Thread: Boxing's biggest problem is that it's on HBO/Showtime and not on regular tv

It's not the many weight classes or multiple belts that are the main problems imo, but that its lack of reach to a broader audience. The 3 top sports, most watched, and participated in the US are American football, basketball, and baseball. Why? The pro leagues of the sports are on regular broadcast/terrestrial tv in the US where millions have access to and can watch for free, it's not on premium cable channels where one has to pay. CBS, ABC, NBC can reach an audience of over 100 million or more for their big programs. HBO for instance can only reach about 28 million.

For boxing to regain a foothold again in the realm of mainstream sports, it needs to be on regular television to attract new fans, future participants, to replenish the sport. When you limit your exposure to premium cable subscribers it only hurts the sport. I can understand when the boxers wants to make more money by fighting on PPV, but I believe that should be reserved for the biggest of bouts and not something like Pac-Clottey, where a fight like that should be on regular tv.

So what does this mean? It means that boxing practically hurt itself when rising stars and top stars are only accessible through premium cable channels and not on broadcast television limiting it's exposure to casual sports fans, potential new fans, and potential future participants. Hence why we have a niche sport today. In order for boxing to regain it's lost foothold as a mainstream sport it needs to be back on broadcast tv. The decline of the sport in America can be traced to when it's stars and rising prospects went to HBO and Showtime exclusively limiting their exposure to a wider audience.

Back in the day guys like SRL, Hagler, Hearns, Tyson, Holyfield can be seen on broadcast television rising through the ranks, and in some cases their champsionship bouts like Leonard/Benitez and Holyfield/Qawi were shown on regular tv. And even if their fights were on closed circuit tv (which would only be the biggest of fights), it would later be rebroadcast later on regular tv like Leonard/Duran. It was probably about late 80s that they went to the premium cable channels that really hurt boxing. Oh well.

Discuss.

Great post and I agree however Promoters and Governing bodies share in the blame for this lack of exposure. There’s something terribly wrong when HBO is deciding who fights. What they have effectively done systemically along with the promoters and orgs is change the meaning of "risk and reward".

I'm not sure its the biggest problem, but it is a big one. Financially would it make sense to put boxing on there? I think there's an argument for putting more young guys on network TV, but I can't see why either Mayweather or Pacquiao would do it when they make between $10-25m every time they get in the ring.

I think part of the problem is overly expensive PPVs & streaming. Personally I won't stream a fight unless I have no other way to watch it. While I understand some choosing not to if they don't feel it's worth it or don't want to support that particular fight (Pacquiao-Margarito), I personally think boxing fans who don't buy the fights they actually demand (Floyd-Shane & Manny-Cotto) are just justifying why they put all fights involving the two stars on PPV and also lose the 'leverage' argument that they dictate the fights.

What percentage of the population in the US have HBO/Showtime?

Its synonymous with the decline of the major three networks and them competing with mass cable and media web now though. Back when you had basic cable finances were more readily available and they had much ore pull. Not to mention it doesn't help that peak weekend time slots are obese on 1001 college and bowl games of every sort. The last fight I remember seeing on ABC(?) was Nate Campbell vs Tiger smalls, or Darling Jimenez

You know what really hurt? ESPN watering down its yearly schedule and losing a USA Tuesday night fights so they could air more wrestling Those were prime developing grounds for many quality guys.

I long for the day when boxing goes back to free tv and we can watch the likes of Benn v Eubank, Bruno, McGugan live. The equivalent is now Groves v Gegale, Froch and Khan who would be huge in terms of commercial value and long term success. They should do it and come to ITV and the BBC.

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

I'm not sure its the biggest problem, but it is a big one. Financially would it make sense to put boxing on there? I think there's an argument for putting more young guys on network TV, but I can't see why either Mayweather or Pacquiao would do it when they make between $10-25m every time they get in the ring.

I think part of the problem is overly expensive PPVs & streaming. Personally I won't stream a fight unless I have no other way to watch it. While I understand some choosing not to if they don't feel it's worth it or don't want to support that particular fight (Pacquiao-Margarito), I personally think boxing fans who don't buy the fights they actually demand (Floyd-Shane & Manny-Cotto) are just justifying why they put all fights involving the two stars on PPV and also lose the 'leverage' argument that they dictate the fights.

What percentage of the population in the US have HBO/Showtime?

HBO has around 28-30 million subscribers, I don't know about Showtime. I remember that figure about HBO when it was said that they were airing Pac/Mosley 360 type shows on CBS (network tv) which can reach 115 to 120 million viewers potentially.

Fights on regular tv are good when they are good fights; they get good ratings and are fun to watch. But they are expensive for the network to put on, because a good fight requires good fighters and you have to pay them. Also, managers aren't willing to risk their prospects on national tv so you get a lot of Star vs. Victim matchups. ESPN, in the 80s, used to have great fights with guys like Tommy Cordoba and Rocky Lopez, among others, but really, today that is almost a career killer. The thinking seems to be that if a guy isn't 28-0, all by KO, that somehow he sucks. That he is limited, or has been exposed, not that he's been in with good opposition, learned and improved.
The biggest thing hurting boxing is the lack of fights for up and coming fighters. There aren't enough places where a guy can fight 4 or 6 rounds every two weeks and learn his trade, without getting fed to some amateur super-star on short notice because he doesn't have money behind him. Think about it...How many guys are considered world champs and veterans at 25 fights and less than 200 rounds? So you get 'top-level' guys with ear muff defense, leaping in with their chin in the air, showing toughness and strength but no "class"...It gets hard to watch.
That's my pet peeve, guys that can't fight and there is no system to change that.

