fight for him and I reckon there were more British there than Americans just goes to show how popular he was

rowley wrote:Ha I'm a Villa fan captain, have to say the magnificent seven bill in Birmingham was not improved by having to listen to the Gavin Birmingham fans breaking into that particular number every two minutes.

Wouldn't expect anything less from the unwashed from Small Heath, would you, mate?

Fists of Fury wrote:

rowley wrote:Ha I'm a Villa fan captain, have to say the magnificent seven bill in Birmingham was not improved by having to listen to the Gavin Birmingham fans breaking into that particular number every two minutes.

Wouldn't expect anything less from the unwashed from Small Heath, would you, mate?

Not really mate, they seemed to get on like a house on fire with all the Welsh there to support Enzo and Clev, suffice to say the security earned their money that night

Friendly bunch, are our neighbours.

I'm a Alex McLeish fan so have had the chance to follow Birmingham watching nearly all their games via stream while he was in charge. Now its on to Villa.

Good lad Dass, you can join the elite club of me and Rowley.

rowley wrote:Of Hatton's first 39 fights up to including Tszyu only 16 of his fights were in Manchester, which is some way off fighting there almost exclusively and of his first 20 fights three were in Manchester which is nearer to virtually never fighting there as a novice than fighting there exclusively.

Between winning the Brit title in 2000 and fighting Tszyu in 2005, the time in which Hatton gained his huge following, he fought 12 of 17 fights in Manchester, with 10 of them being at the MEN arena. Warren took a gamble, losing money on many of those shows, trying to build up Hattons support. If it was as simple as wearing your local football teams colours on your shorts then we'd have seen it before and since.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
At the time, Ricky Hatton was more popular than any Premier league footballer!! 60 000 turned up to watch him fight Juan Lazcano, with Wayne Rooney relegated to carrying his belts. Over the last 15 years we've had Ricky, Bruno, Hamed, Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe, Khan.....even Audley Harrison was a house hold name.

You're clearly a big Ricky Hatton fan, which is nice - I like Hatton too. But I'm talking about the popularity of boxing in Britain as a whole, not a one-off special event whose crowd was augmented by football supporters.

Benn, Eubank, Bruno etc. were household names because of terrestrial TV. Who in British boxing at the current time has the fame of Frank Bruno?

Back in the pre-war days British champions (guys who were never world champions) were the idols of school kids nationwide. That simply doesn't happen today.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
It's not a daft question at all. You just realise how silly you will look answering it. Truth is more people watched Tyson Fury and Derick Chisora the night they fought than have ever seen Jimmy Wilde fight. It perfectly highlight how crazy it is comparing the different era's.

That's a ludicrous comparison. As Rowley pointed out, by your logic Tyson Fury's already more popular than Jack Dempsey ever was.

It's not at all 'crazy' to highlight how much boxing's popularity has waned. The number of boxing shows staged then and and now, the number of active fighters, and the fact that every national paper once had its own dedicated boxing columnist highlights the decline perfectly.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
And you're a huge follower of modern boxing?

Not a HUGE follower but a follower all the same. I watch a fair amount on TV, read previews, news and fight reports, so I'm up on the current scene. More importantly I'm a part of the society in which it exists, so I'm fully aware of its status within that society, which is what we're talking about.

I presume you weren't alive in the 1920s and '30s, so unless you've done some extensive reading, you aren't qualified to pass judgement on that era and how popular boxing was at that time.

I'm not going to waste any more time with this 'debate', as it's going nowhere. You can believe what you want to believe. However, if you took the trouble to read up on old-time boxing in Britain I think you'd hold a very different view.

That's not really what you said first time round though is it.

rowley wrote:Agree Alex, do think there is a danger to talk about the past as a golden age and it would be remiss to eulogise it too much because it was not without fault, the exclusion of black fighters such as Langford and Burley from the title shots they deserved and the mob involvement are episodes that shame the sport, but like you I am firmly of the belief that there should only be one belt per weight class.

Quite right - many fighters in the pre-war days were shamefully exploited and overworked, and their careers and health suffered as a result.

Manchester middleweight Len Johnson couldn't fight for a British title because of the ludicrous 'colour bar' (Johnson's father was black) that meant British title contestants had to be white. The feeling among many boxing fans at the time was that Johnson would have won the title - he was the uncrowned and uncrownable champion.

There was plenty wrong with the game back then, but the popularity boxing enjoyed is undeniable.

I think people are arguing different points. Boxing has definately waned in popularity but at the same time its become more accessible for fans. Hence why more people can see Tyson Fury than Jack Dempsey despite the gigantic gulf in popularity.

Back in the pre-war days British champions (guys who were never world champions) were the idols of school kids nationwide. That simply doesn't happen today.

What would these school kids even know of their supposed idols having never seen them fight? I wouldn't take as gospel what you read from books.

