whicker wrote:oliverfennell wrote:Boxing can learn a lot from pro wrestling in terms of spectacle and creating a buzz. The fights that sell most are the ones with the biggest personalities and/or rivalries which the piublic can follow and identify with. Obviously not all boxers are charismatic and not all have fascinating back stories, but at the very least I think the TV broadcasts could have small "packages" about the fighters before the contests start - highlight KOs, memorable quotes, etc. This could also be part of the fighters' ring entrances on big screens in the arena.
I know some will scoff of at any mention of pro wrestling, but the WWE performs in huge stadiums and has monthly PPVs that sell well. And that's mostly to do with marketing/presentation. You can't argue with numbers.
Of course boxing's bread and butter is good fights, plain and simple, but promoting the sport as a spectacle to the general public - and, crucially, the younger public - can't be a bad thing.
And, even though WWE is fixed, you still don't know who will win- which makes it more exciting, just like watching a good film for the first time.
I used to enjoy the British wrestling (3 or 4 years ago I went a lot) because it was only about £6, and a bit less for children, so a cheap enough evening out on a Friday.
To take the family to a boxing show is at least £100+ - for a bigger, show, maybe even £200+ - the cost of a cheap holiday!
That said, I went to a WWE show, and it was pretty rubbish to be honest. A GOOD boxing show, with well matched bouts, is much better entertainment.
Yeah, I think WWE is too comfortable in its dominant position to really capture the imagination anymore, but nevertheless I think my points are valid. It's still selling very well and what you said about the show you went to suggests that's more to do with the spectacle than the in-ring content.
However the spectacle, the "event", can be what sells in boxing. Look at Eubank. He was not consistently entertaining in the actual fights - in fact, some of them were downright dire - but he continued to be box office gold because he had bags of charisma and showmanship and his entrances alone were often worth seeing live.
Other examples of boxers who sold well on their own: Naz (showman/braggart extraordinaire), Tyson (unpredictable bad boy), Hatton (one of the lads).
Rivalries/fights which captured the public's attention: Benn-Eubank (no-nonsense hardman against eccentric snob), Mayweather-Hatton (bling bling vs blue collar), Haye-Valuev (charismatic British hope against "invincible" giant).
The point is, characters, stories, angles and rivalries sell, as they are things the paying public can identify with. Something like Rhodes-Moore is referred to a great "trade fight", because it appeals to those who already follow the sport closely and know it's likely to be a cracker, but to the general public it means very little. Even if you bang on to your mate in work about how good it's going to be, he won't cancel his night at the pub to watch it because the names are not recognisable. But, while a Rhodes-Moore 24/7 would be unrealistic, there could certainly be ways of building the hype to the non-converted through "advertorial" packages on Sky Sports - highlights of Moore's more sensational fights, Rhodes' flashy "Spice Boy" style, etc. Neither of these guys would ever be a Naz or a Mayweather in charisma/soundbite terms, but most boxers at least have exciting archive footage which can be called upon.
