Is Having So Many Belts A Good Thing Or Bad?

First topic message reminder :

With the ridiculous amount of belts that are around nowadays I thought I would gauge peoples opinions in whether it is a good thign having so many belts about.

Now clearly the cons with having so many belts about is it can get confusing to the average viewer of boxing, I.E at the moment having 3 World HW Champions at the same time seems odd to some people and they don't know who to trust as who is best and don't know who to spend the PPV money on to watch.

But there is good things with having so many belts, I was watching an interview with a fighter that lost to Felix Sturm, called Noe Tulio Gonzalez and he won one of the silver belts and he said that it was a major moment in his career and has given him the confidence to move on after his defeat to Sturm and progress as a fighter as he sees it as a milestone, so this can be very profitable for the growth of younger boxers.

What you guys think?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Todays boxing fan has access to far more info than ever before.

Not so.

When I was a kid we had extensive newspaper coverage, as I've said. We also got to see the big fights on mainstream TV, either the night after they happened or on ' Sportsnight ' or the ' Fight Of The Week ' feature on ' Grandstand. ' We had ' Ring ' magazine, and just about everybody knew who was champion of which division.

Today we can pull up any fight video and any fighters reord we want in seconds. We also get to see all the major domestic and international fights live on TV, and all the less mainstream ones on the net.

Honestly, people who are new to boxing don't know how lucky they are.

HumanWindmill wrote:Well it doesn't for me. I did just fine with the coverage we had in the sixties. I got to see the fights - the WHOLE fights - I knew who the champions were, I knew what the rankings were, etc. What else is needed ?

Well obviously you value debate on forums to enhance your knowledge or else you wouldn't be here.

If you utilise everything you have available now there's no reason to miss a fight.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

The sixties, for a start. Also, the era of the fab four, the seventies for heavyweights, the fifties for lightheavyweights.

Etc., etc.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Well it doesn't for me. I did just fine with the coverage we had in the sixties. I got to see the fights - the WHOLE fights - I knew who the champions were, I knew what the rankings were, etc. What else is needed ?

Well obviously you value debate on forums to enhance your knowledge or else you wouldn't be here.

If you utilise everything you have available now there's no reason to miss a fight.

Debate isn't the same thing as knowledge concerning what's going on, is it ? I could hold an entirely different view of Eder Jofre from somebody who is an exact contemporary of mine and had exactly the same access to information.

My argument is that I had perfectly good access to boxing information in the sixties. Besides, it's irrelevant. The point of the article is the question as to whether or not boxing would be better with fewer ' world ' titles.

HumanWindmill wrote:My argument is that I had perfectly good access to boxing information in the sixties. Besides, it's irrelevant. The point of the article is the question as to whether or not boxing would be better with fewer ' world ' titles.

Well I answered bad. It's barely even debateable.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:My argument is that I had perfectly good access to boxing information in the sixties. Besides, it's irrelevant. The point of the article is the question as to whether or not boxing would be better with fewer ' world ' titles.

Well I answered bad. It's barely even debateable.

Same here.

Scottrf wrote:Please stop capitalising words in the middle of sentences, I find it patronising.

I only just picked this one up.

Capitalizing, in the interests of stressing a point, is a perfectly acceptable grammatical tool. You should know me better than to think I would patronize since, with very few exceptions, I am never impolite to fellow members.

HumanWindmill wrote:Capitalizing, in the interests of stressing a point, is a perfectly acceptable grammatical tool. You should know me better than to think I would patronize since, with very few exceptions, I am never impolite to fellow members.

I know you aren't, that's just how I find it in this instance. Like you don't think me capable of picking up on the important points. Up to you, was only a request.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Capitalizing, in the interests of stressing a point, is a perfectly acceptable grammatical tool. You should know me better than to think I would patronize since, with very few exceptions, I am never impolite to fellow members.

I know you aren't, that's just how I find it in this instance. Like you don't think me capable of picking up on the important points. Up to you, was only a request.

Scott, I have far too much respect for you to believe that you would miss the points.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

The sixties, for a start. Also, the era of the fab four, the seventies for heavyweights, the fifties for lightheavyweights.

