State of boxing - is it really so bad?

First topic message reminder :

It is widely postulated that we live in a barren time for boxing - with a large jump between the class of the elite - the Mayweathers, Pacquiaos and Martinez' and the rest. And that once these 3 aging supermen hang up their cloaks, there will be little left and the sport will subside into a cloaca of indifferent matchups, alphabelts and poorly conditioned, poorly skilled heavyweights winning the crown that Louis, Ali and Marciano once wore with pride.

Yet, are things all that bad?

If we just look at the number 1 in each division and their nearest challengers - how bad are things now?

HW - Wladimir Klitschko; with Vitali, Adamek, Helenius, Haye, Chambers around him.
CW - No champion; but Cunningham, Tarver, Huck, Lebedev, Palacios and Hernandez competing
LHW - Hoppo; with Pascal, Dawson, Cloud, Cleverly and Shumenov in the mix
SMW - No champion; but Ward, Froch, Kessler and Bute all competing
MW - Sergio Gabriel Martinez; Sturm, Geale and Pirog behind
LMW - No champion; Cotto, Alvarez, Bundrage, Williams all in the mix
WW - No champion; Floyd, Manny, Ortiz
LWW - No champion; Manny, Khan, Bradley, Maidana, Alexander, Judah
LW - JMM; but Guerrero, Rios, Vasquez and Katsidis
SFW - No champion; Burns, Broner, Fana, Uchiyama
FW - No champion; Gamboa, Salido, Juanma, John
SBW - No champion; Arce, Ramos, Montiel
BW - Donaire; Agbeko, Darchinyan and Moreno behind.

I'm not going to pretend my knowledge of divisional depth stretches much below bantamweight.

I have decided that "champion" is defined as a guy who would be a clear and definite favourite in >95% of minds to beat at least the top 4 contenders. And by favourite, I am referring to the extent that coxy would bet his house on the outcome.

I am arguable being generous in that Wlad wouldn't be the favourite in 95% of minds to beat Vitali - but given that Vitali has refused to fight Wlad - he has ruled himself out of "contender" status, ergo Wlad remains champion

Discussion

First thing that is easily visible from this table - is that MW and WW are astonishingly weak divisions. Setting aside the golden fighters at the top there's a lot of brass occupying the divisional ratings beneath.

Second thing is - there are a lot of reasonable and exciting fighters out there. This is also good.

Down to issues - there are so many divisions without a clear number 1. This, in my opinion, is the major issue affecting boxing today.

There is an attitude that once you win a fight once, there is no need for a rematch until the other guy proves the first result was an aberration. If that were the case - Burley would have beaten Holman Williams 1 or 2 nil in the record books. As it stands, the fights were exciting, they provided paydays and even though they weren't always particularly close - Williams was allowed the chance to close out the record books even with Burley. Because fighters aren't allowed to drop fights due to no guarantee of a rematch - we have far to many weak fights and not enough strong ones. Take Bundrage. He's just beaten Sechew Powell. He should be screaming for the Cottos, the Alvarez, Williams or the Margarito's of this world - if he is the LMW number 2. Cunningham should be calling out AND fighting Tarver, Afolabi, Palacios rather than just occasionally mentioning Huck.

Conclusions

Alphabelts are meaningless - but we all knew that anyway.
If the divisional leading fighters were to meet more often - boxing would be the number 1 spectator sport on the planet.
Someone really needs to teach some kids weighing at 160 and 147 to box.

The shear volume of decent match ups that we've had.

It seems like there's been fights worth watching every weekend for the last few months. I can't ever remember this before. I find it purely ridiculous to label boxing as 'terrible' when we are enjoying such a good run. Not every fight turns out like Barrera Morales, but that's always been the case, unless 'remembering' it from a fanciful book.

The Galveston Giant wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The Ottke, Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz etc days are gone. Welcome to modern boxing.

If you don't like watching good fights everyweekend then what are you doing here?

I tell you what, let's talk about Boxing in the sixties. That's really exciting. Let's all pretend we were there and that we got great fights every week to listen to on the gramophone. And none of us can ever be wrong because we were never there so how would we know.

The sixties, i love Lionel Rose, would recommend his documentary which Scott has on his thread, a great fighter.

I would prefer to read a documentary on Lionel Blair. He's probably more relevant to boxing today.

Question: “Is boxing dying?”
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
“Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying.“
Archie Moore 1972


But what does Archie Moore know right?

What is this sheer volume of decent match ups?