And let me check your post history to see how interested you are in modern boxing.

More people attended shows back in the '30's, cumulatively. More people watch boxing today in total, through TV coverage. I think it's silly to say one era is more popular than the other seeing as the medium through which people follow boxing is so different.

Boxing was certainly more popular back then, jukebox, both in the news, to the masses and in terms of the number of registered boxers. Also, the heavyweight championship of the world for example was seen as the greatest prize in sport (still is, to me). Not quite sure what your point is here?

Books and contemporary newspaper accounts are marvellous sources of information, Juke, and particularly so when cross referenced with other books and newspapers.

However, even if we dismiss them, your argument is flawed, since you seem to believe that every boxing fan alive today was born in the eighties or nineties.

This simply isn't the case.

Our own Colonial Lion was born at the end of the Joe Louis years, and others among us were born in the mid fifties or sixties. Almost to a man, we say that boxing today is not nearly so important, sociologically, and not nearly so well supported, as it was fifty years ago.

Modern boxing spawns great fighters and great fights, just as it always did, and the quality of each is probably every bit as good as ever it was. The difference is that great fighters and great fights came along more often in days gone by, and received far better mainstream coverage than they do today. When boxing disappeared from our back pages title eliminators and domestic fights largely slipped into obscurity, to be replaced by a plethora of ' world ' title fights, a great many of which are utterly meaningless.

The result is that boxing has been watered down and genuine, hardcore, fans have become increasingly alienated while promoters exploit football fans and put on ridiculous stage shows and ring entrances which often take as long as the fight itself. It's cheap and it's glitzy, and Mike Tyson, for one, wanted no part of it. I suspect that a genuine pro such as Vitali Klitschko probably doesn't, either, but the promoter's priority is the Schalke stadium full of football supporters and not the health or integrity of professional boxing.

Fists of Fury wrote:Boxing was certainly more popular back then, jukebox, both in the news, to the masses and in terms of the number of registered boxers. Also, the heavyweight championship of the world for example was seen as the greatest prize in sport (still is, to me). Not quite sure what your point is here?

Back then, without newspaper coverage, what other way was there of finding fight results / scheduled fights.

Boxing went from a big number of small shows to a small number of big shows by public demand.

We've had this discussion before and it always ends with someone (usually me) posting up that brilliant list of quotes from the 1890's through to the 1970's showing that boxing has always been considered dead/dying, even in the magical '30's, certain members then throw their toys out of the pram. SO let's just wrap it up now.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Boxing was certainly more popular back then, jukebox, both in the news, to the masses and in terms of the number of registered boxers. Also, the heavyweight championship of the world for example was seen as the greatest prize in sport (still is, to me). Not quite sure what your point is here?

Back then, without newspaper coverage, what other way was there of finding fight results / scheduled fights.

Boxing went from a big number of small shows to a small number of big shows by public demand.

We've had this discussion before and it always ends with someone (usually me) posting up that brilliant list of quotes from the 1890's through to the 1970's showing that boxing has always been considered dead/dying, even in the magical '30's, certain members then throw their toys out of the pram. SO let's just wrap it up now.

You mean, certain members such as the captain, Colonial Lion, jeffrowley, alexd, JimmyStuart, etc., who know considerably more about boxing than you do, dare to disagree with you.

The thread will be ' wrapped up ' when members no longer have anything to contribute to it.

Don't presume the right to have the last word.

The result is that boxing has been watered down and genuine, hardcore, fans have become increasingly alienated while promoters exploit football fans and put on ridiculous stage shows and ring entrances which often take as long as the fight itself. It's cheap and it's glitzy, and Mike Tyson, for one, wanted no part of it. I suspect that a genuine pro such as Vitali Klitschko probably doesn't, either, but the promoter's priority is the Schalke stadium full of football supporters and not the health or integrity of professional boxing.

Mike Tyson was the most over hyped boxer in history. Truth is boxing only had so much local support back in the '30's because poor people couldn't afford to travel / afford a radio / or have a TV. When these became available to the masses, small show boxing was dead. Think about it, if Manchester United v Barcelona is live and free to watch on TV at the same time as a travalleing pub team are playing down your local park, who you gonna watch?

...and now the Klitschko's are only popular because of football support..!!! Have you ever heard the crowd at a German boxing show?....maybe the 50 000 who turned out to watch Joe Calzaghe vs Manfredo were rugby fans ..eh?

HumanWindmill wrote:


You mean, certain members such as the captain, Colonial Lion, jeffrowley, alexd, JimmyStuart, etc., who know considerably more about boxing than you do, dare to disagree with you.

.

Am definitely the Ringo Starr in that bunch.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The result is that boxing has been watered down and genuine, hardcore, fans have become increasingly alienated while promoters exploit football fans and put on ridiculous stage shows and ring entrances which often take as long as the fight itself. It's cheap and it's glitzy, and Mike Tyson, for one, wanted no part of it. I suspect that a genuine pro such as Vitali Klitschko probably doesn't, either, but the promoter's priority is the Schalke stadium full of football supporters and not the health or integrity of professional boxing.