Etc., etc.

I'm talking about in the space of months not decades.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

The sixties, for a start. Also, the era of the fab four, the seventies for heavyweights, the fifties for lightheavyweights.

Etc., etc.

I'm talking about in the space of months not decades.

So was I.

Particularly in the fifties and sixties the best were fighting the best on a regular basis.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

The sixties, for a start. Also, the era of the fab four, the seventies for heavyweights, the fifties for lightheavyweights.

Etc., etc.

I'm talking about in the space of months not decades.

So was I.

Particularly in the fifties and sixties the best were fighting the best on a regular basis.

Can you be a bit more precise.

Off the top of my head in the next month or so we have;

WK v Haye
Pac v Mosley
Hoppo v Pascal
Froch v Johnson
Ward v Abraham
DeGale v Groves
......and probably loads more.

February 1951.

Robinson v LaMotta

March 1951

Charles v Walcott

May 1951

Gavilan v Bratton
Carter v Ike Williams

July 1951

Charles v Walcott
Turpin v Robinson

August 1951

Gavilan v Graham

September 1951

Pep v Saddler
Robinson v Turpin

Nearly all of those fighters are HOFers.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Promoters of today can't just buy a belt, pick bum of the month for their champ to defend against and expect people to buy it like years ago. Look how Frank Warren used to promote the likes of Naz and Eubank, he couldn't and can't get away with that now. All his top fighters left him, and now he's forced to put the likes of DeGale into big fights after only having had 10 pro fights.

Joe Calzaghe?

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Promoters of today can't just buy a belt, pick bum of the month for their champ to defend against and expect people to buy it like years ago. Look how Frank Warren used to promote the likes of Naz and Eubank, he couldn't and can't get away with that now. All his top fighters left him, and now he's forced to put the likes of DeGale into big fights after only having had 10 pro fights.

Joe Calzaghe?

Joe Calzaghe and Ricky Hatton are perfect examples of boxers who started their careers in the bad times but finished in the good times. There's no way Fwank could promote like that today. He tried it with Khan but it ended in disaster, he will try with DeGale but that's already failing.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Off the top of my head in the next month or so we have;

WK v Haye
Pac v Mosley
Hoppo v Pascal
Froch v Johnson
Ward v Abraham
DeGale v Groves
......and probably loads more.

I'd argue that two of those aren't the best fighting the best.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:
Off the top of my head in the next month or so we have;

WK v Haye
Pac v Mosley
Hoppo v Pascal
Froch v Johnson
Ward v Abraham
DeGale v Groves
......and probably loads more.

I'd argue that two of those aren't the best fighting the best.

They were just examples of good fights in the near future.

In general the best are fighting the best in the almost every division, and it's the best it's been in modern times.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Todays boxing fan has access to far more info than ever before.

Not so.

When I was a kid we had extensive newspaper coverage, as I've said. We also got to see the big fights on mainstream TV, either the night after they happened or on ' Sportsnight ' or the ' Fight Of The Week ' feature on ' Grandstand. ' We had ' Ring ' magazine, and just about everybody knew who was champion of which division.

Today we can pull up any fight video and any fighters reord we want in seconds. We also get to see all the major domestic and international fights live on TV, and all the less mainstream ones on the net.

Honestly, people who are new to boxing don't know how lucky they are.

The difference is you have to proactively seek out this information, it's not given to you as readily as it was before which is the point I think Windy was trying to make.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

The belts and promoters had little to do with these fighters not facing each other in their primes. What are you basing that assumption on?

Lewis came into his prime in the late 90s, Tyson was at his best in the late 80s almost a full decade before. How could they ever hope to meet in their primes regardless of who was promoting them or how many belts there were?

Tyson v Holyfield was in the pipeline in the early 90s until Tyson lost to Douglas and was sent to jail. Again I fail to see how the belts or promoters had anything to do with that.

The three fighters never existed at their peaks at the same time in the same division. Whether there was 1 belt or 100 wouldnt have changed this.

