rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Let me just preface this by saying that boxing’s sanctioning bodies are a bunch of grimy, loose change-sucking grifters and that I would not shed a single tear if they were locked inside a garbage barge, sent into international waters, and left to drift for the rest of their miserable days.
Unscrupulous, inept assholes benefiting from the blood, sweat, and tears of fighters deserve a most heinous comeuppance (Hear that boxing media?).
That doesn’t mean, however, that something positive can’t accidentally come from these bolas de mierda.
A case in point is the very fact that there ARE multiple world champs coming from these multiple alphabet organizations.
In recent days, the topic of boxing’s many world champions has been dragged through the online Universo Pugilistico. The long-time debate was re-initiated by statements from the Saudi boxing-partnered Dana White, regarding a desire to return to one world champion per division. It also got kicked up by ESPN’s Mike Coppinger whose recent run as serial repeater of Saudi figurehead Turki Alalshikh talking points places him squarely in the “I wanna work for you, daddy” category.
And most boxing fans would agree with the sentiment that having multiple world champions sucks.
“There are too many champions, too many belts” is the go-to lament of boxing nerds everywhere and from those who believe that boxing should be run like the “real” sport that it totally isn’t. I used to be one of those boxing nerds. It really is the easiest of all takes in a sport whose many-tentacled “wrongnesses” make for a beyond complicated “killing the cancer may kill the patient” dynamic.
But, no, having multiple world champion isn’t killing or even hurting boxing. Actually, there’s an argument to be made that it’s helped, especially over the last few decades where the sport has become a niche inside a niche.
Those titles have served as the only successful marketing tool boxing has implemented in several generations. They have allowed world class boxing to operate in several markets at once, facilitating the expansion into Eastern Europe, Asia, and other markets.
Boxing, by its nature, is star-driven and tribal, with fans wanting to see “their” guy fight in places where they can see them and cheer them on.
Having four different world champions has allowed that to happen in many places at once and it’s driven interest, which has led directly to global expansion. Going back to one champ per division would actually kill growth, instantly cutting off markets and shrinking the sport.
Yes, two really good fighters in competition offers entertainment and intrigue whether they have belts or not. But throw in a world title designation and the fight takes on an elevated importance that not only draws more eyeballs, but is also appealing to network execs. The upcoming Jaron Ennis-Eimantas Stanionis welterweight bout, for example, is a good fight. But it’s undeniable that its status as a welterweight title unification makes it all the more compelling and attractive to potential viewers (and sponsors).
And that leads me to my next point.
The multiple world champ model’s success as a marketing tool has led to more fighters making more money over a longer period of time. It’s also allowed really good fighters an easier route to next-level success and achievement. Would Terence Crawford, who was a very much under-the-radar prospect, have gone on to become who he is today if there were only one world lightweight champ in 2014, when he beat WBO titlist Ricky Burns? Maybe. But it certainly would’ve taken him a lot longer to achieve any degree of prominence if he had to wait out four or five more well-known and senior top contenders before getting a title shot.
Boxing, as a sport battling for prominence, can’t afford to drag its feet. Those who CAN be going places, NEED to be going places or lots of people will simply lose interest. It’s sad to say, but most people watching any boxing match are watching for the characters in the ring, the prominence of the fight, and the buzz of the event and NOT for the thrill of competition, primarily.
In a day and age where the sport is not doing much outreach to expose the general public to its athletes, the magnitude and importance of an event matters. Like it or not, the belts have helped do that.
Let’s be really and truly honest here. Not a single person is staying away from boxing because they don’t know who the REAL super featherweight champ is. Again, that’s a lament us boxing nerds reach for instinctively.
This is like trying to argue that potential fans of the NFL stay away from football because they’re confused by the salary cap concept or possible baseball enthusiasts refuse to follow MLB because they don’t fully understand the new playoff structure.
The reality is that, even though we’ve had more fully unified champs than ever in recent years, nobody’s rushing to follow boxing. If one champ/one division mattered, Oleksandr Usyk would be a big, bankable mainstream star in line with his in-ring accomplishments and the general public would…care.
No. Fans stay away from a sport because they either don’t like the sport or aren’t familiar enough with the sport or its athletes to care about watching. Having everything behind a paywall also doesn’t help.
So, then, what can we do to “Make Boxing Great Again?”
I suppose if it were in my pay grade, I could come up with some specifics. Right now, I’ll just say that any positive change regarding growth in boxing has to come via outreach to the mainstream and in ditching the notion that everyone watching anything has to be shaken down for loose change. Maybe if done right, we wouldn’t need the multiple world title belts that currently help motor interest.
Maybe the biggest problem facing boxing is that it’s not 1954 anymore. There’s a lot of entertainment and sports programming competition out there on a lot of different platforms. There’s also plenty of direct combat sports competition. Shrinking boxing to an old school size more digestible to purists is running in the opposite direction of where things should be headed.
Whatever the case, the answer certainly isn’t to pull the central nervous system of the sport from the hands of shortsighted grifters and place it into the suffocating allied grasp of a murderous monarchy (Saudi Arabia) and a soulless machine of exploitation and unfair business practices (TKO/Dana White) that pays its fighters 18 cents on the dollar and is now in danger of free-falling from a failing UFC business model.
Got something for Paul? Send it here: paulmagno@theboxingtribune.com