Are fights like Froch v Johnson, Fury v Chisora, Khan v Judah, Sturm v Macklin to be considered quality? What is your criteria for quality fights. Picking out past decades as examples we have:

1993:

Lewis v Bruno
Holyfield v Bowe II
Jones v Hopkins
Carabajal v Gonzales
Whitaker v Chavez

1982:

Pedroza v Laporte
Pryor v Arguello
Holmes v Cooney
Sanchez v Nelson
Duran v Benitez
Hearns v Benitez
Gomez v Pintor

1974:

Ali v Foreman
Ali v Frazier
Monzon v Napoles
Foreman v Norton
Duran v De Jesus

1965:

Harada v Jofre
Laguna v Ortiz
Ali v Liston II
Ali v Patterson
Tiger v Giardello
Saldivar v Winstone

Notice the year he said that, fairly sure he'd have something to say about the current climate considering there are now four belts rather than just two which in the 60's and 70's were more often than not unified.

Still wondering what all these great match ups have been in the past few years?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The Ottke, Calzaghe, Eubank, Naz etc days are gone. Welcome to modern boxing.

If you don't like watching good fights everyweekend then what are you doing here?

I tell you what, let's talk about Boxing in the sixties. That's really exciting. Let's all pretend we were there and that we got great fights every week to listen to on the gramophone. And none of us can ever be wrong because we were never there so how would we know.

The sixties, i love Lionel Rose, would recommend his documentary which Scott has on his thread, a great fighter.

I would prefer to read a documentary on Lionel Blair. He's probably more relevant to boxing today.

I don't know who Lionel Blair is, and you would be better to watch the documentary rather than read it.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Question: “Is boxing dying?”
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
“Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying.“
Archie Moore 1972


But what does Archie Moore know right?

That was in 1972, 40 years ago

I'm not sure here so may be wrong but I am not sure anyone is really arguing that good fights do no longer happen. From what I can understand and this is certainly my position is the proliferation of belts creates a situation where fighters or promoters, should they choose can still be champions at weights without fighting their best rival, Manny and Floyd is the obvious example but Windy's Calzaghe Ottke example works equally as well.

Also think, and this would certainly be my point and has been from the start of this debate, even if good fights do still happen the world title picture is so confusing and convoluted it becomes increasingly difficult for people to follow which limits or reduces the chances of new fans or casual fans making the effort to watch those fights. You can have as many great fights as you want but if a decreasing number of people take the time to watch those fights, long term that has to be to the sports detriment.

Some people are talking about Eubank, Hamed and Calzaghe like they were ancient figures of the sport.

The irony is, with Eubank and Calzaghe anyway, that they were able to get away with fighting weak opponents for so long precisely because of the multi belt system. Their tenures have no bearing on the one belt system in place decades ago.

Not a great deal has changed since the Calzaghe and Eubank days if you ask me. At least Eubanks classics were free to air. We still have protected champions nowadays and paper champions.

The irony is fights like Haye v Klitschko are big in a large part due to the fact it was a unification fight but if you scrape away Hayes paper title hes just another challenger who had the luxury of targeting a paper champion and defending it against a few damp squibs for a while. Haye would never have been a heavyweight world champion in a one belt era and is unlikely to have even secured a shot off beating Harrison, Valuev and Ruiz in a credible rankings system. He would have been forced to mix it with top ranked heavyweights to earn his shot at whatever Klitschko held the title.

Likewise Judah v Khan being a unification fight when its really just an over the hill contender against the number 1/2 guy in the division. Again in a one belt system Bradley v Khan would have had to happen sooner and somebody like Judah is unlikely to have got a shot off the back of wins over Mazuba and Mathysse.

“With the gradual dying of boxing as a national sport, judo seems the perfect replacement“
Black Belt Magazine, 1964

Not quite sure why your posting quotes from 40 odd years ago for

To show that people have thought boxing was dying almost since it began.

