[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.