BASIC BOXING HISTORY III [RECYCLED]

THE CONFUSING YEARS-In the 1960's and 1970's several new divisions sprang up, the junior divisions taking the sport from eight to twelve, fifteen and ultimately the seventeen divisions we have today. That in and of itself doubled the number of champions thereby diluting the concept significantly as now one had only 1/2 as many men vying for that crown. One other by product of the increase in divisions was it made a move up or down a division a much less dramatic or important act. In 1983 the IBF was formed and THIS is where things really began to come apart. The IBF began to simply name champions, some of whom were already the recognized champions. This in effect then became a war for sanctioning fees. This was exacerbated by the creation of the WBO in 1988. It is at this point that the idea of Boxing CHAMPIONS largely fell apart. Instead of having fighters from rival sanctioning bodies meet, sanctioning bodies tied to rival promoters avoided such things and the idea of Champions became rare. Beltholders became the norm. Up until this time each division had a single champion, then almost overnight people who formerly would perhaps have been the fourth or fifth ranked contender was somehow wearing a belt. It is out of this mess that the idea of a lineal champion came about as it seemed the only way to circumvent the awful corruption of the sanctioning bodies and to determine who the true CHAMPION was, if there was one. In short boxing went from having eight men entitled to wear belts to 15 in two decades to 30 in about another 5 years to 68 five years after that. The idea of holding a belt became laughably less important. Perhaps one can understand why some of us old timers just laugh at the idea of seven belts in three divisions kind of claims. It means you were a contender in half divisions, that's all.

The Rise of Cable and PPV-This has had exactly the same impact on boxing as TV did 40 years before. It has caused fewer shows, as people will only pay for big fights, therefore fewer opportunities, fewer fighters, fewer fight gyms, fewer trainers etc. The top of the food chain makes all the money, and the entire boxing food chain shrinks. But if you're a fighter and can make $10 million by fighting on PPV, are you going to take less to fight on free national TV? Fewer boxers and fewer shows means fewer chances to fight which means less developed fighters than at any time in the last 80 years. The average beltholder today won his belt in his 27th pro fight. In 1955 it was in his 70th pro fight. Who do you think was more tested, tempered, resilient and technically sound?

Boxing and the Recession-My guess? The sport has bottomed out. Promoters realize they have to make better fights in tough economic times. I suspect the sanctioning bodies will become more flexible as well. Golden Boy is headed in a better direction than Don King ever was. Other pro sports are facing some serious issues which may lead to them shrinking driving athletes who thought they might play other sports as adults back into boxing. If you think things are tough in the US? Try Europe or Mexico or Africa. Poor people make for great fighters and sadly we are going to see a lot more poor people in the coming years. Fewer PPV's, more flexible promoters, a dissappearing sanctioning body or two would all be good news.
I think our beloved sport is on it's way back
[i WROTE THIS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO]

Great stuff Marble, I remember reading this a while back.

One question - no mention of the rise of MMA and it's impact on boxing today or for the future?

I know you probably don't want to open up the whole boxing vs. MMA debate; but clearly it's a factor worth considering in this third part of your history, right?

this boxing history series is perhaps the finest digested accurate version in detail that has been ever written....i enjoyed reading it as it brought back memories of the many eras ive read about including litterly the fight to the death sickness of the greek-roman era..one factor that is hard to understand by many perhaps is boxing was one of the 3 big sports as far as popularity even though for the most part it was illegal...
one of the most popular public figures ever to grace the ny city sceen was flamboiant playboy-partier jimmy walker .the mayor or hizzz honor he and tex richard made ny city the boxing capital of the world..walker realized the popularity of the sport and threw political contacts made boxing legal in ny state thus paving the way over time for other states and regions to follow suit...i realy enjoyed reading the whole series especialy the laughable confusing times era..every boxing fan should read and absorb that to understand that the carival attmosphere of today must stop somehow...this would make a great preface for any serious book about the sport..awsome.

Tobe wrote:Great stuff Marble, I remember reading this a while back.

One question - no mention of the rise of MMA and it's impact on boxing today or for the future?

I know you probably don't want to open up the whole boxing vs. MMA debate; but clearly it's a factor worth considering in this third part of your history, right?

I honestly hadn't thought about and I'm not sure how big an impact it has had thus far. I don't know how to measure it. Hmmmmmm

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:Great stuff Marble, I remember reading this a while back.

One question - no mention of the rise of MMA and it's impact on boxing today or for the future?

I know you probably don't want to open up the whole boxing vs. MMA debate; but clearly it's a factor worth considering in this third part of your history, right?

I honestly hadn't thought about and I'm not sure how big an impact it has had thus far. I don't know how to measure it. Hmmmmmm

Yeah, actually measuring it is a challenge. The way I see it there are two sides to consider: competition for fans as reflected in TV and PPV revenues, media coverage, marketing and endorsements etc; as well as competition for the fighters themselves.

No question that MMA is more visible in the media landscape than boxing (it's on TV every night, go to any club or mall and you'll see "TapOut" shirts). But the other part is that kids who might have gone to a boxing gym 10-20 years ago may be more likely to go to a jujtsu, Maui Thai or karate dojo today. Again, I have no actual data there, but based on any reasonable assessment, it sure seems like the younger generation is far more taken with UFC than boxing.

Not to mention the larger question: is MMA is the next step in the evolution of boxing as you've laid it out here, or boxing can survive as a separate entity in the future?

I think we all hope it can; but the MMA factor has to be another part of the history/future of our sport.

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:Great stuff Marble, I remember reading this a while back.

One question - no mention of the rise of MMA and it's impact on boxing today or for the future?

I know you probably don't want to open up the whole boxing vs. MMA debate; but clearly it's a factor worth considering in this third part of your history, right?

