Randomn Thoughts on Boxing

[Crimson]

Was reading the latest issue of Ring Magazine this morning (November 2009) and one of the articles "Making Reality A Reality" (pg. 122) had me thinking about how I miss when television used to hype the fighters up before the fight. NBC and CBS in particular would do this.

Sometimes the hype went on to long and could become frustrating. I'd be looking forward to John "The Beast" Mugabi vs. somebody and teased with "coming up next is the Mugabi vs. so and so fight!" Only to be treated to another hour of ping pong or hang gliding.

For the most part though the hype and anticipation was good. They would give you a fairly extensive insight into the fighters' lives and how they got to the point they currently are at in their career. In the past month or so I was watching an old Tonly Lopez fight on YouTube that included profiles of the fighters and I really enjoyed it.

Aside from HBO's 24/7 we really don't have that anymore and I think that lack of letting us know more about who the fighters are has contributed to boxings popularity declining. At least in the USA.

Of course we are watching the fights to see the fight itself, but part of what makes the fights interesting are the personalities/background/history/cultures/etc. that the fighters bring into the fight with them and they represent. The fight becomes more than just a fight.

An extreme example of this is Ali-Frazier I. What made Ali-Frazier I one of the greatest fights of all time, was not only the fight itself, but the clash of the fighters personalities and all that they represented or were at least perceived as representing.

Point I'm trying to make, and I think the article I read was pointing out, is television should spend some more time telling us "WHO" the fighters are. ESPN for example, (and I LOVE ESPN boxing!), will often go right into a fight and all we'll ever know about the fighters is what the announcers tell us during the fight and what we see. And they share great information about the fighters during the fight (I find Teddy Atlas to be one of, if not THEE best and most knowledgable announcers in boxing broadcasting), but that is not the same as learning about the fighters before the fight.

Myself, I'd rather see a few minutes of interviews with the main event fighter and some background information on his life than a 4 round contest. And I like watching 4 round fights! Thing is, it's nice to turn on a main event and feel like you know some specifics about the fighter. Otherwise, they all kind of blend together a bit. And I'm referring to the top contenders/title holders whom we often see on tv.

I think boxing would benefit from more detailed profiles of the fighters. It's a lot more interesting to watch a fight when you feel like you know who the fighter is, compared to when you know little to nothing about them. Then it's only a fight. Which is still a great event to watch if your a boxing fan, but not as great as watching a fight between 2 or at least 1 fighter that you know something about.

Funny. Now I miss the days of Ferdie Pacheco and Albert, Gil Clancy, etc. taking time to hype up a fight while I was stuck watching some tether ball championship from parts unknown, not wanting to take a chance that they might show a fight highlight or share a boxer interview, during that otherwise never to be watched sporting event. Cursing in frustration that they didn't just show us the fight.

Those were GLORY DAYS!

[jas80s]

Well said, I totally agree. One of the many things that boxing has going for it is that it is often emotional and colorful. I can't speak to the production costs involved but it seems like an endeavor well worth doing. After all, look at how successful 24/7 has been in generating interest in fights. Profiles of the fighters, ring entrances, stare downs, it's all part of the show in boxing.

[Cap]

What made boxing great was being able to follow a particular fighter's career from preliminary through main event to championship shot, all on what was known as free TV! In the heady days before cable and PPV kidnapped television.

Cap

[bdennis2]

and fox came along and buys up all the free satellite sports channels sports south,sports chicago, midwest sports channel an so on they were about 14 or 15 on satellite at one time you could fine a fight at least 4 or 5 times a week i have about 20 vcr tapes that i taped there was a Canada sports channel i watched just about all of Willie DeWitt's fights Spinks and Biggs on MSG sports network Prichard and Weaver Prichard and Dokes, Mike Williams, Orlin Norris,Avery Rawls,Alex Stewart,James Broad,Tony Tucker just a few that were on MSG sports network had one fight a week the felt forum in Los Angles was on they had a tournament on i thank it was in 86 or 87 Larry Alexander won the HW tournament beating Mark Wills.

