Boxings decline in the media

Maybe not the best title but this thread has been conjured up in my head after reading a comment made by Azania about boxing not being as mainstream anymore.

Why do you think that is?

I know some people cite that the growth in MMA has had a major factor (although not on 606 boxing where that is the worst swear word you can utter). What some of the posters dont understand is that boxing fans will always love boxing and see MMA as no threat. However, the casual fan does like it better as the fights are usually more explosive and shorter.

Another factor I feel is the lack of American Heavyweights. This for me is the real reason. If there was a Tyson about, clearing up the big name fighters, the US would love boxing again. Although Mayweather is indeed entertaining, the casual viewer wants to see big guys getting sparked out.

So what do you think is the reason, and can the sport ever recover from its ratings lull?

Cable/Satelite and PPV has destroyed boxing and taken it away from being in the mainstream. Just imagine if pac or floyd were fighting regularly on terrestrial telly? Everyone would know them Look at how Benn and Eubank became household names and Joe Calzaghe couldn't make the back pages.

fai rplay to the boxers, PPV gives them more money and boxing being a very dangerous sport, they deserve as much as they get.

but MMA and wrestling are on PPV as well, and they are becoming more popular (in MMAs case) or mainstream (in WWEs case)

Must be something else as well.

I don't think MMA is more popular at all, with UFC you get 3/4 cards a year which pull in big audiences but compare that to the overall viewing figures of all the boxing PPVS and i'd assume they're still some way off.
It benefits from having fully stacked cards whereas the big fights in boxing are spread out

imperialghosty wrote:I don't think MMA is more popular at all, with UFC you get 3/4 cards a year which pull in big audiences but compare that to the overall viewing figures of all the boxing PPVS and i'd assume they're still some way off.
It benefits from having fully stacked cards whereas the big fights in boxing are spread out

UFC is only one organisation and it has 12 PPVs a year (plus a few more "PPV" which are free in the US - the european held ones)

The other major US promotion is Strikeforce which holds just as many events.

The realities are that MMA is just as popular - no matter how many boxing fans want to ignore the fact - UFC events have gone over the 1m PPV hits recently (its happening more and more) whereas I think only a few boxing matches ever have (some of Tysons fights, Mayweather-marquez and Pac - margarito).

I like both sports but the majority of boxing fans dont want to look at the inevitable popularity rise of MMA in direct correlation to the fall in interest in boxing.

Think your way off the mark there, as far as MMA goes it's only UFC that gets anywhere near the viewing figures of a major boxing fight

Take Haye against Harrison which did over 1 million buys and that was a mismatch between two fighters not known outside this country, gives you a real indication

imperialghosty wrote:Think your way off the mark there, as far as MMA goes it's only UFC that gets anywhere near the viewing figures of a major boxing fight

Take Haye against Harrison which did over 1 million buys and that was a mismatch between two fighters not known outside this country, gives you a real indication

how many PPV buys do you think it did outside of the UK?

And if you could get decent PPV over here (not talking sky as they only really show british PPV fights or showtime), how many brits would buy it - 10,000? If you are lucky.

The casual viewer will watch Khan and Haye but not much else. That is why the PPV sold so much in this country. WWE however, would generate far more in this country than Mayweather vs Pacman ever would. Not something I like the idea of but all too true.

MMA has a bigger PPV following than boxing if you consider the amount per person that is spent on it due to more regular events and the casual viewer.

You are pulling my leg aren't you, other than Haye and Khan no boxers are entirely on PPV and to suggest that WWE would sell more over here than Mayweather/Pacquiao is a mute point when you consider that we get all the big fights for free on SkySports if they choose to show them.

In America that fight would do over 3 million buys which is almost triple what a UFC card would do, they're both worldwide sports so it's pointless only taking into account this country where a major PPV fight involving Khan or Haye would sell more than any UFC card

but you are talking about 1 fight.

uFC will attract 1m ppvs for over half its cards next year.

How many potential boxing matches will do that?

My question was about why the decline in boxing viewers.

The casual viewer choosing to buy ufc or wwe ppvs over regular, average match ups is the main reason.

I didnt say you have to like it, I am stating what the ppv figures are suggesting to me - mma has a regular ppv, with great match ups. Boxing rarely puts together the best fighters at their peak. Given a choice of where to spend my money, it would be mma unless a superfight materialises.

I am a typical casual viewer.