“Boxing right now is dying with its superstar Muhammad Ali fighting competitors not worthy to try for his crown.”
Black Belt Magazine, 1976

“Legitimate professional wrestling has died. Boxing is dying. Swimming, tennis, golf, modern dance, and gymnastics are growing.”
James A Baley, 1974

Question: “Is boxing dying?”
Archie Moore (multiple title champion and ATG):
“Yes, it must be. They told me it was dying when I got into it as a professional in 1936. I think it started dying at about the dawn of history. So I guess it is still dying.“
Archie Moore, 1972

“And when the black man starts to excel in a particular sport the question starts floating around: “Is boxing dying?”
Eldridge Cleaver, 1969

“With the gradual dying of boxing as a national sport, judo seems the perfect replacement“
Black Belt Magazine, 1964

“The experts have been saying for years that boxing is dying because kids no longer are hungry, because boxing no longer is the way for a poor kid to get rich quick.”
LA Times, 1963

“Boxing is not dying”, said Jack Dempsey sadly, “it’s dead“. Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… “It’s gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They’ll take anyone.” Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse.”
Life Magazine, 1961

“Radio is not “causing the demise of big-time boxing“, John Ford, WTCN-Blue newscaster, told his audience in rebuttal to an attack on radio and boxing, published by Dick Cullum, sports editor of the Minneapolis Daily Times, 10 days ago.
Cullum had charged that because sponsors want their full time on the air in which to get in their commercials, fight broadcasts go without knockouts these days and become uninteresting dancing exhibitions.”
The Billboard, 1944

“The game of boxing is dying today because the boys do not know how to box. There is no one to teach them how and they won’t work anyway”.
LA Times, 1940

“Professional boxing is dying a natural death“
LA Times, 1913

“As it is, the school of boxing is rapidly dying out, and when the professors of the present day have passed away it will be hard to say where the new ones are to come from.”
Professor Ned Donelly, The art of boxing, 1879

It's personal opinion is it not Scott? If I showed you some Nat Fleischer quotes would hang on their every word or make your own judgement?

The point is that people have always been saying how boxing is dying, terrible...etc, and they've always been wrong. Why should we take any notice of people saying the same today.

Whether or not it is dying is one thing, but I certainly feel its gone downhill since I began watching it and that trend looks set to continue.

Its certainly no longer as popular or mainstream as it once was and I dont think its producing as many quality fighters overall.

Comments citing that boxing is no longer an easy way to get rich for poor kids are accurate as there are now much easier and less risky ways to make money in other sports for prospective athletes.

Boxing is not dead, but its not as healthy as it once was. I really dont see how anyone could view the current structure in place as a positive thing for the sport.

It's not a case of being right or wrong because it's personal opinion, I think this is a terrible era with a lack or real quality where the best invariably don't face their main rivals.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The point is that people have always been saying how boxing is dying, terrible...etc, and they've always been wrong. Why should we take any notice of people saying the same today.

And why have they been wrong? It may not have died out of existance but there is strong arguments that the sport has declined and that the current structure has alienated fans as well as harmed the credibility of the sport.

Had Jack Dempsey lived to see the current state of boxing then I believe the sport would truly be dead in his opinion.

Again tend to agree Lion. I have not been following the sport anywhere near as long as either you or Windy but even in the 20 years I have been following the sport with anything like a commitment there have been changes I personally don't think are for the sports betterment. When I started watching there were four belts, not ideal but with a little effort you could keep relatively on top of things. However in the intervening period there have been the introduction of super champions, diamond belts, champion emeritus' the basis for awarding them which is still unclear to me.

Also may be wrong on this but does appear to be more of a rush to introduce interim belts the minute someone is injured or out of the ring, meaning there are often instances at any given weight where a governing body can have an interim champion, regular champion or champion in recess and super champion. All a matter of opinion but this has reduced my enjoyment of the sport and certainly added little or no value to the game. If people feel otherwise they are entitled to that view but it is not one I share.

“Boxing is not dying”, said Jack Dempsey sadly, “it’s dead“. Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… “It’s gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They’ll take anyone.” Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse.”
Life Magazine, 1961

Boxing died in the 'magical' 60's according to Dempsey.

Who cares what Dempsey said I have my own mind thank you very much, you may well think this era is great but I do not, you're entitled to your opinion as much as I am.

Champions in recess as well Jeff

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:“Boxing is not dying”, said Jack Dempsey sadly, “it’s dead“. Even as the old champ spoke last week the corpse of a one lively sport was just barely twitching… Jack Dempsey was not the only old champ to grieve. Mickey Walker and Gene Tunney were equally mournful… “It’s gone, boxing. Today you show any style and they put you on TV. They’ll take anyone.” Neither Tunney nor Walker knew quite what to do with the corpse.”
Life Magazine, 1961

Boxing died in the 'magical' 60's according to Dempsey.

Yes so you can only imagine what he would make of the current set up.

Colonial Lion wrote:Whether or not it is dying is one thing, but I certainly feel its gone downhill since I began watching it and that trend looks set to continue.