[Ric915]

I definately agree. I used to look forward to the profiles that even HBO did prior to their bouts. I still have the Mancini Bramble rematch and the profile done on Ray before the fight was one of the best I've ever seen. It really added to the enjoyment of the matches. I to miss the days of free bouts I grew up watching, Mancini, Czyz, Tyson. It also attracted casual fight fans to the sport. That's impossible now with all the PPV's. people don't get to know or have their imagination captured. I know as a youngster I thought Tyson would become the greatest fighter ever watching him early in his caareer on free tv capttured my imagination along with millions of others. Even if there was someone out there like that now only hardcore fans would know who he is the casual fan would have no idea someone like that existed. Sorry for the rambling.

[Crimson]

Rambling about boxing is good! Glad I'm not the only one. I don't know if anyone in the late 1980's was referring to it then as someday being looked at as the good old days!, But that's how I'm looking at it now.

Not only were there solid matchups taking place most weekends on ABC, NBC, and CBS....but they sometimes were on at the same time! Oh...how I wish that was a problem I could complain about today!!! And they were good fights.

I remember (or at least think I do) a fight between Bobby Czyz and Willie Edwards taking place as the same time as a fight on another channel. I want to say Evander Holyfield vs. Henry Tillman, but that seem to good to be true. I watched it with a girlfriend at her house on Valentine's day. Or something like that. Would switch the channnel back and forth (by hand!) not wanting to miss a KO blow.

[Crimson]

Bert Cooper vs. Willie DeWitt (2 FEB 1987)
and
Evander Holyfield vs. Henry Tillman is what I'm thinking of (just checked it on Boxrec). The Czyz - Willie "Sandman" Edwards title fight was the following weekend. Along with Lloyd Honeyghan vs. Johnny Bumphus!

HBO had the best profiles. The one that stands out the most still in my mind is when George Foreman was pulling a truck up a hill with a rope attached to his body!

A new contender to that memory did recently emerge when Juan Manuel Marquez drank his own piss on 24/7 before fighting Mayweather. I'm going to remember that one for awhile!

[Jersey-Jim]

I used to enjoy watching Olympians turn pro and following their careers on TV. The 70's and the 80's had lots of great fights on TV. I used to go to see fights regularly in Atlantic City.

The hype that surrounded fights like Holmes-Cooney, Duran-Leonard 1 and Leonard-Hearns were incredible. There were so many fighters whose names were basically "household names" back then, it was something.

The Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton days were great as well. The new issue of the Ring Magazine making its way to the shelves meant you wouldn't hear from me for at least an hour.

Yes, like the saying goes, "There were Giants in those days!"

[Crimson]

Not sure how long Fightnews.com has been doing this, but I just found it this morning and LOVE IT!

http://www.fightnews.com/?page_id=55

With 4 major world title belts it's become difficult to keep track of who holds which belt. Maybe I'm a rarity as a boxing fan, I don't know, but even with 4 belts I'm still VERY interested in knowing which fighters hold those belts.

It's become increasingly frustrating in recent years to keep track of who has the belts, not because of the number of title belts....but because much of the boxing media has stopped sharing that information with us, the boxing fan.

There was a time when I could open up any of the boxing magazines being published, to their page of rankings by weight division, and they would list the title belt the fighter had next to their name. "Boxing Monthly" (out of England) is the only boxing magazine, I'm aware of, currently doing that today.

I'm more than glad to see fightnews.com having all the information in one place. Makes it so much easier as a fan. I also think it's fantastic that they include each organizations world rankings. It provides a preview of possible fights coming up down the road, when that organizations Champion makes a mandatory against it's 1# contender.

We can bemoan that it's no longer 1961 or earlier (the last year before the Championship split into the WBA and WBC), when there was only 1 world boxing champion per division, but the reality is today is 2009 and we have 4 major world titles per division. Winning one of those 4 belts is a major accomplishment for a fighter and is worthy of recognition. It doesn't make that fighter "thee" World Champion, but it certainly is a significant step on the road to doing so and adds credence to their claim as one of the best in the world.

When the media (print and television) fail to acknowledge that the fighter holds one of the 4 world titles, they are doing the fighters, boxing fans, and the sport of boxing itself a real disservice. Kudos to the magazine "World Boxing" and "Fightnews.com" for showing the fighters, boxing fans, and the sport of boxing some respect.

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Ric915

... Even if there was someone out there like that now only hardcore fans would know who he is the casual fan would have no idea someone like that existed. Sorry for the rambling...

