Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What has damage boxing the worst money,boxig camps,promoters,2 many belt classes,fighters who duck,or payperveiw
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Boxing
Harvey
To me its all of it rolled up in one I am a boxing fan for the craft of it and the excitement part of it to but alot and I mean a whole lot are not, many love just the exciting part of boxing with saying that fighters owe us that not like when mosely ran from pac man that didnt help at all alot of waisted money and time for true fans and looking to be fans of the sport but back to the topic all areas needs some fine tuning from the head topic to get it back on track the way it use to be or is that there is too much competition with other sports and reality shows on tv these days; yes it is a new generation.(WHAT DO YOU THINK)
BoxingFan86
Add egos to that list, unless you factor it in with money.
mgrover
catch weight.
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE (mgrover @ Jun 14 2011, 06:08 AM) *
catch weight.



Catch weights aren't a problem there have been catchweights since boxing began. What is a problem as I think JLUV pointed out is that there shouldn't be titles changing hands at catchweights. I like Pacman but he has definately been guilty of this recently.

It is easier for fighters to duck each others these days because there are too many belts. Having 4 recognised 'world championship' belts in each division let alone regular and emeritius champions is bullshit. If you only had one belt per division then if you want to be the man you'd definately have to beat the man. fighters would literally be forced to face each other (or end up having to semi-retire or take 2 year vacations.)

PPV's are definately ruining boxing long term. Fighters like Pac and Mayweather are filling their boots now and in a way who can blame them but it has definately marginalised the sport and means the casual fan is less and less likely to know who the superstars in boxing are.

And promoters should share some of this blame. I mean Mosley/Mora as a PPV? FFS everyone putting their name to that should be banned from the sport.
BoxingFan86
QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Jun 14 2011, 06:25 AM) *
Catch weights aren't a problem there have been catchweights since boxing began. What is a problem as I think JLUV pointed out is that there shouldn't be titles changing hands at catchweights. I like Pacman but he has definately been guilty of this recently.

It is easier for fighters to duck each others these days because there are too many belts. Having 4 recognised 'world championship' belts in each division let alone regular and emeritius champions is bullshit. If you only had one belt per division then if you want to be the man you'd definately have to beat the man. fighters would literally be forced to face each other (or end up having to semi-retire or take 2 year vacations.)

PPV's are definately ruining boxing long term. Fighters like Pac and Mayweather are filling their boots now and in a way who can blame them but it has definately marginalised the sport and means the casual fan is less and less likely to know who the superstars in boxing are.

And promoters should share some of this blame. I mean Mosley/Mora as a PPV? FFS everyone putting their name to that should be banned from the sport.

I co-sign this post, especially the bold part.
Hops
Lack of exciting boxers and hence exciting fights hurt boxing the most. It's not the catchweights. It's not the promoters. It's not the mismatches.

Boxers should be disposing off bums within 3 rounds.

Exciting fighters not fighting constitute lack of them.
thehype
Promoters and networks, period!

They both rush fighters by bringing them along incorrectly (thus creating an inferior product) and they both give us fights we don't want to see...promoters and networks are responsible for the current state of boxing and the future of boxing because they control the product that they want you to buy.
mrwigi
I agree with hype. And as far as catchweights.. Im sorry, but if the limit is 147, i shouldnt have to weigh-in at 144 to compete for the title.. THats just bull. If you cant make the weight.. Stay in ur division!
Harvey
QUOTE (Hops @ Jun 14 2011, 08:16 AM) *
Lack of exciting boxers and hence exciting fights hurt boxing the most. It's not the catchweights. It's not the promoters. It's not the mismatches.

Boxers should be disposing off bums within 3 rounds.

Exciting fighters not fighting constitute lack of them.

