What is the answer for boxing?

[Roan]

I agree with:

1) More regularly scheduled, televised fights.
2) Fewer weight classes.
3) One governing body, with a single champ in each weight class.

But I think the most critical change they could make would be to let them fight until there was a KO. The boxing purists would be disappointed most likely, but it would be more appealing to the masses.

Personally I feel cheated for paying $55 and seeing those two guys "technique" each other for 12 rounds. If I knew that each fight would have a no-doubt winner and loser I would be much more interested.

Americans as a whole want to see a winner and a loser after a sporting event. For better or worse we don't have the patience/appreciation to tune in for a decent amount of time and have the contest end in a tie (soccer) or a decision.

Everyone and their mother is rooting against a Spurs - Pistons basketball finals because it will be boring.

The defensive - trap style of hockey nearly killed the sport in the mid-late 90s before they changed the rules.

The Lennox Lewis era was the worst thing that ever happened to boxing, he was 6 inches taller and had a longer reach than anyone he fought and could simply jab them off for 12 rounds and win a decision - horribly, horribly boring to watch.

Americans want excitement, scoring, and a clear winner and loser, give them that and they will tune in.

Part of the reason that UFC et al. are so succesful is that the fans get what they want almost all the time, someone wins and someone loses and there is no doubt about why.

The counterargument of "we're concerned about the safety of the fighters" is crap. If you were really concerned about their safety you wouldn't put them into the ring against someone who has been training for 6 months to beat the hell out of them in the first place.

By the end of the fight they get tired and sloppy anyway and the winner would win as much out of exhaustion as he would out of actual punches.