Not only have boxers changed, boxing fans and journalists have too

[soul_survivor]

Part of the issue is that everyone involved has on some level a vested interest in keeping things as they are.

Journalists have got copy to sell and they want to keep their access. If we look at someone like Thomas Hauser, irrespective of whether we agree with him or not he clearly cares about the sport, but the things that he's been saying over the last few years people don't want to hear so he's been increasingly ostracised. Whereas video journalists are granted an enormous amount of access so long as they don't rock the boat because they provide a platform for self promotion and masses of social media coverage.

TV networks have the power to be of influence but only move as and when it suits them as was the case with Mayweather Vs Pacquioa. For the most part they're happy to let the status quo continue because they benefit from having overhyped fighters pulling in the viewers and hence advertising and subscription revenue. If a rival network has a genuine threat of a fighter in the same division they don't want to risk their guy losing so they won't push the issue.

Managers of course are the most implicit of the lot because that's what their job entails. Promoters probably have the most scope for making a difference but it very much depends on the scale of their promotional company and their stable of fighters. Haymon seems to be working towards the lines of the UFC model. He has a platform for broadcasting fights, he's signed up a mass of talent who's pockets he's lined with money from big fights for the also rans and routine but named defences for title holders and now it makes sense for his company to have title holders and top contenders fighting each other. This issue of course is that it'll all still be in house, he just has more fighters under his roof.

The biggest fights will nearly always get made . . . . eventually. But the sport is so fractured and has so many petty self interested parties that this situation is unlikely to ever be resolved barring a unified regulating body. The only way I see that happening is if its imposed upon the sport. But let's face it, that's a massive undertaking and who would want to be solely responsible for clearing up the cesspit that is professional boxing?

I agree with pretty much all of this.

I just feel that the biggest factor in all of this, as is the case with any form of entertainment that makes millions of dollars in revenue, is the audience. Boxing fans. If more just stopped buying into HBO/Show/Sky PPVs, if more were actually fans of the sport than fans of fighters, than the whole situation would change in no time.

Promoters would realise they were not making money by matching star A v bum B. Sad thing is, most fans have bought into the gradual media drive to buy a rubbish fight 5 times over, in favour of an eventual "big" fight which underachieves in the ring because the two men in that ring no longer care.

The situation in the US is most definitely worse than the UK but with Sky and Hearn gradually dragging the boxing into the theater of bull****, we are starting to see the same issues here.

An already niche sport is about to go under.

[DumpkinsPlus5]

I always admire a boxer who moves up in weight to challenge the best in the next weight class. Not always a smart move, but admirable.

However, I wouldn't criticize a man for knowing his limitations and respecting them. Not everyone has the tools to move up in weight and be successful.

Perfect example...Amir Khan. Most people feel he's making a foolish decision, and rightfully so. When you look at the size of Canelo, and the options at 147, there's just no need for this fight to happen. Most don't even feel it will be competitive.

Now, lets say you're referring specifically to ATG's. The rules may slightly change, because when you see a truly special talent, you want to see them pushed to the best of their abilities, and often times guys their own size can't bring that out of them. Understandable, but where's the limit? Should a boxer keep moving up until their brutally knocked out by someone far too big?

Lastly, who exactly are you referring to? Like I said, the rules only slightly change when applied to ATG's. You were quick to point out Canelo to try to make a point. Canelo's different because he can't even make 154, so he should move up, not to fight bigger guys, but to fight guys who are the same size.

Bonafide ATG's like Mayweather and Pacquiao moved up several weight classes, so I KNOW you're not talking about them. And I KNOW you're not one of those people who felt a 40 year old Mayweather should fight Golovkin to prove how great he is (as if he hasn't already). Ward is now fighting at LH weight, and will be fighting Kovalev soon. So once again, who are you referring to?

"Canelo should be fighting at middleweight against GGG, not defending in a made up division. That's just one."

Name the others...

[ruedboy]

"A good big man will beat a good little man every time."
If the skills are about equal the physically bigger guy will win. When most guys move up in weight usually its because they can't make the weight they fought most of their career at Also not too many guys bring their power up with them because they're hitting bigger guys. Even though Duran was a champ at 147, he never was the force of nature he was at 135.
That being said, today we have PEDS which changes everything.

