BoxRec

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but it's a subject that often comes up amongst fight fans, often with differing opinions.

What caused boxing in America to go into decline ? I'm sure some people might say for instance that we have too many sanctioning bodies today, and too many title holders. In theory I agree, but in practice, we still had a great sport when we had a WBA and WBC champion in every division. Even after the IBF and WBO came along and made things ridiculous, we still had great fights, even if they were for 25 pct or less of a world title. As the old adage goes "The more things change the more they stay the same", and while not as out of control as things are today, multiple claimants for world titles are nothing new to boxing.

Next, was it too many weight classes that really hurt boxing ? Again, in theory it sounds like a strong argument, but then all you have to do is look at the great fights and fighters who competed in the JWW division alone. to see that's a totally unrealistic argument. Again, the more things change, we had the JLW division in the 20's and beyond and obviously it didn't hurt boxing.

I'll stop here, and see if anyone enters the debate before expounding more on what I think really lowered the sport to the state it's now in.

Outside the latino market there has definitely been a massive decline since the last great era of the 70s - it's become a fringe sport with the occasional huge PPV, rather than being in the major-sports mainstream like it once was.

Number of reasons - for one, it's always been a sport for the economic underclasses, and (despite official stats about "poverty" levels) American society is on average so much wealthier than 100 or even 50 years ago...

Another aspect is the supposed brutality - which is funny (in a really ironic sense), as a society we're queasy about "bloodsports", but our levels of gun violence are among the highest in the "civilized" world. So apparently we don't mind violence, as long as we can write it off as an "aberration" (e.g. crime) or as long it's mostly being happening somewhere else, and more importantly, to someone else (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan.) Of course you've got the teenage-boy contingent with their Cage Fighting and violent video games, but again, smack one of those pimple-faced VVGers upside the head for real and I expect their view of violence's cool factor takes a U-turn right quick...at least 'til the next "Grand Theft Auto" release.

It's like eating more meat per capita than just about anywhere else, but at the same time not wanting to recognize that animals have got to die for that to happen - so we move the slaughterhouses out of sight of the masses, and assuage our consciences by talking about "animal rights."

Ah well, enough ramblin' and mumblin' for now ... I cede the soabbox to the next speaker...

What caused boxing in America to go into decline

Like it or not as far as popularity goes Boxing need popular Heavyweights. From what I've heard in the USA all the 200lbs+ althletes get better offers at an early age to go into Basketball and Football etc. College scholarships etc.

KOJOE90 wrote:

What caused boxing in America to go into decline

Like it or not as far as popularity goes Boxing need popular Heavyweights. From what I've heard in the USA all the 200lbs+ althletes get better offers at an early age to go into Basketball and Football etc. College scholarships etc.

With that argument my first reaction is to agree totally, and I do agree athletes get better offers from other sports. So you're point has merit but there still should be enough athletes to filter down into boxing. Another thing is a fighter usually has a different type of ability than take for example a basketball player. A basketball players skills have more to do with running and jumping, where a fighter is better served by fast powerful hand movements.

Remember back in the seventies when you had guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. I don't see them having more ability in other sports than they did in boxing.So I don't see them being siphoned off by other sports. So I agree part way you might lose some to other sports but in a country with three hundred million people you should have enough talent to fill the sport up with good fighters.

For me what happend was they took boxing off of network television and started to charge for it which is their right to do but people also have the right not to watch it if they feel it is to expensive. Whithout a shadow of a doubt if they brought boxing back to network television my interest would be rekindled in a heartbeat. Until then my participation will be relegated to Boxers of the Past and my own workout routine.

While agree with most of what you said Eric, one thing I dispute is when you refer to the 70's as the last great era for boxing. Actually the sport did quite well in terms of popularity all throughout the 1980's.