Thats true taking notes from tyson alot people watched boxing then even the ones who was not into boxing to Mike fight none of the cats these days had the same pull he had people may kinda know who the names are of fighters but they don't watch too much at all not saying overhyped fights like pac man & mosely helped any
Harvey
QUOTE (mgrover @ Jun 14 2011, 06:08 AM) *
catch weight.
I agree with statements on here you can fight at a catch weight and move up the ladder if your challenger agrees but if not you have to come in at weight and no title fights at catchweight must come in at weight for the title belt fight.
Juancito
Although everything you mentioned has played it's part in the decline in popularity of boxing, I would say that pay-per-view messed it up. For example, back in the day all the great fighters were on network TV: Ali, Frazier, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, the list goes on. I wasn't even born then but, the fact that one could see such great fighters and great fights in the same way you can watch the NBA, NFL, MLB is shocking to me. Granted, Mike Tyson was great for the sport and pay-per-view certainly didn't affect that era but, that era's over and I think boxing will have to return to its roots in order to reestablish popularity amongst the masses. Great discussion question by the way.
mgrover
i remember people saying with the olden days of boxing and with all the corruption going on and the fixed fights thanks to gangsters, but I look at boxing now and I think, the corruptions still there, just done in ways within the law
Jack 1000
I hate promoters that "house" fighters into one network and promoter and than said network or promoter won't let them out of the "house" to fight rival guys. It should be like the network was back in the days of the 50's-early 80's, the fighter and promoter picked the network on which they choose to fight on a fight-by-fight basis. Even though ABC had the biggest budget with Budweiser as their sponsor, you still had fights on NBC and CBS. Long-term contracts were less than today.

Today, with HBO's stupid boxing model, once you align yourself with being an HBO fighter. Arum and/or Golden Boy Promotions, won't allow you to fight on Showtime, and that's what prevents many matches from happening. Boxers should fight on a fight-by-fight basis for the network that brings the best deal. Maybe a small three-fight deal with a network would be the maximum allowed. But this HBO model of, "You sign with us as a network, you have to fight on our network for life." That's such bullshit! Promotional monopolies suck.

Jack
Harvey
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jun 14 2011, 02:44 PM) *
I hate promoters that "house" fighters into one network and promoter and than said network or promoter won't let them out of the "house" to fight rival guys. It should be like the network was back in the days of the 50's-early 80's, the fighter and promoter picked the network on which they choose to fight on a fight-by-fight basis. Even though ABC had the biggest budget with Budweiser as their sponsor, you still had fights on NBC and CBS. Long-term contracts were less than today.

Today, with HBO's stupid boxing model, once you align yourself with being an HBO fighter. Arum and/or Golden Boy Promotions, won't allow you to fight on Showtime, and that's what prevents many matches from happening. Boxers should fight on a fight-by-fight basis for the network that brings the best deal. Maybe a small three-fight deal with a network would be the maximum allowed. But this HBO model of, "You sign with us as a network, you have to fight on our network for life." That's such bullshit! Promotional monopolies suck.

JackYou right that sucks I love cabel but it did bring alot of elements to sports that it didn't need at the same time alot of athletes got very wealthy because of it to; dammed if you do dammed if you don't

gravytrain
boxing will always go back to its roots and the root of boxing for like the past 80 years has been doing what will make the promoter the most money.
BoxingFan86
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Jun 14 2011, 02:44 PM) *
I hate promoters that "house" fighters into one network and promoter and than said network or promoter won't let them out of the "house" to fight rival guys. It should be like the network was back in the days of the 50's-early 80's, the fighter and promoter picked the network on which they choose to fight on a fight-by-fight basis. Even though ABC had the biggest budget with Budweiser as their sponsor, you still had fights on NBC and CBS. Long-term contracts were less than today.

Today, with HBO's stupid boxing model, once you align yourself with being an HBO fighter. Arum and/or Golden Boy Promotions, won't allow you to fight on Showtime, and that's what prevents many matches from happening. Boxers should fight on a fight-by-fight basis for the network that brings the best deal. Maybe a small three-fight deal with a network would be the maximum allowed. But this HBO model of, "You sign with us as a network, you have to fight on our network for life." That's such bullshit! Promotional monopolies suck.

Jack

Man, I also hate that shit with a passion. That's why I rarely blame fighters for fights not happenin' anymore, I blame the promoters. When promoters keep their fighters in-house, that type of behavior allows the introduction of the "he's a boxer with a padded record. He's protected" argument. Papers Champs are real nowadays.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.