[- Ram Raid -]

I agree with pretty much all of this.

I just feel that the biggest factor in all of this, as is the case with any form of entertainment that makes millions of dollars in revenue, is the audience. Boxing fans. If more just stopped buying into HBO/Show/Sky PPVs, if more were actually fans of the sport than fans of fighters, than the whole situation would change in no time.

Promoters would realise they were not making money by matching star A v bum B. Sad thing is, most fans have bought into the gradual media drive to buy a rubbish fight 5 times over, in favour of an eventual "big" fight which underachieves in the ring because the two men in that ring no longer care.

The situation in the US is most definitely worse than the UK but with Sky and Hearn gradually dragging the boxing into the theater of bull****, we are starting to see the same issues here.

An already niche sport is about to go under.

The thing is, as you point out, it wouldn't even take that long. Haye Vs Harrison and Haye Vs Klitschko and that was it. Sky shelved PPV. I've boycotted quite a few Sky/Matchroom PPV cards since they've 'capitalised' on the success of Groves Vs Froch II.

The reason why I've put that in inverted commas is because what they're viewing as a success has often been damaging to the sport. Bellew Vs Cleverly II!?! It's so disheartening when I chat to fans who aren't necessarily knowledgable about the sport to the level that we are as hardcore fans but they love to watch boxing never the less.

I almost feel apologetic because they've been hood winked. They genuinely thought that they were going to see a good fight and instead they've had their pockets dipped into and left short changed. It embarrasses me as a boxing fan.

Some of them quite rightly stay away from the sport for a while but I've found that there's a certain level of fan that almost always carries on buying the PPV's no matter how bad the previous one was.

My friends are a prime example. On multiple occasions when they've asked whether I'm watching a card at the weekend and I've explained that if a PPV event doesn't have a PPV fighter or a PPV fight then it isn't an actual PPV worthy event at all and shouldn't be paid for, they've agreed. . . . Then they've buckled and bought it anyway. Then comes the inevitable disappointment and anger. And it all means nothing because next time they do the same thing all over again.

And that's where the point that you made about being a boxing fan as opposed to being a fan of a fighter comes in. Although my friends love the sport they're fans of fighters firstly. I'm not. I prioritise the sport, so I don't see missing one of Eddie's cards as a sacrifice. Truth be told, I think he's steadily sacrificing the good of the sport to Matchroom's profit margin.

[FrankieClutch]

It's a weird phenomenon with weight classes now. I don't feel like fighters are obligated to move up or down, but when there are no good fights to be made in your weight class, why not move up?

[StefanTosic]

Hagler was not the rule back then and I do agree, he was a diva. A bigger diva than Leonard who gets unfairly tarnished with that brush.



Duran was only 5'6'', Armstrong around the same weight. Pac around the same height and fought as high as 150+ against a guy who was 5'11''. Ezzard Charles barely stood at 6 foot and fought across 3 of the most prestigious divisions and held a HW crown. I could go on and on.



I'm sure most of it was about money but you can't be denied the big bucks if you're taking on that type of challenge. Plus it also adds to the legacy, dollars or not.



Canelo should be fighting at middleweight against GGG, not defending in a made up division. That's just one.



I agree with the beginning part, it's gotten so bad now that top guys in the division won't even fight each other. Mayweather took over half decade to make fights against Cotto and Pacquiao should have happened so much earlier. Ward has taken 2 years or so to actually "officially" become a LHW although he hasn't weighed in at the 168 limit since 2013. Porter v Thurman is being billed as a big fight when it's just 2 contenders who have accomplished very little in the sport.

And so on.