I fail to see why this thread is in the boxing section, it's just an attempt to rile those who like boxing and would be far more suited in MMA or Martial arts

I would suggest that a major reason for its decline is the lack of a charismatic Heavyweight champion.
Boxing thrives when we have guys like Dempsey,Ali and even though he isnt always popular Tyson at the helm.
There are other reasons of course.A multitude of mickey mouse titles and organisations.Fighters chronic inactivity( Floyd bieng the most glaring example) but the media and the non boxing public identify with the Heavyweights
I never thought I would say it but we need another Tyson!

imperialghosty wrote:I fail to see why this thread is in the boxing section, it's just an attempt to rile those who like boxing and would be far more suited in MMA or Martial arts

i fail to see why you are getting riled at mma being discussed.

I asked the question as to why the decline. I cited things like the lack oof a heavyweight as a possible reason which the above poster agreed with.

The popularity of mma is another and has everything to do with this boxing thread.

To ignore it is like saying to your boxing coach - I refuse to belive he has a jab, so lets not look at it and it wont happen!!

I am a boxing and mma fan, they are not always mutually exclusive.

They are mutally exclusive in the sense that this a boxing thread and this debate has been done a million times already

The decline in boxing has very little to do with MMA, it is almost exclusively down to two things

1. Lack of American interested in the Heavyweight division
2. The best not fighting the best by and large

Hobo wrote:
MMA has a bigger PPV following than boxing if you consider the amount per person that is spent on it due to more regular events and the casual viewer.

~ Mr. Hobo, sir, I fear you don't understand your argument in an apples and oranges comparison.

MMA has nothing to do with boxing's decades long decline which has everything to do with the expansion of a myriad of other sports, often subsidized under 501 "non-profit public" organizations as are the Dallas Cowboys for example.

As far as what MMA has to do with boxing, try to compare the viewing markets for snowboarding as to downhill skiing, different markets entirely with some overlap.

As far as "PPV" goes, there is "PPV" and then there's "PPV" and then there's "ppv." If ppv costs a dollar, would you be bigging up the ppv numbers for women's licorice jello wrestling as proof of taking market share and revenues from boxing?

Sir, boxing usually charges top shelf for most all big cards. The UFC don't release revenue figures and verified PPV numbers. It's what they say as in if I say to you that I know this because, I sir, I live on my own planet due to owning 1/10th of the market share of the world economy and can afford the spectacular luxury of beauteous isolation.

A multi-trillionaire, sir, not that I'm bragging.

There, sorted, so I'm off to some bunny hopping on a trail of asteroids passing by. Good game sport sir, and FREE and unregulated, so Tally Ho~Ho and off we go!

UFC have brilliant marketing. Its new and fresh but will it stand the test of time? Its becoming more like boxing with UFC, Strikeforce etc etc etc. No one knows who the best heavy is. But overall cable/satellite has hurt the popularity of boxing and the plethora of alphabet belts making the best avoid the best.

imperialghosty wrote:They are mutally exclusive in the sense that this a boxing thread and this debate has been done a million times already

The decline in boxing has very little to do with MMA, it is almost exclusively down to two things

1. Lack of American interested in the Heavyweight division
2. The best not fighting the best by and large

this debate has never been done before on here. You may have had this debate with others in the past, but I have also had debates about the Haggler v Hearns fight before - does that mean that they can never be broached again?

This is a new forum, with some new people.

Repeated threads will be merged if they add nothing new to an existing thread.

This thread however, is to voice opinions on why boxing is in decline. My opinion is that it is to do with the lack of a US heavy and the increased popularity of MMA. The forum welcomes other peoples opinions but will not stand for people inexplicably dismissing viewpoints that are relevant, just because they dont adhere to your viewpoint.

I am not talking up mma over boxing - i am stating my beliefs in why it is playing a part in the dimishing boxing figures.

If you cannot tolerate peoples viewpoints, then forums are not for you. I would suggest writing a blog.

Whereas my viewpoint is that MMA has nothing to do with the apparent decline in boxing

MMA is a bloodsport whereas boxing is an art, they cater for completely different audiences and because they both involve hitting eachother people assume there is a massive overlap between the two which there isn't

Hobo wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:They are mutally exclusive in the sense that this a boxing thread and this debate has been done a million times already

The decline in boxing has very little to do with MMA, it is almost exclusively down to two things

1. Lack of American interested in the Heavyweight division
2. The best not fighting the best by and large

this debate has never been done before on here. You may have had this debate with others in the past, but I have also had debates about the Haggler v Hearns fight before - does that mean that they can never be broached again?

This is a new forum, with some new people.

Repeated threads will be merged if they add nothing new to an existing thread.