By making an analogy to another sport I'll try and explain what I think happened. Today the top 4 professional team sports in the USA are Baseball, Football, Basketball, and as everyone will point out, Hockey, which is a distant 4th. However it was not always the case. In the mid 1960's to mid 1970's, professional hockey was much more popular than it is now, and in places like Chicago it had a considerably bigger following than pro basketball. What was the reason ? well besides the fact that the Blackhawks were consistently a top team at that time, an even bigger reason was that WGN 9 televised every single Blackhawks away game, as well as home games during the playoffs, then every Sunday after Football season ended, we got a 1:00 pm Central game of the week. You'd be surprised at how many 6th grade boys (age 11) in 1971 could tell you who the backup goalie for the last place Oakland Seals was. And this was at a time when the NHL was probably 95 pct Canadian. The reason, plain and simple that hockey was so popular was exposure. So, what happened ? Well tight wad Arthur M Wirtz took his Blackhawks off TV entirely, which was followed by a big reduction in other televised games. That's all it took, and by the 80's, hockey's appeal had dropped off tremendously, because so few people could identify with a sport that was rarely seen on TV. SAME DAMN THING with boxing. All through the 70's and 80's we got great fights on regular TV year round, sometimes 2 great fights up against each other on both Saturday and Sunday, with an occasional weekday bout as well. Was boxing popular then ? Just ask any bartender what the guys were watching on Sat-Sun down at the local watering hole when the fights were on TV.

Today you'll hear that pro boxing isn't shown on the main networks anymore, because it lacks the popularity it once had. Yet the same sport was still drawing a solid TV audience when it got taken off in the early 90's, so lack of popularity is a false argument.

The CBZ Forum had a nice discussion about this topic:
http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum ... television

There was a time when physical toughness and fighting ability was respected in a man.
Not so much anymore.
It starts early. If a kid gets in a fight at school , the authorities want to throw the kid in the joint. Or call the intervention counselors to find out whats wrong with little Johnny.
Males are becoming candy asses . Emasculated.
Boxing? To most of the walking dead in society its savagery .

I think Seamus hit the nail right on the head. If more quality boxing was available on FREE tv so it got exposure, other factors would fall into place, e.g. news coverage, young kids wanting to try it, gyms opening up, more small-town cards, and perhaps even better regulation.

sweetsci wrote:I think Seamus hit the nail right on the head. If more quality boxing was available on FREE tv so it got exposure, other factors would fall into place, e.g. news coverage, young kids wanting to try it, gyms opening up, more small-town cards, and perhaps even better regulation.

So, maybe the question is why did 'free' TV drop boxing?

It's the same here in Australia. No boxing on 'free' TV and the only time it gets a mention in the 'press' is when a fighter dies as a result of boxing (that ALWAYS gets a mention), when a boxer indulges in anti-social behaviour e.g. Tyson goes nuts again or Fenech gets caugh shoplifting, or when an Australian wins a title (but they don't show the actual bout on the free channel).

I've given this subject much thought over the years...I think it comes down to public perception of boxing, which tends to be negative. Just check out the reaction that fighters get from the general public (say, at a party or social gathering)...I've seen people look at boxers as if they're a lower class of person. The perception seems to be "what kind of person do you have to be to do that for a living?" as if all fighters are desperate brutes trying to escape some wretched fate. So, there's the status thing...Basketball players and football players don't suffer from those kinds of image problems.

Second, is the fact that boxing has hurt its own public image with the focus on money and the bottomline. That means a lot of bad scoring of fights and controversial decisions being rendered that frustrate potential fans and reinforce the notion of boxing as incorrigible and corrupt. I have to admit that I watch a lot less boxing these days and with a lot less passion because I'm turned off by the lack of integrity, professionalism and competence of a lot of the officials. In basketball or football, keeping score is a lot less subjective...we don't have experience the bitter taste of watching a deserving guy get screwed simply because he happens to not be the house fighter.

Third is the fact that boxing publications do a bad job of selling fighters...from Tyson to Holmes to PBF to RJJ to Pea and even SRL, the negative press from boxing publications is enough to sour many fans to modern greats. I don't know what the agenda is (I always suspected racism) but a white fighter of mediocre ability (gatti, cooney etc) gets a lot more favorable press than the most gifted and accomplished names in boxing...I think that negativity turns people off. The general public tends to be a lot more forgiving and appreciative than boxing publications. I for one am tired of always reading unflattering even damning comments about boxing's brightest stars. It creates the impression that these men are less than worthy of recognition for their greatness in the ring, a poor selling point for the sport.

kick asner wrote:Remember back in the seventies when you had guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. I don't see them having more ability in other sports than they did in boxing.

