The article has one segment that's correct: It's a draw-based business.
Where the article stumbles is by not clearly defining the nature of "draw".
Draw is not just about your performance in the ring. (Ask Terrence Crawford)
Draw is not just about how likable you are. (Ask Floyd Mayweather)
Draw is not just about the division you're in. (Ask Manny Pacquiao)
No. Draw is about how marketable a guy really is.
In the older days of Atlantic City fights you had promoters paying for TV time on talk shows, magazines, etc. After that wound down you had shows like Arsenio Hall that were the top rated shows, showcasing boxers. Guys like Tyson and Toney and Roy Jones created "characters" - which made them marketable.
But the ultimate demise of the sport is not its fault. It's because people simply stopped caring so much about TV and radio.
UFC isn't as big as people make it out to be, either, for the same reasons.
Unless they can figure out how to put boxing on a Kardashian TV show, it'll never be what it used to be.
Where the article stumbles is by not clearly defining the nature of "draw".
Draw is not just about your performance in the ring. (Ask Terrence Crawford)
Draw is not just about how likable you are. (Ask Floyd Mayweather)
Draw is not just about the division you're in. (Ask Manny Pacquiao)
No. Draw is about how marketable a guy really is.
In the older days of Atlantic City fights you had promoters paying for TV time on talk shows, magazines, etc. After that wound down you had shows like Arsenio Hall that were the top rated shows, showcasing boxers. Guys like Tyson and Toney and Roy Jones created "characters" - which made them marketable.
But the ultimate demise of the sport is not its fault. It's because people simply stopped caring so much about TV and radio.
UFC isn't as big as people make it out to be, either, for the same reasons.
Unless they can figure out how to put boxing on a Kardashian TV show, it'll never be what it used to be.
Comment