I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that the glory days I once knew will never return. Looking at those rankings is just a painful reminder that things ain't so great no more. I still love the sport though, always have, always will but I agree the quality has diminished somewhat.
But I can't say boxing won't return to its glory days, BUT in order for it to return to its glory days, it needs:
1.) Fighters with marquee personalities.
2.) Fighters with KO power.
3.) Reasons for the general public to care about boxing again. Right now, most seems to fall on whether or not Mayweather-Pacquiao will happen.
4.) The return of boxing to free TV or standard cable, reserving PPV only for closed-circuit caliber fights.
5.) Free public exposure to a dominate heavyweight contender who is willing to showcase his talents on free TV where the general public can become involved, get excited about boxing again. (i.e Another Tyson who could smash the Klitschko Sisters on free TV and build a name for himself to American and eventually worldwide audiences.)
Seriously, the more combinations of 1-5 that are applied, the better you can hope for boxing thriving. But it will be very difficult. PPV and Premium cable markets dominate the boxing landscape. Rising cable/dish prices/third party vendors for TV have forced many people to drop or cut one or both of HBO and Showtime for boxing. (I may be forced into dropping a station in August when my discount 2-year rate expires, unless I can get another good long-term deal.)
I think that is the problem for so many people. It's becoming more and more expensive to be a fight fan. It is costly to follow the business of boxing because you have to have HBO, Showtime, AND buy PPV's for boxing. If you have package deals of cable TV, Internet, and Phone Services, you can't get away from the rising costs.
Than you have to ask, what's a justified price to pay monthly for boxing? $5, $10, $25, $50, $100 a month? Is there no limit? Where do you draw the line where a fair and reasonable cost can be assessed that represents reasonable value? In 1993, you didn't have a 200-300 channel universe, but at least you had reasonable third party rates compared to now. PPV could still be represented through quality fights at $30 back than. I remember Holyfield-Foreman from 1991 just to go back two years from the OP's question, $40. Reasonable at the time, AND you didn't have to worry about all the hundreds of dollars added on for all the additional services against a shitty economy. The PPV's stayed reasonable until the world got scammed and slammed with that Tyson-McNeeley bullshit and some places charged $40-$50 for that. What a farce! And that was 1995, and the beginning of the $50 PPV price tag.
Not only do you need the above five combinations of conditions outlined above, you also have to have network executives, fighters, promoters, and managers who are willing to make the changes. That won't be easy, because today, unlike 1993, MMA dominates the standard cable landscape and seems to be more appealing to the average public viewer. The greatest boxing matches of all time will always be 100 times better than ANYTHING that MMA can dream up. We know this, but the general public doesn't see that, because quality matches of any substance are forced to premium cable channels and PPV? How can boxing revert back to "glory days" if todays' fighters don't appeal to the general public? Worse, the general public could not even see most exciting fights if they wanted to, because many don't subscribe to premium cable when compared to the free broadcast TV market.