State of boxing - is it really so bad?

First topic message reminder :

It is widely postulated that we live in a barren time for boxing - with a large jump between the class of the elite - the Mayweathers, Pacquiaos and Martinez' and the rest. And that once these 3 aging supermen hang up their cloaks, there will be little left and the sport will subside into a cloaca of indifferent matchups, alphabelts and poorly conditioned, poorly skilled heavyweights winning the crown that Louis, Ali and Marciano once wore with pride.

Yet, are things all that bad?

If we just look at the number 1 in each division and their nearest challengers - how bad are things now?

HW - Wladimir Klitschko; with Vitali, Adamek, Helenius, Haye, Chambers around him.
CW - No champion; but Cunningham, Tarver, Huck, Lebedev, Palacios and Hernandez competing
LHW - Hoppo; with Pascal, Dawson, Cloud, Cleverly and Shumenov in the mix
SMW - No champion; but Ward, Froch, Kessler and Bute all competing
MW - Sergio Gabriel Martinez; Sturm, Geale and Pirog behind
LMW - No champion; Cotto, Alvarez, Bundrage, Williams all in the mix
WW - No champion; Floyd, Manny, Ortiz
LWW - No champion; Manny, Khan, Bradley, Maidana, Alexander, Judah
LW - JMM; but Guerrero, Rios, Vasquez and Katsidis
SFW - No champion; Burns, Broner, Fana, Uchiyama
FW - No champion; Gamboa, Salido, Juanma, John
SBW - No champion; Arce, Ramos, Montiel
BW - Donaire; Agbeko, Darchinyan and Moreno behind.

I'm not going to pretend my knowledge of divisional depth stretches much below bantamweight.

I have decided that "champion" is defined as a guy who would be a clear and definite favourite in >95% of minds to beat at least the top 4 contenders. And by favourite, I am referring to the extent that coxy would bet his house on the outcome.

I am arguable being generous in that Wlad wouldn't be the favourite in 95% of minds to beat Vitali - but given that Vitali has refused to fight Wlad - he has ruled himself out of "contender" status, ergo Wlad remains champion

Discussion

First thing that is easily visible from this table - is that MW and WW are astonishingly weak divisions. Setting aside the golden fighters at the top there's a lot of brass occupying the divisional ratings beneath.

Second thing is - there are a lot of reasonable and exciting fighters out there. This is also good.

Down to issues - there are so many divisions without a clear number 1. This, in my opinion, is the major issue affecting boxing today.

There is an attitude that once you win a fight once, there is no need for a rematch until the other guy proves the first result was an aberration. If that were the case - Burley would have beaten Holman Williams 1 or 2 nil in the record books. As it stands, the fights were exciting, they provided paydays and even though they weren't always particularly close - Williams was allowed the chance to close out the record books even with Burley. Because fighters aren't allowed to drop fights due to no guarantee of a rematch - we have far to many weak fights and not enough strong ones. Take Bundrage. He's just beaten Sechew Powell. He should be screaming for the Cottos, the Alvarez, Williams or the Margarito's of this world - if he is the LMW number 2. Cunningham should be calling out AND fighting Tarver, Afolabi, Palacios rather than just occasionally mentioning Huck.

Conclusions

Alphabelts are meaningless - but we all knew that anyway.
If the divisional leading fighters were to meet more often - boxing would be the number 1 spectator sport on the planet.
Someone really needs to teach some kids weighing at 160 and 147 to box.

All sports need to constantly attract new fans because people die if fans who die are not replaced the pool of people watching the sport will diminish, basica maths that.

It attracts new fans. The governing bodies have been the same for ages and there are a lot of young fans.

It's good having two all time greats in the same division but it is not good not knowing which of the pair is better, it's a far too common a trend that the best don't fight which is a joke. I do care about catchweights because it diminishes the achievements of fighters who did it the hard way, it's another joke that a supposed great like Pacquiao has to try and gain as much of an advantage as he can.