I honestly hadn't thought about and I'm not sure how big an impact it has had thus far. I don't know how to measure it. Hmmmmmm

Yeah, actually measuring it is a challenge. The way I see it there are two sides to consider: competition for fans as reflected in TV and PPV revenues, media coverage, marketing and endorsements etc; as well as competition for the fighters themselves.

No question that MMA is more visible in the media landscape than boxing (it's on TV every night, go to any club or mall and you'll see "TapOut" shirts). But the other part is that kids who might have gone to a boxing gym 10-20 years ago may be more likely to go to a jujtsu, Maui Thai or karate dojo today. Again, I have no actual data there, but based on any reasonable assessment, it sure seems like the younger generation is far more taken with UFC than boxing.

Not to mention the larger question: is MMA is the next step in the evolution of boxing as you've laid it out here, or boxing can survive as a separate entity in the future?

I think we all hope it can; but the MMA factor has to be another part of the history/future of our sport.

There are two things that are true (or likely true) in my estimation
1. MMA has forced boxing into better matchmaking
2. Looking forward MMA may drain athletes from boxing

As far as fans go I think boxing's problems are self-inflicted rather than the result of MMA competition. But again I can't measure any of this.

Lastly, MMA isn't "an evolution" of boxing. If anything it is a return to what boxing was pre-Marquess of Queensbury Rules when wrestling holds and throws were paret of the sport of boxing. John L. Sullivan and Jake Kilrain etc. were just about MMA guys (thought there was no extended ground work).

[quote="marbleheadmaui"][quote="Tobe"][quote="marbleheadmaui"]

Tobe wrote:
There are two things that are true (or likely true) in my estimation
1. MMA has forced boxing into better matchmaking
2. Looking forward MMA may drain athletes from boxing

As far as fans go I think boxing's problems are self-inflicted rather than the result of MMA competition. But again I can't measure any of this.

Lastly, MMA isn't "an evolution" of boxing. If anything it is a return to what boxing was pre-Marquess of Queensbury Rules when wrestling holds and throws were paret of the sport of boxing. John L. Sullivan and Jake Kilrain etc. were just about MMA guys (thought there was no extended ground work).

I think it's possible in the future that the phenomenon of globalization and the integration of societies may change the nature of martial arts, boxing included. I could see how the concept of individual disciplines could give way to the hybridization of all "combat sports" into some from of MMA widely practiced around the world.

I'm talking generations here, but I can see that happening eventually as cultures continue to mix.

Personally I'm not much of an MMA fan; I don't know enough about the ground game to appreciate the skills and find it boring a lot of the time.

[quote="Tobe"][quote="marbleheadmaui"][quote="Tobe"]

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:
There are two things that are true (or likely true) in my estimation
1. MMA has forced boxing into better matchmaking
2. Looking forward MMA may drain athletes from boxing

As far as fans go I think boxing's problems are self-inflicted rather than the result of MMA competition. But again I can't measure any of this.

Lastly, MMA isn't "an evolution" of boxing. If anything it is a return to what boxing was pre-Marquess of Queensbury Rules when wrestling holds and throws were paret of the sport of boxing. John L. Sullivan and Jake Kilrain etc. were just about MMA guys (thought there was no extended ground work).

I think it's possible in the future that the phenomenon of globalization and the integration of societies may change the nature of martial arts, boxing included. I could see how the concept of individual disciplines could give way to the hybridization of all "combat sports" into some from of MMA widely practiced around the world.
I'm talking generations here, but I can see that happening eventually as cultures continue to mix.

Personally I'm not much of an MMA fan; I don't know enough about the ground game to appreciate the skills and find it boring a lot of the time.

Interesting thought in the first bold. On your last I'm like you. OUSooner is trying to explain some of that to me over on the MMA thread.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Tobe wrote:Great stuff Marble, I remember reading this a while back.

One question - no mention of the rise of MMA and it's impact on boxing today or for the future?

I know you probably don't want to open up the whole boxing vs. MMA debate; but clearly it's a factor worth considering in this third part of your history, right?

I honestly hadn't thought about and I'm not sure how big an impact it has had thus far. I don't know how to measure it. Hmmmmmm

Yeah, actually measuring it is a challenge. The way I see it there are two sides to consider: competition for fans as reflected in TV and PPV revenues, media coverage, marketing and endorsements etc; as well as competition for the fighters themselves.

No question that MMA is more visible in the media landscape than boxing (it's on TV every night, go to any club or mall and you'll see "TapOut" shirts). But the other part is that kids who might have gone to a boxing gym 10-20 years ago may be more likely to go to a jujtsu, Maui Thai or karate dojo today. Again, I have no actual data there, but based on any reasonable assessment, it sure seems like the younger generation is far more taken with UFC than boxing.

Not to mention the larger question: is MMA is the next step in the evolution of boxing as you've laid it out here, or boxing can survive as a separate entity in the future?

I think we all hope it can; but the MMA factor has to be another part of the history/future of our sport.

There are two things that are true (or likely true) in my estimation
1. MMA has forced boxing into better matchmaking
2. Looking forward MMA may drain athletes from boxing

As far as fans go I think boxing's problems are self-inflicted rather than the result of MMA competition. But again I can't measure any of this.

Lastly, MMA isn't "an evolution" of boxing. If anything it is a return to what boxing was pre-Marquess of Queensbury Rules when wrestling holds and throws were paret of the sport of boxing. John L. Sullivan and Jake Kilrain etc. were just about MMA guys (thought there was no extended ground work).

Great thread, Marble. Also, effective points made by Tobe. I agree that boxing has shot itself in the foot. I think Mayweather vs. Pacquiao is a good example of that. Mayweather's conduct did more damage to the sport than the MMA ever could.