If anything, the likes of Don King showed that he was capable of delivering big fights. He may have been corrupt and greedy but he wasnt shy about making big fights happen.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:In every division the best are fighting the best. I can never remember it this good, and if someone else can then name that time. We have a crazy amount of good fights on the cards.

The sixties, for a start. Also, the era of the fab four, the seventies for heavyweights, the fifties for lightheavyweights.

Etc., etc.

I'm talking about in the space of months not decades.

So was I.

Particularly in the fifties and sixties the best were fighting the best on a regular basis.

Can you be a bit more precise.

Off the top of my head in the next month or so we have;

WK v Haye
Pac v Mosley
Hoppo v Pascal
Froch v Johnson
Ward v Abraham
DeGale v Groves
......and probably loads more.

Other than Wladimir Klitschko v David Haye (which in itself is not neccessarily the top two guys fighting) or Hopkins v Pascal then are any of the other fights really the best vs the best?

Arthur Abraham v Andre Ward would barely be viable if it wasnt for the Super Six format. Foch v Johnson is again, hardly a case of best vs best when Johnson is a 42 year old journeyman who basically lost to all the top lightheavies in the last 2/3 years. Are these fights really top drawer? If anything the Supermiddle division highlights the unsatisfactory nature of the current situation where you have four different guys all with similar claims to be the best. I also think the careers of the likes of Ward and Bute so far does little to indicate the days of the protected fighter are gone. Ward never fights outside his hometown with his handpicked ref and judges and has been given an easy ride so far. Bute has all but gone out of his way to avoid the top contenders in the division thus far.

Pacquaio v Mosley hardly gets the pulse racing either at this stage. Mosley is a name but I would argue that its been pretty much shown that hes nowhere near the best welterweight.

Groves v DeGale is a good domestic affair but not much more at this stage. Its encouraging to see them face off but you also have the likes of Ricky Burns and Kell Brook who again I would point to being examples of the protected and padded fighters.

The fights above are poor fare in comparison to previous eras where you had top fighters fighting far more regularly against quality opposition.

In the space of 12 months we will have had and will be likely to have:

Khan v maidana
Bradley v Alexander
Calderon v segura
Donaire v montiel
Pascal v Hopkins
Martinez v Williams 2
Cotto v mayorga
Katsidas v Guerrero
Groves v DeGale
Haye v Klitschko
Froch v Ward
Bradley v Khan
Pascal v Hopkins 2

I don't think this is due to a proliferation of titles meaning that no protected champ = more top fights as jukebox suggests, but it does show that the sport is in a healthy state with good fights happening and more in the pipeline.

Colonial Lion wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

The belts and promoters had little to do with these fighters not facing each other in their primes. What are you basing that assumption on?

Lewis came into his prime in the late 90s, Tyson was at his best in the late 80s almost a full decade before. How could they ever hope to meet in their primes regardless of who was promoting them or how many belts there were?

Tyson v Holyfield was in the pipeline in the early 90s until Tyson lost to Douglas and was sent to jail. Again I fail to see how the belts or promoters had anything to do with that.

The three fighters never existed at their peaks at the same time in the same division. Whether there was 1 belt or 100 wouldnt have changed this.

If anything, the likes of Don King showed that he was capable of delivering big fights. He may have been corrupt and greedy but he wasnt shy about making big fights happen.

Don King was very good at making fights big.

Holyfield ant Tyson were in their prime at the same time, the fight didn't happen. "It was in the pipeline"...Mayweather v Pac was in the pipeline too...

Holyfield and Lewis were both in their prime in the mid 90's. It was an absolute joke that the best HW of that era could be frozen out completely. I'd say Lewis was past his prime by the end of the 90's, but it was only then he got any recognition. Today, when the casual fan can easily find out who is who, and who is the best in boxing without having to rely on some corrupt south American sanctioning body in Don Kings pocket, it couldn't happen.

Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

No, no boxer toaday can just sit with a belt and blatantly avoid the best and still be highly regarded.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

No, no boxer toaday can just sit with a belt and blatantly avoid the best and still be highly regarded.

Except Lucian Bute.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

No, no boxer toaday can just sit with a belt and blatantly avoid the best and still be highly regarded.

