Someone said it is because of Technology. No, it has nothing to do with Technology, the Internet, Social Media, because ALL SPORTS would be affected, not just Boxing! So John's question remains - why are the newspapers not focusing on Boxing as in the past. I don't know the real answer other than I think in ways Pac and Mayweather have helped Boxing but also hurt it by not fighting each others when ALL THE GREATS of the 70's/80's fought each other and Prima Donna's Pac and Floyd have not. Plus now the news has more to do with PED's than the inside life of a Boxer. If Guerrero beats Maweather, he becomes a great story of a Boxing Star who leads a crusade on Cancer. THAT deserves front page news for many reasons. Hey Ice.....it's me Richard......you know my last name starts with a "T" so I won't write it here for privacy but I wanted to give you a hollar out an say hi without giving myself away.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How it used to be...
Collapse
-
Originally posted by GAME2010 View Postas said above... technology.. internet.. etc
Comment
-
It's not on TV. Boxing (or its promoters) ran to the big bucks of HBO and their ilk, putting it out of the reach of a huge proportion of the US population. Of course people aren't as interested in it if it's not on their TV that much.
And why would the main networks stir up interest in a product that's controlled by HBO and Showtime? They wouldn't, and they don't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dr Rumack View PostIt's not on TV. Boxing (or its promoters) ran to the big bucks of HBO and their ilk, putting it out of the reach of a huge proportion of the US population. Of course people aren't as interested in it if it's not on their TV that much. And why would the main networks stir up interest in a product that's controlled by HBO and Showtime? They wouldn't, and they don't.Last edited by richardt; 02-22-2013, 05:31 PM.
Comment
-
It's because of the nature of the sport and more politically correct, humanitarian society that is being pushed - even though I think that is largely for show rather than a genuine ideology if you look at Guantanamo Bay, and the US attack and occupation of Iraq - the government are still very much war-mongering savages.
But a sport like boxing, where one of the main elements (for many fighters, not all) is to cause physical harm to the opponent, it's something which brings morality into question - at least that's the reason given for it's decline by the mainstream moral guardians. It's viewed as "barbaric" and "brutal". But like I say, it's hypocritical - they invade countries, murder innocent people and put that on display everywhere like a trophy, but they frown upon two men entering a ring for unarmed combat with strict rules and regulations to try and ensure their ultimate health and safety. Go figure.
Comment
-
I remember that era. I also remember getting up Saturday and Sunday and first thing checking the tv-guide to see what time all the fights were starting on free network tv. The afternoons were crowded with boxing action. Great times. We would have Tuesday night fights on USA, Monday night fights on Prime and another weekly show thanks to Top Rank and espn. Really, there were too many fights on tv a week! And I never missed a one!
Comment
-
Boxing during that general era was at its peak in terms of being widely and frequently watch...so many big fights on free TV on so many different stations...
Comment
-
TBF I don't really know much about the sate of the boxing game in the States when it comes to mainstream coverage, but in the UK the big domestic fights or big fights involving domestic fighters usually get a lot of coverage in the mainstream media which can only be a positive for boxing in general.
Comment
Comment