I was watching Cheap Seats on ESPN Classic and they had those Superstar competition and Joe Frazier was struggling in all of the activities. It was quite hilarious.

Boxing needs to be on free TV. My wife will watch the fights but only if she has an idea of the personalities involved. If it's just two guys (and they can be great fighters) she's never heard of or knows nothing about then she's not intersted. This must be the way it is for the casual fan.

From my own experience I turned away from boxing in the 1990s. I couldn't see the fights as they weren't on free TV. I had also lived through a generation of fighters going from turning pro to retiring and I started to see things differently.

1) I got fed up with having to tell people that Eubanks WBO title was nothing more than a marketing gimmick allowing him to get bigger pay days without risking himself against top contenders. The belt was a play thing of the promoters that could be passed among UK fighters so that whatever the result the promoter's band wagon rolls on. Sorry to pick on Chris, he was a top fighter and it's just one example.

2) Leonard's retirement after Hagler and then his next comeback made me see the fight game differently. Maybe I had been naive but I couldn't believe that ray wouldn't give him a rematch and then came back hand picking his fights. I could see that people in the future might not appreciate just how much he's manipulated the situation. Again, Ray is just an example and this goes on all the time with many other fighters.

3) The mess of the sanctioning bodies means that too mnay fights just never happen. We're always waiting for a super fight to be built up and so often one guy takes his eye of the situation and drops a fight and we miss out on a great match up. In other sports the top players/teams play one another multiple times. In boxing we're lucky if a match up happens once. here are fights that could have happened but didn't.

Witherspoon-Holmes II
Witherspoon-Tyson
Lewis-Tyson (when Tyson was still live)
Lewis-Bowe
Holmes-Page
Holmes-Coetzee
Holmes-Thomas

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not even trying to think of any. Sometimes I feel that TV networks would rather have an undefeated talent fighting nobodies than competitive fights.

I got sick of being told that X was a world champion when he held a WTF title, or that Z was the greatest ever fighter when he'd fought nobodies.

I also think fighters could do themselves a favour and drop the poor Ali impressions of bad mouthing others (he was witty and original, these guys are not) and return to being sportsmen.

When it comes down to it, all the arguments about too many titles (and I agree there are too many) occasional bad decisions, ring fatalities, anti-social behaviour etc don't add up to anything. Alot of people don't watch boxing because it's not on free TV anymore. Boxing wasen't suddenly pulled off free tv in the early 90's because of a nose dive in popularity, it got pulled off because of greed. Fight promoters decided that the IBF's JLW champion's title defense against the 8th ranked contender, shouldn't be seen for free by anyone (not even 2 week's later !) and then the aging 25 lbs overweight former HW contender's people wanted in on the action as well. Now all we really have is ESPN fights, that are consistently poor. Typically you get to see an up and comer blast out some overmatched journeyman or win a boring one sided decision, and an occasional good tape of a fight on Spanish TV.

The only answer is because there is no one body working for the betterment of the sport. There are other factors which can be cited as to why boxing can't be structured in a horrible, corrupt fashion and still be popular (as it once was), but I believe that if the sport were even remotely organized in its own best interest it would be still fairly popular.

generic screen name wrote:

kick asner wrote:Remember back in the seventies when you had guys like Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. I don't see them having more ability in other sports than they did in boxing.

I was watching Cheap Seats on ESPN Classic and they had those Superstar competition and Joe Frazier was struggling in all of the activities. It was quite hilarious.

I remeber that, also Jerry Quarry did'nt fare to well in the competition.

Decagon wrote:There has never been a better time to be a boxing fan. There has never been a better time to be a boxer. End of discussion.

Tell me more about this.

Aside from all the "big picture" stuff you guys are talking about, you don't see LIVE boxing much anymore either. Here in California, years ago it seemed like there would be a card within a hundred miles or so of just about anywhere. Some little town with a municipal auditorium or fairgrounds would be having fights. Not necessarily pro, but the local boys club or boxing club would hook up with military teams or the kids from CYA or from one of the reservations. Military bases had teams and regular shows. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of grass roots boxing going on.

