Boxing News Boxing News
For many of us fans, boxing enjoyed a period of great fights and great fighters in the late seventies and eighties, which has not been equaled since. Fighters like Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, Arguello and others were in their heyday. The heavyweight division, arguably the most popular among many boxing fans, had Larry Holmes and later Mike Tyson. Boxing enjoyed popularity unmatched by many other sports. Today, boxing is still popular. But the public consensus is that its popularity is in decline. The up-and-coming generations, from which future sports fans will come, are generally less knowledgeable and less interested in the sport or its history. Other than Muhammad Ali, the mention of some of the greats mentioned above will prompt an answer of, “Huh?” from many young fans. Understandably, this is of great concern to those of us who have always loved and followed the sport.
Join SaddoBoxing’s Reynaldo Sambolin as he examines how boxing can take steps to heal its currently low popularity level in the mainstream sport’s arena.
So why is the popularity of boxing in decline? Experts will point to a number of factors, and like any other topic subject to opinions, these are all debatable as to their impact or importance. While by no means an expert in the field of boxing, I will attempt to mention some of these factors in this article (in no particular order), along with some suggestions meant to help increase boxing’s popularity.
1. Deaths and Permanent Injuries in the Ring.
In a previous article in SaddoBoxing, I wrote about the incidences of ring fatalities and their increasing trend from the 1970’s to the present. Although still representing a very minute percentage of all fights, these are still a concern and brought up by those who would ban boxing whenever an incident occurs.
2. Questionable Decisions by Fight Judges.
It is nothing short of mind-boggling to me how this particular aspect of boxing has been allowed to exist without some sort of improvements for so many years. Nothing throws a “wet blanket” on a wonderful fight, with two warriors going at it for ten or twelve rounds, like a questionable or outright bad decision. It angers existing fans, and turns off new and potential fans.
3. Too Many Champions in Each Weight Division.
It used to be simple. Any boxing fan worth his salt could rattle off the names of most, if not all, current boxing champions. Now, with the increased number of weight divisions, and even more so with the increased number of boxing organizations, most boxing fans are hard pressed to name even a majority of current champions. This tends to dilute the quality of a “champion.” Four or five champions in one weight division will undoubtedly mean that some unworthy titlists are going to exist.
4. Proliferation of Pay-Per-View.
While Super Bowls, World Cup matches, Olympic events, and major tennis and golfing events are still televised on regular networks, most major boxing matches are now “pay-per-view.” While some may argue that all sporting events (gasp!) are headed in the same direction, no one can deny that many people are turned off by the idea of having to pay for an event that in earlier years used to be televised free. To complicate matters, some pay-per-view events fail to meet viewers’ expectations, further alienating fans.
5. Promoters and/or Networks Controlling Who Fights Who.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I personally like my match-ups simple and logical. The champion fights the number one contender. If he beats the number one contender, then he fights the number two contender. And so on and so forth. This business of: “Joe can’t fight Jack because Joe is with Promoter X while Jack is with Promoter Y,” or “Joe can’t fight Jack because Joe is HBO and Jack is Showtime.” This is pure baloney. This also turns off many fans.
6. Current Lack of a Great Heavyweight Champion.
Personally, I’ve always preferred the lower weight classes. From 140-pounds to 160-pounds is usually where the great fighters and fights abound. But the reality is that many casual boxing fans pay attention only when the big boys fight. And face it… right now there’s not much to look at in the heavyweight division. Why? I would say it’s a combination of factors # 3 (Too Many Champions in Each Weight Division) and # 5 (Promoters and/or Networks Controlling Who Fights Who) above.
What To Do?
I started saying that the slow demise in the popularity of boxing is a debatable subject. Therefore, my first suggestion would be to form an international, unbiased and non-political entity formed exclusively for the purpose of safeguarding and improving the popularity of the sport. There would be no ties to any particular country or any existing boxing organization, but its conclusions and recommendations would either be binding, or at least carry a lot of weight. This entity would be composed of recognized, well-respected boxing experts. Sort of an International Olympic Committee, if you will, only better. It would be empowered to conduct surveys, studies, and make recommendations and/or decisions to boxing organizations worldwide.
To this entity I would make the following suggestions regarding a couple of the factors numbered above:
Questionable Decisions – This should be one of the easiest ones to fix. First, as with any profession, boxing judges should be periodically evaluated. If this is currently being done, then the evaluation system apparently needs to be made more robust. Judges should be consistent, accurate, knowledgeable and objective. Toward this end, judges should also be periodically trained. Under-performing judges should be offered alternate means of employment. Evaluation and training requirements should apply equally to boxing referees as well.
Second, and this is strictly my opinion, round scores should be submitted at the end of each round. This may have been suggested or even implemented already. But I find no useful reason to allow the judges to retain scores from previous rounds until the end of the fight. Once you score a round, it’s scored. No going back and fudging to achieve desired results. Once a fight ends, the time elapsed until the decision arrives should be a simple matter of adding the points for the last round.
And speaking of points, the current “ten-point must” system needs to either be modified or replaced. Simply put, it does not fully allow for scoring degrees of dominance in a single round. A knockdown constitutes a 10-8 round; all others are usually 10-9, regardless of how one-sided they are. Some judges will grant a 10-8 for total dominance, but this is the exception and not the rule. Thus, a fighter can scrape by for seven rounds and then get bounced all over the ring for five (with no knockdowns), and sometimes receives what turns out to be an unpopular decision.
Too Many Champions in Each Division – Some people call for the very old days, when there was only one champion in each weight division, and there were less weight divisions. I wouldn’t go that far. Personally, I would have preferably two, maximum three organizations. Why? I believe a healthy amount of debating will always be good for the sport. Right now, there is a spirited debate among followers of the 140-pound division over who is the best fighter at that weight. Is it Floyd Mayweather (WBC champion), Ricky Hatton (IBF champion), or Miguel Cotto (WBO champion)? The anticipation to possible showdowns between these fighters creates great excitement and spirited debates.
Unfortunately, this very same abundance of champions works in a negative fashion in the heavyweight division. While John Ruiz (WBA), Chris Byrd (IBF), Lamon Brewster (WBO) and Vitali Klitschko (WBC) all undoubtedly have their own fan base, it is also an undeniable fact that none of these (the jury’s still out on Vitali) will be compared with Ali, Foreman or Tyson anytime soon.
Bottom line, the international entity should: 1) limit the number of boxing organizations to a maximum of three, 2) evaluate ranking practices within boxing organizations, and 3) work to force “box-offs” between champions to consolidate titles whenever possible.
Contact Reynaldo Sambolin at RSAMBOLIN@libertypr.net