I just want to point out that Pacquiao v. Mosley, while being aired on Showtime PPV, is getting press on CBS.

I agree completely with the thread, but mainstream tv requires viewers. Does boxing have enough viewers to be on mainstream tv?

Boxing as a sport needs to rebrand itself if it wants to become more mainstream. Europeans are doing a good job with it in a way by having superstar introductions and the video footage of the matches being high quality. For example, watch the Vitali Klitschko's Ali coming out video. Something like revamping the look of the ring so that it is more appealing to tv audiences including making it more high tech. Figuring a way to make the ring walks more electrifying. Having big musical acts at the beginning of the main attraction. Things like that. Boxing needs to somehow gain the hype back.

Originally Posted by Master

I long for the day when boxing goes back to free tv and we can watch the likes of Benn v Eubank, Bruno, McGugan live. The equivalent is now Groves v Gegale, Froch and Khan who would be huge in terms of commercial value and long term success. They should do it and come to ITV and the BBC.

Those channels are not willing to match what they're worth financially in Khan's case, or provide a regular platform for their promoters (Warren, Fat Mick, Hayemaker) to justify putting them on there. They're not willing to do that, so why should the fighters be sold short. ITV wouldn't even show Froch/Taylor live or as live ffs.

I don't think I agree with that. Boxing has dignity; it doesn't need to be cartoonish, with 15 minute ring walks. A fighter should be focusing on the guy he'll be fighting, not shaking his ass like Britney Spears or wearing a Darth Vader mask. If I ever trained a fighter and he expressed a desire to perform some elaborate ring walk, I'd sucker punch him.
Same thing with spectacular kos...It is almost like decision don't count any more, that devising a fight plan, executing it, and sticking to it is wrong unless you 'go for the ko.' Put two good fighters in the ring, guys with class and skill, that hit and don't get it, both of them in there to win, you'll have a good fight and people will watch it.
If the idea is to "improve" boxing by appealing the crowd that only wants blood, gore, flying teeth and 'brutal' kos (which is a part of the thing), then you are heading in the wrong direction and it would be best to just let it die.

Boxing had the mainstream audience in America what caused boxing to lose it completely was going to Showtime/HBO. At one point according to my dad and older brothers boxing was right up there probably a close 2nd with American football in terms of popularity and American Football has been the most watched sport since the late 60s or so.





Hagler-Antuorfermo 1 and Leonard-Benitez were championship bouts on network tv.



Tyson-Marvis Frazier was on network tv, ABC to be exact.



Holyfield-Qawi 1 was also on network tv.

Remember when HBO did that with "Ko Nation" and Ed lover, dancers and singers escorting each fighter to ring. Was a train wreck. Showtime is on the right track when it launched second series concentrating on up and comers. HBO is wayyyyy to self absorbed and internalized. Frankly fans are to blame as well when most of the clamor is focused on a hand full of fighters....and fighters who refuse to fight.

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Boxing had the mainstream audience in America what caused boxing to lose it completely was going to Showtime/HBO. At one point according to my dad and older brothers boxing was right up there probably a close 2nd with American football in terms of popularity and American Football has been the most watched sport since the late 60s or so.





Hagler-Antuorfermo 1 and Leonard-Benitez were championship bouts on network tv.



Tyson-Marvis Frazier was on network tv, ABC to be exact.



Holyfield-Qawi 1 was also on network tv.

It was and had glory days but it's not boxing going away from networks its the other way around. The money is not there and networks are on life support with 500 + channels now and web. The three main networks are going the way of the Sunday morning newspaper and print media. Love the clips...and focus.

GB makes some good premise points but I don't agree with the conclusion of the thread. What is wrong with today's boxing is not the media it's Promoters. "Don't shoot the messenger."

Promoters don't care about boxing being on regular TV, despite what comes out of their mouths today. They care about lining their pockets. Selling to HBO and Showtime was easier and less risky for the promoters, which is why I think it migrated to the cable networks. They screwed the sport by marketing it's brutality to the cable networks in order to make it easier to move to PPV. "Violence out of the kids eyes." Single sourced money for PPV was easier than having to get multiple sponsors on Aired TV. The problem for the promoters was the monopoly plan backfired. Fighters of today are less known by the causal fans simply because of less exposure on the regular media. The result is, promoters have to work harder at getting their fighters exposed to the regular media and thus we now have the term "crossover star"

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

I don't think I agree with that. Boxing has dignity; it doesn't need to be cartoonish, with 15 minute ring walks. A fighter should be focusing on the guy he'll be fighting, not shaking his ass like Britney Spears or wearing a Darth Vader mask. If I ever trained a fighter and he expressed a desire to perform some elaborate ring walk, I'd sucker punch him.
Same thing with spectacular kos...It is almost like decision don't count any more, that devising a fight plan, executing it, and sticking to it is wrong unless you 'go for the ko.' Put two good fighters in the ring, guys with class and skill, that hit and don't get it, both of them in there to win, you'll have a good fight and people will watch it.
If the idea is to "improve" boxing by appealing the crowd that only wants blood, gore, flying teeth and 'brutal' kos (which is a part of the thing), then you are heading in the wrong direction and it would be best to just let it die.

The thing is what what you have said last is thats what alot of fans are clammering for now. With the rise off MMA as 'competition' people are looking for more in the same in boxing. Besides his out of ring antics most people hate on Mayweather because he's 'boring' and doesnt knock everyone out within 8 rounds, it seems the majority dont regard hitting on not getting hit as a quality worth watching.