Except Lucian Bute.

I think Bute proves my point. He has chosen to defend a belt rather than face the best and has largely been forgotten about. Just how it should be.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

No, no boxer toaday can just sit with a belt and blatantly avoid the best and still be highly regarded.

Except Lucian Bute.

I think Bute proves my point. He has chosen to defend a belt rather than face the best and has largely been forgotten about. Just how it should be.

Forgotten about? He's #1 or #2 on a lot of SMW lists. You're right to a degree, but what also happens is like the situation Martinez and I (think) Alexander. Boxers end up being stripped for fighting unification bouts or someone similarly high-profile instead of some inappropriate mandatory. Then the whole situation starts over again, because we then have a NEW champion who's just won the recently vacated belt. You and I may know who the 'real' top guy is, but to casual fans it's unnecessarily confusing.

Bute hasn't been forgotten about he is being lined up for a fight with Kessler, with the winner of that to face the winner of the super six.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, when you said:

"Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays."

That's sarcasm, right?

No, no boxer toaday can just sit with a belt and blatantly avoid the best and still be highly regarded.

Except Lucian Bute.

I think Bute proves my point. He has chosen to defend a belt rather than face the best and has largely been forgotten about. Just how it should be.

Forgotten about? He's #1 or #2 on a lot of SMW lists. You're right to a degree, but what also happens is like the situation Martinez and I (think) Alexander. Boxers end up being stripped for fighting unification bouts instead of some inappropriate mandatory. Then the whole situation starts over again, because we then have a NEW champion who's just won the recently vacated belt. You and I may know who the 'real' top guy is, but to casual fans it's unnecessarily confusing.

Bute is being forced to fight Kessler or lose his place in the top 2/3 at SM. Anyway, his situation is quite exceptional with the super 6 freezing out most big fights. I hear what you're saying, but wouldn't it just be better if no one took any notice of the belts, then we wouldn't care about fighters getting stripped and un-worthy new champs. I agree that the belts bring in casual fans believing that some fights are more significant than they actually are, but why does this bother so many 'true' boxing fans on this site.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Remember the HW's of the end of the 80's - 90's.

You had Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. Many would have all these guys in their top 20 or so HW's of all time. What a disgrace it was to Boxing fans that not one of these fought the other in their prime. That is what happens when too much importance is placed upon belts owned by corrupt promoters.

Thank god for the sake of boxing this can't happen nowadays.

The belts and promoters had little to do with these fighters not facing each other in their primes. What are you basing that assumption on?

Lewis came into his prime in the late 90s, Tyson was at his best in the late 80s almost a full decade before. How could they ever hope to meet in their primes regardless of who was promoting them or how many belts there were?

Tyson v Holyfield was in the pipeline in the early 90s until Tyson lost to Douglas and was sent to jail. Again I fail to see how the belts or promoters had anything to do with that.

The three fighters never existed at their peaks at the same time in the same division. Whether there was 1 belt or 100 wouldnt have changed this.

If anything, the likes of Don King showed that he was capable of delivering big fights. He may have been corrupt and greedy but he wasnt shy about making big fights happen.

Don King was very good at making fights big.

Holyfield ant Tyson were in their prime at the same time, the fight didn't happen. "It was in the pipeline"...Mayweather v Pac was in the pipeline too...

Holyfield and Lewis were both in their prime in the mid 90's. It was an absolute joke that the best HW of that era could be frozen out completely. I'd say Lewis was past his prime by the end of the 90's, but it was only then he got any recognition. Today, when the casual fan can easily find out who is who, and who is the best in boxing without having to rely on some corrupt south American sanctioning body in Don Kings pocket, it couldn't happen.

So you think Holyfield was at his best at the age of 34? By the mid 90s Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. Lewis you may recall actually got a title in the mid 90s but lost it to McCall. Tyson v Holyfield was a bigger fight in the 90s than Lewis v Holyfield/Tyson so whilst you may argue that Lewis was "frozen out" it was done with intention of making the bigger fight at a time when Lewis had lost his title in the ring to McCall.