1 Champion with less divisions where the best fight eachother is the way it should be

more fans would drive money up, and the pressure for the fights would be huge. there would be less "protecting" of champions as if they didnt enterain they wouldnt get as much attension.

another thing i think is a problem, look at the back pages of the papers and its all the storys and goings on from football, rugby infact most things take priority over boxing, world title fights go unannouced by alot of papers, i feel this is down to the complexity and incredible memory you need to keep up with all the goings on.

eddyfightfan wrote:more fans would drive money up, and the pressure for the fights would be huge.

You think there's not enough money in Mayweather-Pacquiao?

I'm not convinced that the big fights don't happen now any more than before to be honest.

hmm maybe maybe not. probably right in reguards to the mayweather/pac man but a few other fights could have been made is the money was higher.

also more coverage means the budding athletes dont go and play football or other sports, if boxing isnt getting attension then the talent isnt going to come through

eddyfightfan wrote:hmm maybe maybe not. probably right in reguards to the mayweather/pac man but a few other fights could have been made is the money was higher.

also more coverage means the budding athletes dont go and play football or other sports, if boxing isnt getting attension then the talent isnt going to come through

Yeah I agree with the second argument to an extent.

The sport may well attract news fans now but does anyone see a situation where the clarity in each division gets better before it gets worse. A few years ago we had to deal with four divisions, which was hard enough but just about do-able. Now we have to pick our way through normal champions, champion emerituses, interim champions which are becoming more and more common as well as silver or diamond belts whatever the hell they are. There is only so long you can continue down such a road before people will begin to decide it is not worth the hassle.

rowley wrote:The sport may well attract news fans now but does anyone see a situation where the clarity in each division gets better before it gets worse. A few years ago we had to deal with four divisions, which was hard enough but just about do-able. Now we have to pick our way through normal champions, champion emerituses, interim champions which are becoming more and more common as well as silver or diamond belts whatever the hell they are. There is only so long you can continue down such a road before people will begin to decide it is not worth the hassle.

True. Depends if you decide it's not worth the hassle remembering the organisational champions, or not worth the hassle following boxing. I think the latter is a bit extreme.

Maybe a bit extreme but I have had the conversation with general sports fans rather than boxing fans and tried to explain to them, as best as I can understand it the situation and what the different belts mean and it is embarrasing, I know when having the conversation that nothing I am saying is likely to persuade them to watch the sport because I know if I was not already hooked I certainly would not bother.

to the normal fan its like watching forigen football, and not knowing what league the teams are, or even if there in the same division

...or it's like watching British Football with all its different league and cup competitions.

But we know who the best team in the country is at the end of the season

Nope. Football will never be popular until there is just one competition each year.

Now your just being idiotic

champion

Pronunciation:/ˈtʃampɪən/
noun

1 a person who has surpassed all rivals in a sporting contest or other competition:[as modifier] :a champion hurdler

How many of today's belt holders satisfy the Oxford dictionary definition ?

HumanWindmill wrote:champion

Pronunciation:/ˈtʃampɪən/
noun

1 a person who has surpassed all rivals in a sporting contest or other competition:[as modifier] :a champion hurdler

How many of today's belt holders satisfy the Oxford dictionary definition ?

Not everyone did in the one belt days.

But far better than they do today

May-Pac and Gamboa-Lopez are the only really big fights I can think of that have been talked of for a while but not come through. Leonard-Hagler took a while but eventually happened so that's forgotten. There have been masses of top 10 guys fighting this year, Super 6, Bantam tourney, a few unification fights. New titlists get turned over regularly but in reality most would otherwise just be seen as contenders so it wouldn't look as bad that the champ hadn't faced them.

Bute against anyone
Bradley against Khan
The light middleweight division and Cruiserweight division
Felix Sturm and Chris John

Just for starters

In what other era would you look at what the third contender in the division is doing, which is all Bute or Sturm are really? When you look back you look at the competition that the best guy is facing.