This thread however, is to voice opinions on why boxing is in decline. My opinion is that it is to do with the lack of a US heavy and the increased popularity of MMA. The forum welcomes other peoples opinions but will not stand for people inexplicably dismissing viewpoints that are relevant, just because they dont adhere to your viewpoint.

I am not talking up mma over boxing - i am stating my beliefs in why it is playing a part in the dimishing boxing figures.

If you cannot tolerate peoples viewpoints, then forums are not for you. I would suggest writing a blog.

During the Tyson era, boxing was sold as a PPV event. So no matter how popular Tyson was, not many people saw him fight. Its not just the heavies also or the plethora of other sports being shown on TV. Look at he superbowl. If it was shown on PPV its lustre would fade away as less people would see it.

The bottom line is, you cannot root for a boxer you hardly see or know nothing about.

That leads to the inactivity of modern boxers being part of the problem
I would love to discuss Manny v Floyd.Ward Direll etc but the fights dont happen
Long standing boxing fans like myself will continue to watch anyway. Casual fans wont put up with it and neither will the media in general
Erik Morales ranked number 1 by the WBC at 140...Now that is beyond a joke!

As a fan of 'wrasslin' rather than boxing or MMA I can only comment from the outside looking in but there has been a large amount of discussion within the internet wrestling community (IWC as it's known) as to the effect MMA has had upon wrestling.
A few years ago the WWE went through a period known as the Attitude Era, this was one of wrestlings peaks, the likes of Stone Cold & the Rock became household names but it was fueled heavily by the shift of WWE towards a more mature audience, as the kids who watched the likes of Hogan, Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart etc grew up then WWE grew with them.
WWE got to a point though where they had to stop, they'd started to take it too far with storylines that purely shocked and had to basically reset it reverting their product back to a PG rated show.
The adult fans rioted at their keyboards. 'No blood!, no swearing!, no nudity!' Because the button had been pressed it became then very hard to take it back and a large number of fans grew disillusioned.
Another product filled that gap, MMA.
Here was something that sold to the adult wrestling fan, grown men beating the jeebies out of one another for real! Blood was not only welcomed it was allowed (wrestling in joke there). One of wrestling's biggest stars even went and battered most of the stars there.
WWE has suffered greatly PPV wise to MMA without question, the WWE owner thinks of UFC as WWE's main rival over the 2nd biggest wrestling company.
This is hopefully where I think Hobo is coming from, MMA is in its honeymoon period, it's a growing product that appeals to the Friday night audience.
It's not to say that is THE reason, there's plenty such as the lack of an American champ, the lack of charismatic champs (big difference between charismatic and ego), lack of a true champion, the sheer cost of a PPV etc, but I do believe it's a factor.

Just been scouring the 'tinterweb' for articles on it and came across this which I thought was worth a read:

As a kid, I spent many weekend afternoons watching boxing on free television. Back in the seventies and eighties, ABC, CBS, and NBC all had championship fights on every couple of weeks or so. And, if they weren't championship fights, they were fights involving guys that would go on to become big stars in the sport. Of course, that was when the sport actually mattered.

I grew up at the tail end of Muhammad Ali's career, so the guys I grew up watching were Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini, Thomas Hearns, Hector Camacho, and of course, the heavyweights. Ali would pass the torch on to Larry Holmes. Holmes was the man until being beaten by puffed up light heavyweight champ Michael Spinks. Spinks might have been the next big thing in the heavyweight division, but he decided to fight stiffs like Gerry Cooney after beating Holmes in a rematch. While he was fighting stiffs, Mike Tyson emerged as the baddest man on the planet. Tyson was boxing's biggest star, and when he finally got Spinks in the ring, he disposed of him in less than 90 seconds.

That was twenty-one years ago. Boxing hasn't been the same since Tyson was in his prime. In fact, it's pretty much on its deathbed as we speak. Oh, don't get me wrong. There are great fighters out there these days - Manny Pacquiao being at the top of the list. But unlike the 70's and 80's these guys fly much lower on the radar.

Why is this? What happened to boxing?

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why boxing isn't spoken about as often as it used to be. It's only talked about these days when there are big fights on Pay Per View. And, PPV is actually part of the problem. The purses for the 'superfights' are so huge - so outrageous - that promoters charge over fifty dollars (sometimes) for people to watch the fights. In the economy we are in these days, there aren't many people that have that kind of cash sitting around just to spend on a fight.

There are other problems boxing has faced. Don King and other promoters being one of them. Too many organizations giving fighters championship belts that they don't deserve was another. The rise of MMA (which I don't get into but I don't rip on people who do) hasn't done the sweet science any favors.