Tyson could have opted for Lewis or Holyfield. He went for the bigger fight at the time and in losing both of his matches with Holyfield a fight with Lewis became far less commercially viable.

You seem to have this idea that fans are far more informed nowadays and can easily tell who the best are. Do you honestly think in 10/20 years ago people sat around clueless as to who the top fighters were? What has changed so drasticaly? There are still plenty numerous titles. There are still protected boxing champions, still examples of top names avoiding each other. The internet might be more prominent today but do you really think that boxing fans in the 90s couldnt tell if Lewis was a good fighter or had to rely on Don King for their information?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Bute is being forced to fight Kessler or lose his place in the top 2/3 at SM. Anyway, his situation is quite exceptional with the super 6 freezing out most big fights. I hear what you're saying, but wouldn't it just be better if no one took any notice of the belts, then we wouldn't care about fighters getting stripped and un-worthy new champs. I agree that the belts bring in casual fans believing that some fights are more significant than they actually are, but why does this bother so many 'true' boxing fans on this site.

Bute was offered a place in the super 6 but refused it. He should be forced o fight Kessler because the rest are all fighting top opposition.
It bothers true boxing fans as you put it because it devalues being a world champion something that used to be prestigeous.

So you think Holyfield was at his best at the age of 34? By the mid 90s Holyfield had been beaten 3 times. Lewis you may recall actually got a title in the mid 90s but lost it to McCall. Tyson v Holyfield was a bigger fight in the 90s than Lewis v Holyfield/Tyson so whilst you may argue that Lewis was "frozen out" it was done with intention of making the bigger fight at a time when Lewis had lost his title in the ring to McCall.

Bigger fights yes, better fights no.

Lewis v Tyson/Holyfield should have, and could have, happened years befor they did. It was boxings loss that they didn't. There are no excuses, remember chicken Bowe dumping his belt in the trash can too.

You seem to be prefering hype over substance. Which is what boxing was back then.

I know how hard it was in the 90's for a casual, and not so casual, fan to find out information about boxing and boxers. Remember some of the stiffs from South America they wheeled out for Eubank and Naz. Many of them had seemingly great records, but how could you tell. No Boxrec to check no Youtube to see, no forums to talk. All you had back then was what Frank Warren told the papers. Casual fans had no Ring magazine subscription.

Which promoter was it who said that any promoter or manager that says they don't use BoxRec is a liar?

Boxing, for the fans, has come a long way in the last few years.

Have to disagree that boxing has progressed much for the fans, it's not as readily accessible as it was, there may be more information around to find but thats what you have to now find it rather than having it given to you.

Now you can watch almost any fight live you want and we have the ability to pull up a vid of amost any fight in history in seconds. Years ago all you had was domestic and the odd big fight, and if you missed it the first time you never got to see it again. I fail to see how boxing was more accessable back in the day. In fact I know it wasn't as accessable back in the 90's, I remember clearly.

What was that great fight a week or so back? Ortiz v Berto. You think you'd have got to see something like that 30 years ago?

Still missing the point that you can only watch these things illegally and boxing is very rarely free to air

Quick question which fight of the past 5 years involving a british fighter had the largest audience?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Quick question which fight of the past 5 years involving a british fighter had the largest audience?

Probably Khan-Kristjansen, why?

Illegally?

Premiership football is never free to air, they're doing OK don't you think?

Tell me which fight you think had the largest audience?

There's more boxing free to view on Eurosport now than there ever was on terrestrial TV.

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Quick question which fight of the past 5 years involving a british fighter had the largest audience?

Probably Khan-Kristjansen, why?

It was on free to air TV which is the most accessible way of viewing boxing, having all these various methods of watching it online is all well and good if you know a fight is happening but it's catchment is lower than BBC or ITV

Think it was Froch/Pascal although I can't find the precise numbers

Williams/Harrison for instance was watched by 6.1mil which is far far more than the average card on skysports

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Illegally?

Premiership football is never free to air, they're doing OK don't you think?

Tell me which fight you think had the largest audience?