Bradley just faced Alexander who was #2 ranked earlier this year. He is finishing a contract and will likely face either Khan or one of the top P4P guys next. Khan is facing the other titlist. Again, when you look back at history do you often see a fighter face his #2 and #3 contenders in successive fights?

It's looking back at a section of history and unrealistically comparing it to what's happening now, at with hindsight of fighters who eventually became great or fights that eventually happened. Look at the top ranked guy in each division and compare how their oppositions are ranked in relation to champions in the past. I don't think you'd see much difference, or certainly not as pronounced as people would have you believe.

Can't really compare Leonard-Hagler with Gamboa-lopez...

Consider around that time you Had Curry-Mccallum..Tyson vs anybody.....Chavez-Rosario.......Spinks v Cooney.....Norris v Mugabi....and a ton of fights like that....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can't really compare Leonard-Hagler with Gamboa-lopez...

Consider around that time you Had Curry-Mccallum..Tyson vs anybody.....Chavez-Rosario.......Spinks v Cooney.....Norris v Mugabi....and a ton of fights like that....

Not saying it's the same quality of fight.

I'm saying that sometimes fights take a long while, and past fights you have the hindsight of seeing they got made eventually. Mayweather vs Pacquiao may never happen, but it might. We are judging one era from a different position than the other.

Therein lies the problem, Sturm and Bute aren't the top man but have both been long serving world champions despite not facing any of the top guys in the division, can you honestly say its a good thing to have them labelled as such?

I think it is as pronounced as I believe it to be, you can highlight certain fighters in history but you'll be hard pushed to highlight a whole era where the best so rarely fight the best.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Therein lies the problem, Sturm and Bute aren't the top man but have both been long serving world champions despite not facing any of the top guys in the division, can you honestly say its a good thing to have them labelled as such?

I think it is as pronounced as I believe it to be, you can highlight certain fighters in history but you'll be hard pushed to highlight a whole era where the best so rarely fight the best.

It's not a good thing but it's not the end of the world. They aren't considered the best, and if you look at the fights that have been made, the best do quite often face the best. If you look at fight wish lists from 2010 I think you'd think a lot of them have been made this year.

It's perfectly true that not all ' champions ' in the days of one title were worthy of the name. It's also perfectly true that, because there was only one champion per division, the lame ducks would eventually be exposed. Patterson v Liston would be a good example.

Today we have, in addition to the Mayweather v Pacquiao and Gamboa v Lopez disappointments, a heavyweight division which cannot possibly be unified. We also have a fighter claiming a portion of the light middleweight title, which he has shown absolutely zero interest in defending, and when he clearly isn't ' the man ' at the weight. His devotees, meanwhile, wax lyrical at his multi weight exploits.

World titles have become subject to a kind of inflation, which has pushed down the value of domestic and continental titles. Nobody gives a fig who the British champion is, nowadays, whereas there used to be a great deal of prestige attached to British, Commonwealth or European titles.

In the days of one champion per division, the title was the focal point, and everything was geared toward that. Therefore, watching contenders come and work their way up the rankings produced great fights and everybody understood the significance of those fights. Nowadays, every successful amateur arrives at some promoter's door to trumpet fanfares, PPV deals, and is expected to be a ' world champion ' after a dozen fights. Shady deals are done, minefields negotiated, and hey presto ! we have a champion without anybody having understood how he did it.

There is no right or wrong, here, but rather it is a question of what rocks each person's boat. If today's situation is great for some then I'm sincerely happy for you. I, on the other hand, long for the simpler days of more or less one champ per division ( the ' lineal ' concept was never perfect, either, ) and a contender list which everybody understood and could readily follow.

Absolutely...here here..

Just using your example Windy, is it not true that Patterson Liston took years to happen? So it's not entirely a recent phenomenon that the big fights don't always come off straight away? I'm genuinely asking to be enlightened here though!
I'd agree with Scott to an extent, I don't think it's quite so bad as it seems. Looking at the super six, the lww division, the bantamweights, the recent Haye-Klitschko fight, Martinez's emergence as middleweight king, Mayweather-Ortiz. I think there's a lot to look forward to.

slash912 wrote:Just using your example Windy, is it not true that Patterson Liston took years to happen? So it's not entirely a recent phenomenon that the big fights don't always come off straight away?