Mike Tyson was the most over hyped boxer in history. Truth is boxing only had so much local support back in the '30's because poor people couldn't afford to travel / afford a radio / or have a TV. When these became available to the masses, small show boxing was dead. Think about it, if Manchester United v Barcelona is live and free to watch on TV at the same time as a travalleing pub team are playing down your local park, who you gonna watch?

...and now the Klitschko's are only popular because of football support..!!! Have you ever heard the crowd at a German boxing show?....maybe the 50 000 who turned out to watch Joe Calzaghe vs Manfredo were rugby fans ..eh?

Tyson has nothing to do with this, except that I cited him as an example of one who was strictly interested in fighting, as opposed to razmatazz.

Truth is you have no knowledge of boxing in the thirties and so, as alexd points out, you are not qualified to dismiss the findings of those who have spent countless hours researching the subject.

I live in Germany, not far from the Schalke stadium, and know perfectly well that the promoters cash in on two things :

1. National pride ( the Klitschkos have been pretty much adopted as Germans over here, ) and

2. The availability of huge numbers of football supporters.

HumanWindmill wrote:
I live in Germany, not far from the Schalke stadium, and know perfectly well that the promoters cash in on two things :

Wish I'd known that two years ago when I went over for the cancelled Haye Wlad fight, could have saved a fortune in hotel bills, lovely part of the world though Windy.

Certainly is, mate, and you would have been welcome.

I'm just outside Dortmund which is, as you probably know, only twenty minutes or so by car from Gelsenkirchen.

Its true that almost since boxing began people have been predicting or lamenting the downfall of boxing. However its not a straightforward matter. The impact of mainstream television for instance could not have been predicted or imagined by people in the thirties.

Looking at the current state of boxing, especially in terms of its traditional home in the United States and the structure of the present day sport then many of the comments attribted to boxings decline would not appear so wayward to me.

Boxing is not dead, its probably not dying, but it has become a marginalised sport that is only a fraction as popular and followed as it was. In world where information is transfered, more accessible and more quicky shared than ever before does it not say something that the average man or woman knows so little about the sport in comparison to 30 or 40 years ago?

You mean, certain members such as the captain, Colonial Lion, jeffrowley, alexd, JimmyStuart, etc., who know considerably more about boxing than you do, dare to disagree with you.

..no not these guys.

I probably know more about modern boxing, the last 15 years or so, than all these guys. Isn't that what this site is about, Boxing today, now. What this site needs, genuinely, is a seperate boxing history section.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

You mean, certain members such as the captain, Colonial Lion, jeffrowley, alexd, JimmyStuart, etc., who know considerably more about boxing than you do, dare to disagree with you.

..no not these guys.

I probably know more about modern boxing, the last 15 years or so, than all these guys. Isn't that what this site is about, Boxing today, now. What this site needs, genuinely, is a seperate boxing history section.

What it needs is to serve the interests of all, which it does, and to have its members show respect for one another.

Which most do.

Not at all, Jukebox, boxing discussion is boxing discussion whether it be from 1910 or 2010.

If your modern boxing knowledge is of such a standard, then why don't you delight us with a thread involving modern fighters?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

You mean, certain members such as the captain, Colonial Lion, jeffrowley, alexd, JimmyStuart, etc., who know considerably more about boxing than you do, dare to disagree with you.

..no not these guys.

I probably know more about modern boxing, the last 15 years or so, than all these guys. Isn't that what this site is about, Boxing today, now. What this site needs, genuinely, is a seperate boxing history section.

No it's about boxing, as boxing has a history some will want to discuss that some won't. I have limited interest in the modern game but welcome threads on it as those with more knowledge of it help me fill in the blanks in my knowledge and get details on fighters and fights not commonly covered through Sky. Am sure the likes of Bradman are debated on the cricket board, struggle to see why boxing should be different

I couldn't find an article on the Cricket or Football pages about the good old days.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I couldn't find an article on the Cricket or Football pages about the good old days.

This forum is set up to serve the interests of all. That was, and remains, the philosophy of the founders..

Most members are happy with the format. If you aren't, then perhaps you should start your own forum instead of criticizing the aims and philosophies of this one.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I couldn't find an article on the Cricket or Football pages about the good old days.

Well done, they obviously have an agreement that such articles should not be written.

Fists of Fury wrote:Not at all, Jukebox, boxing discussion is boxing discussion whether it be from 1910 or 2010.

If your modern boxing knowledge is of such a standard, then why don't you delight us with a thread involving modern fighters?

It's not that my knowledge of modern boxing is great, I just believe that there are several members on here who have almost no interest at all in the modern game.