The day of the Pacquiao-Cotto fight I was driving past a bar on a main street near my house, and in front there was a placard with "Pacquiao vs Cotto! Tonight!" I was very happy that a simple little blue-collar neighborhood bar was using the fight to draw customers in.

[jdphx]

Short of kicking out the 50 bucks for PPV...

the only places that consistently seem to show
the big fights are the strip clubs!!!

Guess the stay at home 50 is probably cheaper
in the long run????

[kenyan_cheena]

Originally Posted by Crimson

Not sure how long Fightnews.com has been doing this, but I just found it this morning and LOVE IT!

http://www.fightnews.com/?page_id=55

With 4 major world title belts it's become difficult to keep track of who holds which belt. Maybe I'm a rarity as a boxing fan, I don't know, but even with 4 belts I'm still VERY interested in knowing which fighters hold those belts.

It's become increasingly frustrating in recent years to keep track of who has the belts, not because of the number of title belts....but because much of the boxing media has stopped sharing that information with us, the boxing fan.

There was a time when I could open up any of the boxing magazines being published, to their page of rankings by weight division, and they would list the title belt the fighter had next to their name. "Boxing Monthly" (out of England) is the only boxing magazine, I'm aware of, currently doing that today.

I'm more than glad to see fightnews.com having all the information in one place. Makes it so much easier as a fan. I also think it's fantastic that they include each organizations world rankings. It provides a preview of possible fights coming up down the road, when that organizations Champion makes a mandatory against it's 1# contender.

We can bemoan that it's no longer 1961 or earlier (the last year before the Championship split into the WBA and WBC), when there was only 1 world boxing champion per division, but the reality is today is 2009 and we have 4 major world titles per division. Winning one of those 4 belts is a major accomplishment for a fighter and is worthy of recognition. It doesn't make that fighter "thee" World Champion, but it certainly is a significant step on the road to doing so and adds credence to their claim as one of the best in the world.

When the media (print and television) fail to acknowledge that the fighter holds one of the 4 world titles, they are doing the fighters, boxing fans, and the sport of boxing itself a real disservice. Kudos to the magazine "World Boxing" and "Fightnews.com" for showing the fighters, boxing fans, and the sport of boxing some respect.

It's good that they do that, but the situation with the actual alphabet titles is beyond ridiculous. have you seen how many interim, super, regular champions there are? Below is a list of notes taken from the ESPN listing of the titlists:

NOTES:


(a) Ola Afolabi is the WBO interim cruiserweight champion.
(b) Chad Dawson is the WBC interim light heavyweight champion.
(c) Dimitri Sartison is the WBA "regular" super middleweight champion.
(d) Sebastian Zbik is the WBC interim middleweight champion.
(e) Nobuhiro Ishida is the WBA interim junior middleweight champion.
(f) Alfredo Angulo is the WBO interim junior middleweight champion.
(g)Vyacheslav Senchenko is the WBA "regular" welterweight champion.
(h) Marcos Maidana is the WBA interim junior welterweight champion.
(i) Lamont Peterson is the WBO interim junior welterweight champion.
(j) Juan Manuel Marquez is the WBA lightweight "super champion" and Miguel Acosta is the WBA interim lightweight champion.
(k) Antonio DeMarco is the WBC interim lightweight champion.
(l) Michael Katsidis is the WBO interim lightweight champion.
(m) Likar Ramos is the WBA interim junior lightweight champion.
(n) Vitali Tajbert is the WBC interim junior lightweight champion.
(o) Yuriorkis Gamboa is the WBA "regular" featherweight champion.
(p) Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym is the WBA "regular" junior featherweight champion.
(q) Nehomar Cermeño is the WBA interim bantamweight champion.
(r) Vic Darchinyan is the WBA junior bantamweight "super champion" and Nonito Donaire is the WBA interim junior bantamweight champion.
(s) Tomas Rojas is the WBC interim junior bantamweight champion.
(t) Luis Concepcion is the WBA interim flyweight champion.
(u) Pongsaklek Wonjongkam is the WBC interim flyweight champion.
(v) Juan Carlos Reveco is the WBA interim junior flyweight champion.
(w) Juan Palacios is the WBC interim strawweight champion.

