If Fighters Were Fighting Five or Six Times a Year...

[Tony Trick-Pony]

So HBO is just going to show the same 2 fighters the entire year and that's it?

I'm not going to lie. Given your posts, you are way too technical with too little common sense to ever get the concept.

However I'll lay it out for you. Busier fighters means more fights which means more opportunities for all fighters which means more boxing happening. Before this current lazy century, fighters often fought 4-5 times a year. Were there mismatches? Yes. Are there mismatches now? Yes. Only many fighters fought a few mismatches to stay sharp between the big fights and many guys who never got a shot, got won and sometimes won, upping their cred. The busier a sport is, the more popular it becomes. The way the sport is now, we're betting way too much on the rare fights being good, which they often are not. So very bad for boxing. With busier fighters, you get sharper fighters who are active and make more fans.

[Damn Wicked]

How many would stay unbeaten? How many more matches would be made where new stars could rise? Would the "0" really matter that much anymore? Would boxing's popularity rise with more exposure?
Thoughts and opinions?

No boxer would stay unbeaten if they were fighting 6 times a year. Within 3 or for years even the best fighter would be beaten. Even a lesser fighter can beat a naturally more talented fighter on a given night. The more you fight, the better your chances are of getting beaten.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

No boxer would stay unbeaten if they were fighting 6 times a year. Within 3 or for years even the best fighter would be beaten. Even a lesser fighter can beat a naturally more talented fighter on a given night. The more you fight, the better your chances are of getting beaten.

I will say, though, don't some of them need to be beaten and humbled earlier in their careers which might make them improve on what they're doing?

[original zero]

Busier fighters means more fights which means more opportunities for all fighters which means more boxing happening.

and these fights are being financed by who exactly?!? HBO barely has enough money to get their biggest stars on the air twice a year.

where are the TV dates coming from for guys to suddenly fight 5-6 times a year? unless HBO is just going to show the same 2-3 fighters over and over all year long and not show anybody else, how would this work exactly?

it's lovely that you want more fights. you're a fan. you should want more fights. but where is the funding going to come from for fighters to suddenly fight 3x as often? and on what channel? it's just not feasible. if canelo hadn't gotten hurt, HBO would have only ended up having one non-PPV slot for crawford last year. where are the other 5 slots going to come from suddenly?

[-Kev-]

Who says every fight has to be on TV? Hell, every fight would be taped by camera phone and loaded onto youtube anyway.

So fights would happen with no viwership, just people in attendance with their phones uploading crappy videos where it's hard to see punches? How about TV deals?

Face it, the business of boxing and tv is way different today than when fighters where fighting each week. Fans were okay relying on newspapers and radio back then, but now there's something called TV slots and fighters want that TV money and fans want to see fighters on tv, if a network doesn't want to buy the fight, the fight doesn't happen, and no network is going to buy the common boxers 6 fights unless we're talking about Pacquiao, Canelo or Cotto. Then again, who's going to care about Canelo vs some guy with a 22-25 record?

[Damn Wicked]

I will say, though, don't some of them need to be beaten and humbled earlier in their careers which might make them improve on what they're doing?

It would probably make for a better roster of fighters eventually because the weak minded guys would end up quitting and the boxers with balls and intelligence would learn from their losses and improve.

[PRINCEKOOL]

If society did not bend and the will of the Sheeple? a loss on a boxers record, would not nearly matter as much.

[al-Xander]

Why ask for 5-6 fights when 2 fights a year is a huge struggle for these current crop of fighters? Forget it. Now you see them, now you don't. There's no continuity, no story to follow. Huge wins don't lead to anything.

[soul_survivor]

How many would stay unbeaten? How many more matches would be made where new stars could rise? Would the "0" really matter that much anymore? Would boxing's popularity rise with more exposure?
Thoughts and opinions?

Ultimately it boils down to money. Guys at contender level and above are getting paid too much to fight...even if those fights are against a bunch of bums.

If fighters were fighting more regularly, for example on a platform like PBC in the US where I assume they receive or have the chance to receive more exposure than on premium subscription channels like HBO and Showtime, they would definitely be more popular. Look at how the popularity of fighters like Leonard and Tyson were built.

Didn't Tyson fight off of PPV for a chunk of his early career, fighting like 6+ times a year and knocking out guys and having fans think "wow, I could pay for this guy on HBO one day and it'd be worth it."

Now we have young guys with a couple of decent wins, not even attractive wins at times, claiming they need to get paid more to fight unification or top challengers lol

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It would probably make for a better roster of fighters eventually because the weak minded guys would end up quitting and the boxers with balls and intelligence would learn from their losses and improve.

This is what I'm thinking. We've all seen plenty of protected guys step in with a real fighter, get crushed like a tin can and then walk away. Why not get that out of the way early?