What is the answer for boxing?
 

I've been reading the Mayweather/De La Hoya thread and also the Mayweather/UFC thread...and I just watched Cinderella Man again tonight, and after the fight last night...I'm in a boxing mood.

It pains me what a joke it's become (so many different divisions and belts, everything's some kind of "title fight" but none of them matter for anything, the heavyweight division has 50293959430940243592435023 champions and nobody can name any of them, etc.).

Someone who is knowledgeable about boxing (not a casual fan like me)...what is the answer? And what is stopping that from happening? Certainly boxing realizes it has major issues that are keeping it from being anywhere near the entertainment draw it was in decades and eras past. Why aren't they doing anything about it? I miss heavyweight title fights that meant something because they had history and legacy attached to them. And I'd think the heavyweight division still drives the sport.

Blah, blah...what gives?

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

I am not a boxing expert or anything, but I consider myself a casual fan. I think there should be less weight classes. I would think 4 or maybe even less would work. I think its insane how many weight classes there are. Too many damn champions for the casual fan to know or care about.

The number of champions also has to do with the number of federations. They should all unify because its obvious the casual fan doesnt care anymore.

Also winning a fight by decision seems to be pretty damn horrible for the sport because most fans are just never happy. The decision process can also lead to corruption and overall gives the impression that the way fights are decided is not transparent and clean to the average fan. This should be fixed. I dont know if by making the fights last until someone is knocked out or some other method that I cant think of right now.

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

Yeah, I'm sure that fewer weight classes and governing bodies would be a very good thing. 12-Round decisions aren't going anywhere, nor should they.

Ideally, there would be a single, transparent, corruption-free governing body, and about six weight classes, give or take. I have no idea how that might be accomplished. A few years ago there was some noise from a few Congressmen about cleaning up boxing with legislation -- since the sleazy ass-holes who run boxing seem to benefit from the current set up, that might be the only thing that would do it.

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

In line with what Jorge10 said, although it seems somewhat barbaric to force people to fight until a knockout that is really what everyone wants to see, no? I mean, I have kickboxed (muay thai) and I am very interested in boxing and MMA stuff, etc. I enjoy lots of aspects of the sport and not just the "LOL THAT GUY GOT [censored] UP" part of it, but I really do think that the vast majority of casual and serious fans (myself included) prefer knockouts to longer, more strategic bouts.

Both Mayweather and De La Hoya looked like they could have gone another two or three rounds, what's wrong with bringing back 15 round fights?

Also, what boxing really needs in order to attract a regular fanbase again is to air free fights on a major network once a month for six months or so. Bite the bullet and attract a fanbase, market them heavily, find some young up-and-coming superstars (heavyweights, because more KOs = more enjoyment to most people) and get people interested. I chipped in $5 to watch the Mayweather/DLH fight but it was $55 or so. No remotely casual fan is going to shell out $55 for that fight and honestly if I paid $55 and didn't see a vicious slugfest I would probably have been a little bit disappointed.

Just my random thoughts on the topic

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

Maybe boxing no longer has a place in our society. If you look at other "brutal" spectator sports, they've grown into disfavor over time as more "pseudo-brutal" sports have taken over. No one would endorse gladiators fighting to the death like in ancient Rome. Dog fighting and bear baiting aren't popular any more.

People will always want to see physical confrontation but as our society grows more advanced and compassionate the desire to see simulated brutality instead of actual brutality has increased. Football is still a pretty brutal sport and, when you think about it, not that far off from boxing. But it also has more strategy that the common person can understand and not nearly the same risks as boxing. No one today would say "what can we do to bring back the popularity of feeding people to the lions." Maybe boxing is just an anachronism.

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

Mason-

I'm not sure I buy this actually. I agree that it is a possibility but honestly I think most sports fans are not the super-interested types posting in forums like this. I think your average NASCAR fan wants to see crashes, your average hockey fan wants to see fights and your average boxing fan wants to see KOs. American popular culture is quite diverse and while there may be some segment of the population that is put off by the violence of boxing I doubt that it is a pervasive view. UFC (at least as violent as boxing and realistically much more so) has risen in popularity. I think the decline of boxing is due to two big factors:

1) the lack of a Mike Tyson level superstar to be the face of the sport
2) poor marketing as a result of promoters' greed

Baseball and Football have huge enough fanbases that they don't need to work too hard to get new fans. The NBA has a reasonable fanbase and profits from casual fans (I will watch the NBA for star value basically, since the Knicks [censored] suck) who tune in to see Kobe Bryant or LeBron James, etc. Hockey has struggled because it has lacked a marquis player for so long, really since Gretzky and Lemieux. Sidney Crosby might turn into that, but that very much remains to be seen.