Maybe what we are missing is the ex-boxer that goes back home and sets up a club. Works for a living doing something else, and coaches boxing for a passion. Seems like thats how a lot of small town clubs worked.

expug wrote:There was a time when physical toughness and fighting ability was respected in a man.
Not so much anymore.
It starts early. If a kid gets in a fight at school , the authorities want to throw the kid in the joint. Or call the intervention counselors to find out whats wrong with little Johnny.
Males are becoming candy asses . Emasculated.
Boxing? To most of the walking dead in society its savagery .

Their is a lot to that. What I would like to se happen and I believe it would make the world a better place is if you have a beef with someone in you're workplace is you have a pair of gloves handy and let each man settle it with the other right their. Or I would not just relegate this idea to the workplace, once it caught on and people saw what a good idea it was you could implement it in you're local basketball or softball league, or you're Saturday night card game. Here is where it might work also. When you have a situation where neither man wants to get in the truck because neither one wants to sit in the middle, well now you could save time and settle it fair and square. I'm deadly serious, you could put a stop to people being jerks because they would have to back it up.

kick asner wrote:

expug wrote:There was a time when physical toughness and fighting ability was respected in a man.
Not so much anymore.
It starts early. If a kid gets in a fight at school , the authorities want to throw the kid in the joint. Or call the intervention counselors to find out whats wrong with little Johnny.
Males are becoming candy asses . Emasculated.
Boxing? To most of the walking dead in society its savagery .

Their is a lot to that. What I would like to se happen and I believe it would make the world a better place is if you have a beef with someone in you're workplace is you have a pair of gloves handy and let each man settle it with the other right their. Or I would not just relegate this idea to the workplace, once it caught on and people saw what a good idea it was you could implement it in you're local basketball or softball league, or you're Saturday night card game. Here is where it might work also. When you have a situation where neither man wants to get in the truck because neither one wants to sit in the middle, well now you could save time and settle it fair and square. I'm deadly serious, you could put a stop to people being jerks because they would have to back it up.

Outstanding idea Kick .
This would also serve the purpose of putting boxing back in the mainstream as it would be common to see guys settling there differences in a more manly way then browbeating one another in office meetings and acting like cowards in general.

Good idea Kick. Unfortunately nowdays in alot of grammar schools, a couple of kids have some altercation and the next thing you know, some wacko counselor is suggesting that they be both be put on a mood altering medication. Having them put on the gloves if they can't settle it by talking would be a great idea.

I was fortunate.
Everybody gets threatened with being sent to Military school.
I was actualy sent. High School.
I consider myself lucky that we were permited, no, encouraged to settle beefs this way.
It was a great experience.

-Too many weight divisions

-Too many sanctioning bodies [wba/ibf/wbc/wbo]

-Inflated Purses [fighters fight once-twice a year]

-Everything is on closed circuit/cable rather than regular tv

-PPV costs [why pay $60 for a match when you can watch SUPERBOWL for free?]

-Regular tv started pushing NFL, MLB etc to the max

-Press coverage started centering around other sports


Those are just a few 'gimme' answers. But with so many 'champions' nobody knows who to root for, and with so many weight classes only a real fan can tell you who's 'champ' of what division, and with rising costs the sport and its own fighters and promoters etc killed off its own sport.

There are some good things about the decline. If you record a fight from the previous night nobody at ESPN talks about it so it doesn't spoil the outcome.

It would be a tall order these days, but one thing that might reverse the trend and restore boxing's popularity, would be a very successful US Olympic boxing team in 2008. Something like the 76 or 84 teams, would go a long way toward generating interest, and who knows, maybe even lead to some coverage on free tv after the gold medalists turned pro. Then again be honest, over 20 years ago, you knew it was a pretty sure thing for the US's top amateurs against anyone except a Cuban or Soviet fighter. Nowdays America's very best against some guy from Uzbekistan, and you know it ain't a guarantee anymore.