I'll tell you why the old farts keep saying boxing is dead

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 16 Dec 2003, 06:42

It's because they're not too far from popping their cloggs themselves, and they want to leave this world knowing that the best of boxing has been and gone and that they're not going to miss anything after their departure.

Who agrees with me.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 16 Dec 2003, 06:46

I don't, it's because they remember the old days when better fighters fought more often and there wasn't a proliferation of meaningless titles and phony "champions".

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 16 Dec 2003, 06:47

So do you think boxing in 2004 is dead Mr Bassie?

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 16 Dec 2003, 07:32

no but it's certainly less living than it was 60 years ago.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 16 Dec 2003, 08:01

Yeah lets have boxing totally controlled by gangsters again, that's the way forward.

I'm mainly having a swipe at the old boxing journalists as much as anything. The ones who write about how "There's no decent prospects anymore. The best fighters avoid eachother. Todays crop should never be mentioned in the same breath as the old time greats.."

I'm convinced it's because they want to believe that boxing will die along with them.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 16 Dec 2003, 14:04

It's not dead just yet...but corruption, money men, politics and fake organisations are trying to increase the hold around it's neck.

shakermaker · Post by **shakermaker** » 16 Dec 2003, 16:52

I'd say boxing has never been in better shape right now if you compare it to the last few years. Big fights have been made this year and next years schedule looks mouth watering.

yeah the dodgy decisions still exist but they've happened in every decade even during the golden 60s and 70s.......Ali had a couple in his favour

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 16 Dec 2003, 17:17

Kilburn wrote:Yeah lets have boxing totally controlled by gangsters again, that's the way forward.

I'm mainly having a swipe at the old boxing journalists as much as anything. The ones who write about how "There's no decent prospects anymore. The best fighters avoid eachother. Todays crop should never be mentioned in the same breath as the old time greats.."

I'm convinced it's because they want to believe that boxing will die along with them.

What's the diff? you had a load of dodgy wheelers and dealers who were called gangsters, and nowadays you have a load of dodgy wheelers and dealers who aren't called gangsters.
Boxing was in better shape back then: better fighters (or lets say more good ones), one champ per division, no over proliferation of these silly "junior" divisions, national coverage equalling national interest and so on and so on.

shakermaker · Post by **shakermaker** » 16 Dec 2003, 17:20

back then you had gangsters now you have.......promoters??!! joking

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 16 Dec 2003, 17:42

each as crooked as the other.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 17 Dec 2003, 06:02

mrbassie wrote:What's the diff? you had a load of dodgy wheelers and dealers who were called gangsters, and nowadays you have a load of dodgy wheelers and dealers who aren't called gangsters.

The big difference with todays "gangsters" is that they cannot pre-arrange what round a fight is going to end. They just would not get away with it.

Can you imagine Miguel Cotto deliberately getting himself stopped in a fight in order to line the pockets of all the crooked gamblers at ringside, just so he could then get a shot at the world title? As dodgy as boxing still is, it has moved on in many ways.

tolstoy · Post by **tolstoy** » 17 Dec 2003, 07:13

Kilburn wrote:The big difference with todays "gangsters" is that they cannot pre-arrange what round a fight is going to end. They just would not get away with it.

Can you imagine Miguel Cotto deliberately getting himself stopped in a fight in order to line the pockets of all the crooked gamblers at ringside, just so he could then get a shot at the world title? As dodgy as boxing still is, it has moved on in many ways.

A different form of corruption exists today. Rather than get boxers to take dives they simply appoint corrupt officials. Referee Tillerman at the Reid-Ottke fight was the most blatantly corrupt official I have ever seen. If I had paid him to protect Ottke I would demand half the money back for making it look so f***ing obvious!

And I don't know about boxing dying but it's certainly not covered by the media (esp. the newspapers) as much as it used to. The daily broadsheet I buy had one solitary column devoted to the Reid-Ottke fight review and not a mention of the world title fights involving Hopkins or Judah.

Yet if Michael Owen stubs his toe on the edge of the bath or some football manager comes away with some trite statement like "We can still win the league", it gets a full page of utter drivel devoted to it. I'm actually thinking of writing to complain about the paucity of boxing news in this newspaper if I thought it would reap any fruit.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 17 Dec 2003, 07:35

Hey I never said boxing was in great shape, my whole point is that some of the older generation seem to like to talk about it as though it's got no future. IMO they come out with this stuff only to try and compensate in some way for all the cracking showdowns they're going to miss after they've departed.

I can understand their frustration but I just wish they'd choose their words a little more carefully when slagging off what is still IMO the greatest sport in the world.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 17 Dec 2003, 11:59

I hear you on that one Tolstoy, i am a huge footie fan but the main sports are indeed pushing ones like Boxing into the shadows, not like it's entirely Football's fault, it's the narrow minded editors. Many national papers don't even have an assigned Boxing writer for instance, especially the broadsheets, at least the tabloids tend to although sometimes the info isn't even worth reading anyway.

On the BBC interactive thing where you have to "Push the red button", it goes through all the sports and even includes Sailing, Equestrian and Rowing in the main section yet you have to flick to "More General..." or something along those lines to find Boxing.

Not so long back BBC morning show were showing the news and sport and they actually showed Boxing!! Wow!!! Well not really Boxing...actually they were revelling in the weigh in fight between Alt Merkerson and annoying Norman Stone before Ruiz-Jones Jnr to which the sassy female presenter and her gay companion proceeded to rant "Disgraceful, why must that always happen?" and "It should be banned as a sport" etc etc

Finally....one consolation of Britains dire coverage is that at least the results don't get ruined. I managed to watch telly all day on a recent Sunday before the Klitschko-Johnson nightr showing without even a sniff of the outcome being ruined for me. And the recent Don king bill...well, i read two sunday papers and watched TV all Sunday morning and i still managed to make it home from work to watch my tape recording without knowing one single result!