Football is a far more popular sport than boxing, viewed in pubs, clubs all over the country with huge amounts of coverage, extensive highlights on BBC etc. you really can't compare the two

You do know watching a fight on a stream isn't legal right?

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Quick question which fight of the past 5 years involving a british fighter had the largest audience?

Probably Khan-Kristjansen, why?

It was on free to air TV which is the most accessible way of viewing boxing, having all these various methods of watching it online is all well and good if you know a fight is happening but it's catchment is lower than BBC or ITV

Think it was Froch/Pascal although I can't find the precise numbers

Doubt that beat 4.37m.

I don't think anyone is doubting you can not find as much boxing in the papers or terrestrial channels, but there is far more available in total.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Illegally?

Premiership football is never free to air, they're doing OK don't you think?

Tell me which fight you think had the largest audience?

Football is a far more popular sport than boxing, viewed in pubs, clubs all over the country with huge amounts of coverage, extensive highlights on BBC etc. you really can't compare the two

You do know watching a fight on a stream isn't legal right?

It's you who've missed the point.

It's not about viewing figures. It's about accessibility for the fans.

The football example is very relative. By your way of thinking football in England is less accessable since it went over to SKY because if the matches were on terrestrial TV they'd get more viewers. No one in their right mind would argue that football is less accessable for the fans now than it was 20 years back. Same with boxing.

You do know watching a fight on a stream isn't legal right?

So if I pay to watch a stream legally it's illegal?? are you sure?

Jukebox, I think you're slightly confusing 'having a wealth of information available' with 'readily accessible'. For example I could have a back catalogue of every fight ever, but if only I can access them they're kinda redundant. Conversely, if EVERYONE can watch the same single fight, it's more accessible.

Football is still available day in, day out on Sky, and to a lesser extent on terrestrial TV. Big matches are heavily publicized, played in pubs, covered in great depth in the newspapers, and billboards, sides of buses, etc. It's STAYED in the limelight.

Boxing on the other hand has seen it's prominence in the media wane noticeably.

The mix up is;

I'm saying for a fan of Boxing, myself for example, Boxing is far, far more accessable today.

The other guy is saying for Joe public boxing was more accessable back when it had greater terrestrial TV coverage / newspaper coverage (debateable).

So for us boxing fans the way boxing is today is far better.

Another thing-aside from the fact that some football IS on regular 'non-pay' channels, anyone wishing to pay for Sky sports is guaranteed a regular stream of matches. Fans know auto the fixtures are, and those fixtures almost never change. Pay for Sky sports for boxing, and there's no guarantee the fight will even happen until both guys are in the ring. Little things maybe, but they all serve to marginalise boxing.

BALTIMORA wrote:Jukebox, I think you're slightly confusing 'having a wealth of information available' with 'readily accessible'. For example I could have a back catalogue of every fight ever, but if only I can access them they're kinda redundant. Conversely, if EVERYONE can watch the same single fight, it's more accessible.

Football is still available day in, day out on Sky, and to a lesser extent on terrestrial TV. Big matches are heavily publicized, played in pubs, covered in great depth in the newspapers, and billboards, sides of buses, etc. It's STAYED in the limelight.

Boxing on the other hand has seen it's prominence in the media wane noticeably.

Answer me this simple question,

Is the top flight of English Football league more or less accessable for football fans now than 20 years ago?

Jukebox - I understand what you're saying, but the lack of casual boxing fans today strongly indicates that boxing is NOT more accessible today. You're right-for the FANS there's plenty of sources to go to for your fix, but it's not more accessible without first off actively searching for it.

Look at it like this-with the advent of the internet, fans of German hardcore rubber fetish donkey porn are catered for better than ever before (allegedly), but that doesn't correlate to the subject matter being readily accessible. There's just more stuff around in modern times IF YOU CHOOSE TO SEARCH FOR IT.

Jukebox- not being a football fan I wouldn't really know, but I'd say it's about the same. Public interest is still high, and information is still readily available.

I don't disagree. For the casual sports fan, who only really watches boxing if it's free and happens to be on the telly when they're flicking through channels, it is less accessable.

For everyone else it's happy days