Its certainly no longer as popular or mainstream as it once was and I dont think its producing as many quality fighters overall.

Comments citing that boxing is no longer an easy way to get rich for poor kids are accurate as there are now much easier and less risky ways to make money in other sports for prospective athletes.

Boxing is not dead, but its not as healthy as it once was. I really dont see how anyone could view the current structure in place as a positive thing for the sport.

When was boxing so healthy? It's always been considered as dead or dying.

I can only imagine how good Adam and eve must have had it since music, entertainment, sport, manners etc have been getting worse since the beginning of time.

OK I'm playing devils advocate and I think boxing was better in different era's but nothing is ever like it was 'back in the day'. There's always a certain amount of nostalgia.

Lets just consider the heavyweight champions for instance

1960's- Patterson, Liston and Ali
2000's- An ageing Lewis and the K Bros

What would you rather have?

What made these respected people believe boxing was dead in the 60's and 70's?

What makes you think it's so alive today?

It was alot healthier without ppv and numerous weight classes oversaturated with far too many belts.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Im talking about the structure of the sport. Less divisions and one champion per weight was better for the sport.

I dunno, maybe the 3 million who tuned in to watch a British title fight last weekend.

That's not the point though. Boxing was probably fine in the 60's and it's fine today. There will always be the naysayers who like to bash it, but if boxing history has taught us anything, it is that they're wrong.

Colonial Lion wrote:It was alot healthier without ppv and numerous weight classes oversaturated with far too many belts.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Im talking about the structure of the sport. Less divisions and one champion per weight was better for the sport.

It's also better without mob control, regular fixed fights and reporting, the colour line etc. These aren't normally talked about when comparing the eras, just good things from the past. That fewer divisions/belts is better for the sport is pretty much consensus and unlikely to change, no point keep going on about it. If you can still watch boxing do it, if not move on.

3 million for a british title fight isn't really that impressive JT and boxing could have done without mob control but that alone doesn't counteract the sheer depth of quality and how often the best fought eachother.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:3 million for a british title fight isn't really that impressive JT and boxing could have done without mob control but that alone doesn't counteract the sheer depth of quality and how often the best fought eachother.

It's only with hindsight that the old days looked so good. As has been shown, every era of boxing was considered dead or dying at the time.

3 million for an almost unadvertised fight on channel 5 is very good.

Well you can hardly say that when i'd consider the 80's and 90's better than today, I can say this as I remember them quite vividly.

You were younger and probably more impressionable in the 80's and 90's though. You've also had ~20 years to forget the awful fights.

Of course I have and it's nothing to do with the fact that I thought there were more good fights and most importantly a heavyweight division to be interested in too.

Scottrf wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:It was alot healthier without ppv and numerous weight classes oversaturated with far too many belts.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. Im talking about the structure of the sport. Less divisions and one champion per weight was better for the sport.

It's also better without mob control, regular fixed fights and reporting, the colour line etc. These aren't normally talked about when comparing the eras, just good things from the past. That fewer divisions/belts is better for the sport is pretty much consensus and unlikely to change, no point keep going on about it. If you can still watch boxing do it, if not move on.

Well why enter into a discussion about the current state of boxing at all then if your attitude is no point in going on about it.

I am responding to others who wish to discuss it and who are making the argument that todays situation is equal or preferable.

I dont share this opinion and am defending my point of view as someone whos has followed boxing over several decades.

I know CL but it's not just on this thread we have to hear about it. Anyway I'll leave you to it.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I dunno, maybe the 3 million who tuned in to watch a British title fight last weekend.

And managed to do it without an interim, international or inter-continental title in sight, who'd have thought it possible.

As far as the infrastructure of the sport goes I believe it to be in a terrible state and as a result closer to killing the sport than any other era to date.

It is absolutely murder trying to explain the sport to even people who have a passing interest in the sport. Its got to the stage that the belts tell you almost nothing of the division as a whole and unless you've taken the time to research the fighters your going in clueless as a less hardcore fan.

On the talent front I don't think its that bad actually, there's some very good fighters around who I think we may look back on quite well in years to come. There are a few divisions that are just terrible though with the Heavies being a walking disaster of a weight class. There's been weak divisions before in the sport though with a one belt system it doesn't nearly look as bad as the bloated mess we have now.

The sports in such a bad state belt/organisation wise I'm not sure what other than a open revolt by the boxers themselves could be done to change the system. Your certainly not gonna get any help from the organisations or promotional companies themselves.