Absolutely true, slash. It also took far too long for a few others throughout history to get their shots at the title. Nonetheless they did, for the most part, get their chance and, in most cases, a weak champion was removed much more quickly than he is today.

I did say that the ' lineal ' concept wasn't perfect, but for me it was a darned sight better than a situation which allows, for example, Sven Ottke to sit on a plastic throne for years and hang on to a bauble courtesy of hometown decisions, favourable refereeing and refusing to fight anybody with a pulse.

Yes, very much true. I think that brings us back to the point we all know, too many belts. It tends to come down to that, protecting fighters would become a lot more difficult too. I suspect the sport will never truly be 'cleaned up', but we can dream!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Now your just being idiotic

No. Questioning the health of Boxing amidst this amazing volume of good fights we are currently enjoying is idiotic.

Yes good fights not great fights there is a massive difference

More tournaments liek the Super Six need opening up and more of the top boxers need to fight each other again. Don't worry the promoters like Lou DiBella and others are beginning to latch onto this and I imagine soon it's going to be turned around properly with people having to fight the best or they're not going to get proper paydays anymore. Maybe after this generation with the next ones coming through.... Fingers crossed I guess.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Yes good fights not great fights there is a massive difference

Tell me which 'era' had great fights every week then?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Yes good fights not great fights there is a massive difference

Tell me which 'era' had great fights every week then?

I'd say that there are several periods which were more prolific in offering consistently better and higher profile fights, and I certainly remember that when I started watching boxing in the very early sixties boxing enjoyed a much wider appeal and generated huge excitement.

That being said, I don't understand why anybody would get hot under the collar over this issue. Bottom line is that it is purely a question of opinion and that there is no ' right ' or ' wrong.'

out all the weight catergory i would say that

HW- weak. the klitschos and thats about it, added to it its populated with fat over weight fighters who cant move and put poor showings on

CW- rubbish but hasnt it always been?

LHW- old man hopkins and thats about it, dont particular rate anyone else at the weight. other era's at LHW dont think hopkins would have had a tilte at 46

SMW- good and there all fighting each other!!! bar bute

MW- weak, Martinez stand out fighter just dont see much competition out there for him

LMW- poor again, cotto found wanting at WW where better fighters are so stepped up. possibly throw martinez in again to strengten but still no super fights at the weight

WW- good cant argue to of the greatest of this generation are in there, just not fighting each other

LWW- poor- khans decent still not superstar level, bradley same then thats it for the weight

LW- decent- few fighters out there that can excite fans. always good fighters for a tear up at the weight

not bothered going any lower, but thats how i feel currently with the weights. the good fighters have become abit to spread out that i could only pick one possibly two at the weight

frank warrens little formula of bringing a boxer through, match carefully and take every advantage you can, then use his WBO contacts to get a shot, then carefully defend it as long as possible is getting old. people wanna see the likes of burns and cleverly take more risks, get in the big fights and prove what level they are actually at. there wasting there primes fighting medium level opponents.

eddyfightfan wrote:frank warrens little formula of bringing a boxer through, match carefully and take every advantage you can, then use his WBO contacts to get a shot, then carefully defend it as long as possible is getting old. people wanna see the likes of burns and cleverly take more risks, get in the big fights and prove what level they are actually at. there wasting there primes fighting medium level opponents.

agreed about it getting old eddy, but you reckon that either would be world champ without warren?