NASCAR is a mystery to me and I cannot understand how someone can watch cars drive around for hours, but then again I live in NY and have never been exposed to it really.

I think boxing is not culturally thrown aside the way public hangings and lion-fighting have been... it could easily see a resurgence in popularity/ratings but it needs star power and accessibility in order to get the not-hardcore fans (who are probably 85% of any fanbase)

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

Sorry man but that's just completely ridiculous for I don't even know how many reasons. It simply wouldn't be boxing anymore. Well it would be boxing close to what it was in the early 1900s. Battling Nelson, Joe Gans, etc going at it, at a slow pace for 45 rounds until one of them collapsed. Don't think that would look very good on tv...

Without the points win, the decision, some of the greatest boxers ever wouldn't have been able to shine either. From Willie Pep to Ali, Leonard and Whitaker. Jake Lamotta going countless of rounds against Sugar Ray, well he would be dead.
It's called the sweet science for a reason.
The decision and the suspension that surrounds it is a part of boxing and some of the greatest and most popular fights ever have been decided by it.
The decision is an integral part of boxing and definitely not a major reason its popularity has suffered. No way.

But of course it's perfectly fine if some fans only appreciate the knockout punch they just shouldn't be confused with boxing fans.

I agree that the weight classes should be reduced somewhat but reducing them dramatically would simply result in one tragedy after another. It would be too dangerous.

You mention corruption. That is one thing that's always been part of boxing too. When boxing was at its most popular it was probably more corrupt than at any other time. You can easily argue boxing at the moment is less corrupt than ever before.

While acknowledging that things like the numerous alphabet titles and the removal of boxing off free tv in the late 80s/early 90s plays a part too, I honestly think that the reason that boxing, in america at least (to be fair most other places boxing still has the same position on the popularity scale as it has always had, some places it's even more popular, Germany, the second biggest market right now is a good example) is the lack of american talent.
There is a huge talent drought going on. Society and mindsets have changed and kids prefer taking up other sports instead.

An obscure sport that I happen to follow too, yes I'm nuts, is perhaps the best example of this. Sumo wrestling. Japan's favorite sport is now in many ways dominated by foreigners, mongolians and eastern europeans mainly. Modern japanese kids do not decide to take up the incredible tough lifestyle/sport that is sumo but chose to pick up things like a baseball instead.
In other poorer countries it's a golden opportunity.
Result is a talent drought among japanese and the sport's popularity at an all time low.

Americans want to see americans winning too. Tennis, especially men's tennis, is at an all time low in the U.S as well. It remains as popular as ever pretty much everywhere else.
There is no McEnroe or Connors. Not even an Agassi or a Sampras.

Was golf as popular in the U.S as it is now when for a while it was Faldo, Ballesteros and Norman picking up the majors? No, but along came Tiger and the rest is history.

I think if a Sugar Ray Leonard or especially a Tyson cleaning up the pathetic heavyweight division, came along again it would create interest.
The chance of that one superstar emerging and the needed supporting cast along with him, is just lower than ever.

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

I said I was against judges deciding fights because of three reasons:

1) The UFC doesnt do that and its taking people that would be boxing fans if the UFC didnt exist.
2) If I had a dollar for everytime someone said, "that decision was BS" after a big time boxing fight I would be rich.
3) As a casual fan I just feel disappointed and cheated when a big fight ends up in the hands of the judges. I dont know why I feel like this, I just do.

But I could see how removing the decisions could offend the hardcore fans. Also I just threw out the idea of more rounds, but it could be something else. I just cant think of what right now.

The weight classes thing is something that is a real problem. There are just too damn many. No casual fan knows all the boxing champions and that wouldnt change even if boxing got huge again. There are just too many champions. I dont know what would be lost if there were less weight classes so maybe im wrong.

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jake Lamotta going countless of rounds against Sugar Ray, well he would be dead.


[/ QUOTE ]

I missed this. LOL!!!!

Re: What is the answer for boxing?
 

At this point, boxing pretty much has no future. People who like violent sports will make UFC more popular.