[Crimson]

Originally Posted by Antonin

The day of the Pacquiao-Cotto fight I was driving past a bar on a main street near my house, and in front there was a placard with "Pacquiao vs Cotto! Tonight!" I was very happy that a simple little blue-collar neighborhood bar was using the fight to draw customers in.

That's awesome! Last time I saw a fight at a bar was Holyfield-Lewis I. I was certain Lewis would win and scraped together $100 bucks to bet on him, which was huge amount of money for me at the time. When the decision for Holyfield was announced I was so ticked off at it I said "that's it I'm done following boxing!" Think I went a few months without watching any fights after that.

[Crimson]

Originally Posted by jdphx

Guess the stay at home 50 is probably cheaper
in the long run????

No doubt!! (Just not quite as fun.)

[Crimson]

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

It's good that they do that, but the situation with the actual alphabet titles is beyond ridiculous. have you seen how many interim, super, regular champions there are?

I agree! The WBA and WBC in particular are taking away from thier own champions credibility with all the interim, super, and all the additional belt holders. Chalk one up for the WBO and IBF, who so far seem to be avoiding that trend.

I don't like to keep track of the interim and super belt holders within the same organization. Keeping track of the 4 title holders per division is enough!

Hopefully the media will start to do a better job of identifying who the real champion is from among those 4. As it stands the media is a big part of the current problem and contributes to the confusion of the situation by not working together to identify one World Champion. Somehow the media works it out for national college football and basketball rankings.

Boxing would benefit from trying something similar. Not that the USA college football and basketball rankings are perfect systems, but they are better than what we currently have in boxing and much more publicized, at least in the USA.

[Ric915]

Originally Posted by Crimson

That's awesome! Last time I saw a fight at a bar was Holyfield-Lewis I. I was certain Lewis would win and scraped together $100 bucks to bet on him, which was huge amount of money for me at the time. When the decision for Holyfield was announced I was so ticked off at it I said "that's it I'm done following boxing!" Think I went a few months without watching any fights after that.

I remember as a kid watching Camacho vs Rosario in a pizzaria we were all going for Rosario and when he hurt Camacho the place went crazy. really good times. And the Right Hand Czyz knocked out Willie Sandman Edwards with is still one of the best right hands I've ever seen landed.

[Crimson]

That was a really good right hand. Below is a link that Czyz vs. Edwards slugfest.

YouTube - Bobby Czyz vs. Willie Edwards - 02/21/87

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Crimson

Hopefully the media will start to do a better job of identifying who the real champion is from among those 4. As it stands the media is a big part of the current problem and contributes to the confusion of the situation by not working together to identify one World Champion.

The only world rankings I pay attention to are those by Ring Magazine. But even those can be regarded as tainted, since the magazine is owned by Oscar De La Hoya.

But they, at least, don't charge sanctioning fees or any such nonsense, as far as I know.

[Crimson]

Originally Posted by Antonin

The only world rankings I pay attention to are those by Ring Magazine. But even those can be regarded as tainted, since the magazine is owned by Oscar De La Hoya.

But they, at least, don't charge sanctioning fees or any such nonsense, as far as I know.

The Ring Magazine ratings are still my favorite and the ones I pay the most attention to also.
The Ring Pound For Pound Ratings

They have some room for improvement though. I think the Ring ratings have a history of bias favoring the American fighters. Looking at the list of panelists, by my count about 30 of the 38 are from the United States.
About the Ring

If there is not a USA bias, with so many USA panelist it gives the impression that there easily could be. I'd like to see more of a representation from Mexico, South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. Still, at least the Ring makes the information public and easily accessible regarding who determines the ratings and what the criteria is for being recognized as World Champion.

I hope that Oscar De La Hoya or Nigel Collins gets the Ring to change the belt itself. I love the history of the belt, but it has an exteme USA bias in appearance with the red, white, and blue stripes and American eagle sitting on top.

When Jack Dempsey was awarded the first Ring belt in the 1920's it was understandable to have the American Eagle and colors on it, but if the ring wants to gain more respect/credibility internationally they should look into modifying the colors and bald eagle.

Without a doubt history is to be respected and valued, but well thought out change can be a positive and is sometimes necessary.

[Cap]

Maybe a lion instead of an eagle. The lion is the king of the beasts after all.

Cap