I agree, especially the part about Porter and Thurman. I mean I like to watch their fights and all that, but people are going as far as saying that the WW devision is getting hotter with guys such as Porter, Thurman, Khan, Garcia, etc. I mean all of them are on a very similar level, wich is almost a garantee for some good fights, but at the best possible scenario they are B level fighters, not a murderers row. For a last couple of years, ww doesn't look impressive too me. They are incomparable with the Pac/Floyd/Mosley/ODLH/Williams/Marg era. Maybe it could change in the future, with adding Crawford, Spence, Postol to Brook, Bradley and Pac
(unless Pac & Bradley retire soon), in my opinion 3 of the current best ww's. Plus Porter, Thurman, Garcia, Khan and Broner would be a good additon to 147, but not as main characters. Ok Broner would probably be even worst than at 140, but would be a great financial addition.

I went far offtopic, I just wanted to mention how those two are overated by the fans.

[soul_survivor]

I agree, especially the part about Porter and Thurman. I mean I like to watch their fights and all that, but people are going as far as saying that the WW devision is getting hotter with guys such as Porter, Thurman, Khan, Garcia, etc. I mean all of them are on a very similar level, wich is almost a garantee for some good fights, but at the best possible scenario they are B level fighters, not a murderers row. For a last couple of years, ww doesn't look impressive too me. They are incomparable with the Pac/Floyd/Mosley/ODLH/Williams/Marg era. Maybe it could change in the future, with adding Crawford, Spence, Postol to Brook, Bradley and Pac
(unless Pac & Bradley retire soon), in my opinion 3 of the current best ww's. Plus Porter, Thurman, Garcia, Khan and Broner would be a good additon to 147, but not as main characters. Ok Broner would probably be even worst than at 140, but would be a great financial addition.

I went far offtopic, I just wanted to mention how those two are overated by the fans.

I get what you're saying, even though I disagree with Brook being put alongside Bradley and Pacquiao. I'm still not sure how TC fits in, considering he hasn't fought a live body since Gamboa. But even these "b level" guys could really make WW impressive if they did what they're supposed to do...fight each other. Why does it take 1 year to make a middle of the road fight?

The thing is, as you point out, it wouldn't even take that long. Haye Vs Harrison and Haye Vs Klitschko and that was it. Sky shelved PPV. I've boycotted quite a few Sky/Matchroom PPV cards since they've 'capitalised' on the success of Groves Vs Froch II.

The reason why I've put that in inverted commas is because what they're viewing as a success has often been damaging to the sport. Bellew Vs Cleverly II!?! It's so disheartening when I chat to fans who aren't necessarily knowledgable about the sport to the level that we are as hardcore fans but they love to watch boxing never the less.

I almost feel apologetic because they've been hood winked. They genuinely thought that they were going to see a good fight and instead they've had their pockets dipped into and left short changed. It embarrasses me as a boxing fan.

Some of them quite rightly stay away from the sport for a while but I've found that there's a certain level of fan that almost always carries on buying the PPV's no matter how bad the previous one was.

My friends are a prime example. On multiple occasions when they've asked whether I'm watching a card at the weekend and I've explained that if a PPV event doesn't have a PPV fighter or a PPV fight then it isn't an actual PPV worthy event at all and shouldn't be paid for, they've agreed. . . . Then they've buckled and bought it anyway. Then comes the inevitable disappointment and anger. And it all means nothing because next time they do the same thing all over again.

And that's where the point that you made about being a boxing fan as opposed to being a fan of a fighter comes in. Although my friends love the sport they're fans of fighters firstly. I'm not. I prioritise the sport, so I don't see missing one of Eddie's cards as a sacrifice. Truth be told, I think he's steadily sacrificing the good of the sport to Matchroom's profit margin.

Agreed to the fullest.

I remember when Eddie first became a prominent promoter and was actually putting on good skysports ready cards. Then there was the easy to digest, 3 round tourneys they used to put on (Can't remember the name now lol). It was a good strategy for casuals and actual boxing fans. The problem is, with Eddies "high end" PPV strategy, and Sky shelling out for that, they have little money left to put on a show on skysports and/or actually buy big time American fights.

Boxnation have just hammered Sky when it comes to showing fights from around the world. Too much money is being shoved into a niche aspect of the sport (PPV) and to me, it seems like Sky boxing is on it's way to the grave.

[soul_survivor]

all of this is rearing its ugly head again