Great fights don't happen every week but we haven't had any truly great fight for years

Go back to the early 00's and we had De La Hoya facing Mosley and Trinidad as well Trinidad facing Hopkins, these were fights involving two great fighters, 5 years ago we had the fights between Barrera, Marquez, Morales and Pacquiao since when it's been quite dull.

compelling and rich wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:frank warrens little formula of bringing a boxer through, match carefully and take every advantage you can, then use his WBO contacts to get a shot, then carefully defend it as long as possible is getting old. people wanna see the likes of burns and cleverly take more risks, get in the big fights and prove what level they are actually at. there wasting there primes fighting medium level opponents.

agreed about it getting old eddy, but you reckon that either would be world champ without warren?

maybe not but he's got them the title, they can say there are world champions now, so they should try and prove themselfs, they both seem to want the big fights and are both in form at the moment. the only reason i see why not is warren is earning to much money this way

dont get me wrong i agree with you, that they are there now and should pust on (even if i think will both come up short). but these fighters are getting in bed with warren and know full well his reputation. he got them the world title and expects to get some money out of them for doing so. it comes down to the fighter at the end of the day, if they have ambition they use warren as a platform them leave him for the bigger fights (ala hatton and khan) if they havnt they hang around fighters bums and meaningless defences for too long (ala calzaghe)

Imperial Ghosty wrote:1 Champion with less divisions where the best fight eachother is the way it should be

You've hit the nail upon the head Ghosty.

1 champion, in 1 division.

For my money - the major problem in boxing is that aside from Marquez and Martinez - and apparently Wonjongkam - there isn't a division where there is a clear "best" "number 1" fighter.

If there were more fights between challengers - we'd probably think the era was better in terms of boxing ability.

I mean in reality we don't even need the one divison because theoretically we should be seeing the best guys still battle it out, should be more unification fights going on, and the best ranked fighters fighting the other best fighters and realistically there's no problems. But it just doesn't seem to be happening or work in reality.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Great fights don't happen every week but we haven't had any truly great fight for years

Go back to the early 00's and we had De La Hoya facing Mosley and Trinidad as well Trinidad facing Hopkins, these were fights involving two great fighters, 5 years ago we had the fights between Barrera, Marquez, Morales and Pacquiao since when it's been quite dull.

Isn't Pacquiao fighting Marquez next?

You look back with rose tinted hindsight. Over the last few years Hopkins has fought Tarver, Calzaghe, Wright, Pascal *2, Pavlik and now Dawson, yet you focus on Hopkins v Trinidad??? Hopkins is the perfect example of just how bad things were back in the 90's. An undercard fight with Jones jr, and Trinidad in '01, is all there is to talk about in 15 years of his early career!!! Thank god things have changed and now we're getting good match-ups.

eddyfightfan wrote:frank warrens little formula of bringing a boxer through, match carefully and take every advantage you can, then use his WBO contacts to get a shot, then carefully defend it as long as possible is getting old. people wanna see the likes of burns and cleverly take more risks, get in the big fights and prove what level they are actually at. there wasting there primes fighting medium level opponents.

The Frank Warren WBO days are gone full stop.

Nowadays it's so much easier to find info about boxers/boxing Warren can't put his cash cows in with bums and hope to fool people . Ricky Burns would struggle to sell out his own living room unless he's fighting someone decent. Look how Warren has had to take risks with his young fighters that he never would have 5+ years back. DeGale, Murray and now Chisora, these guys would have been wrapped in cotton wool back in the 90's/early 2000's.

to be fair though chisora, murray and degale were all tipped as the favourites

Trinidad was and still is the biggest fight of Hopkins career and mentioning Marquez/Pacquiao now must be a joke?

I'd laugh if Marquez did a job on Pac... Where on earth do we go there...? Is the Floyd fight even viable?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trinidad was and still is the biggest fight of Hopkins career and mentioning Marquez/Pacquiao now must be a joke?

Really, I think ODLH would have something to say about that.

And two top 5 P4P fighters facing eachother is a joke. OK

Boxing was so much better back in the day when there was just one belt controlled by corrupt South Americans and a guy with big hair waving flags. Bring back the good old days of watching Naz, Calzaghe, Hatton, Eubank etc fighting bum of the month, year after year.

Boxing today is awful. I'm not sure how many more consecutive weekends of good fights I can take.