But the biggest problem boxing has these days is in the heavyweight division.

There really is no true heavyweight champion. There is no dominant fighter. There is no Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Lennox Lewis, or anyone else that you could consider dominant. Wladimir Klitschko, who owns two of the numerous belts that are out there, just knocked someone named Ruslan Chagaev out Saturday night in ten rounds. Sure, the fight drew 61,000 to a soccer stadium in Germany, but how many people here in the U.S. even knew that there was a heavyweight championship fight? Not many, that's for sure. Back when I was a kid - heck - even six years ago when Lewis was the champ - if there was a heavyweight title fight, you knew about it.

Klitschko might be a good fighter, but he hasn't faced anyone that could really do anything to him. One of the reasons for that is that when he was coming up and actually faced someone who punched back - he was knocked out. In fact, he was knocked out twice. If this guy is considered 'best in class' as many experts believe, it's not saying much.

It also isn't saying much that Klitschko's brother Vitali was out of the sport for a few years then came back and won a belt without really working his way up the ladder. The WBA champ - Nikolai Valuev - is a bear of a man at seven feet tall and over 300 pounds. But, he's not the most skilled guy in the world, and for a guy that big, actually has very little punching power.

This is a division that allowed Evander Holyfield to fight for a belt (Valuev's) about six months ago. Yes, the same Holyfield who is in his mid forties, and hasn't been in his prime since beating Mike Tyson eleven years ago.

If you take a look at the rankings, you also notice something that hasn't been the case before - a lack of American heavyweight contenders. None of the champs are from the United States. Eddie Chambers is regarded as the best American heavyweight, but most people wouldn't know him from Adam. This is a division in which John Ruiz is still seen as a contender. Ruiz was the guy Roy Jones beat for the heavyweight title years ago - in Jones' first fight as a heavyweight!

People want a heavyweight champ they could recognize. People want a heavyweight champ with some personality. One who can punch and knock guys out. It's why Tyson was viewed as a contender when he met Lewis in Memphis six years ago - which may be the last heavyweight title fight anyone cared about.

The division is in shambles, and boxing is in shambles as a result. Pacquiao is the best fighter in the sport, but he can't carry the flag for boxing. Neither can Floyd Mayweather, who had to postpone his comeback fight because of injury.

Boxing needs not only a dominant fighter, but a dominant personality. And, it would help if he was a heavyweight. Preferably an American heavyweight. One who can knock guys out. One who will get the average boxing fan in the country to care as they did a couple of decades ago, when Tyson ruled the division and the sport.
Until then, boxing will continue to die a slow death.
It's a shame. A damn shame.

http://saundersonsports.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-reason-boxing-is-dying-slow-death.html

Interesting article. Pretty much agree with it although I disagree that the heavyweight champ should be American. The heavyweight champ should have some personality and not the Eastern Euro robots we get now. They dont even have to be a good fighter, just give me some personality. I want the heavyweight champ to have some charisma.

Look at Eubank. After the 2nd Watson fight he was never the same fighter. In fact he was quite boring as a boxer. But his personality sold fights. He was interesting as a character. Name me one single boxer other than Floyd and perhaps Haye who actually has some personality?

When Tyson fought it was on the front page. It was an event. Similarly when Lewis fought, Holyfield, Holmes etc it was news worthy. Now when the Kilts fight it barely warrants a paragraph on the inside back pages. I doubt it Haye fights it warrants mentioning anywhere outside of the UK or europe.

Boxing isn't dying. It can be resurrected. Show more fights on terrestial TV. Who remembers when ITV had major fights on all hours and when BBC had Sportnights with 'Arry Carpenter. We all knew the boxers: from Minter, Sibson. Laing, Jones, Honey, Mittee, Stracey, DB Green and many many others. Not even mentioning SRL, Hearns, Hagler, Duran etc whose fights all shown on ITV or BBC.

Hero wrote: There are great fighters out there these days - Manny Pacquiao being at the top of the list. But unlike the 70's and 80's these guys fly much lower on the radar.

http://saundersonsports.blogspot.com/2009/06/real-reason-boxing-is-dying-slow-death.html

~ Sir, with all due respect, your Mr. Saunderson has been busted wide open as an overripe tomato taking a tumble in the marketplace of knowledge.

Mr. Manny is the best known boxing figure in the world at this point. It really ain't even arguable any more given his recent diplomatic tete a tete with US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Obama who is his only modern global rival.

4 Billion Asians ain't to be trifled with sir..........