Quote of the Day: Teddy Atlas Can't Face Facts
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 11:12 AM EST
in News
103 comments
"You brought up a good point about us -- we don't even talk about it enough. The sport does not market itself. There's no one there to do that. So you get the perception that mixed martial arts is really climbing. The reality is, when you see a big fight, whether it's De La Hoya-Pacquiao or De La Hoya-Mayweather, or whatever, you realize -- and I'm not knocking mixed martial arts, I think that sport's good and the participants are tough guys -- but Ultimate Fighting's not a pimple on the ass of boxing.
When you see boxing, with those pay-per-view buys, and one fighter making $40 million and the other fighter making $20 million, you say, "Are you kidding me? You think (the UFC is) making inroads into boxing? No, no, no. They don't come close. Not when it comes to the big fights. But the problem is, that's what boxing has come to, where you only get that one big fight a year or one every two years.That's the problem. You don't have the public talking about all the other fights in between."
-- Teddy Atlas, talking to AOL Fanhouse.
How does one respect Teddy Atlas yet also find this drivel impossible to stomach? Atlas is correct that the truly marquee boxing match-ups garner massive attention, much more so than even the bigger UFC fights or events. But this is typical boxing apologist sleight of hand. Both fights referenced by Atlas involve De La Hoya: the most popular figure in North American combat sports who is likely to retire this year. Without his contribution to the sport, the picture changes quite dramatically. And Atlas simply cannot accept this reality. Boxing apologists keep attaching their arguments to support boxing to illusory benchmarks or temporary realities with little to no acknowledgement for long term prospects.
But they do so at their own peril. Were it not for their pride, boxing diehards could probably do enough to keep the sport afloat after De La Hoya retires. Unfortunately, most are too mired in their own outdated fundamentalist worldview where boxing's place in history or culture is immutable to realize those positions aren't as permanent as they seem to think.
More on Atlas here.
0 recs |
103 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
MMA fan- “Boxing is dead or dying.”
Boxing fan- “MMA is bar fighting, boxing is a highly skilled sport. MMA is nowhere near the popularity of boxing.”
Same old, same old. The refusal of “boxing guy” to recognize the growing sport that is mma, is comical. Almost every time we hear from them, they aren’t telling us how great boxing is, they are saying how bad mma is. Their product has suffered so much, not from mma, but from their own corruption and greed, that they don’t have much of a sales pitch on why boxing is great.
Sure, there is the annual show or two that is big (Pacman/ODH), but overall, most cards go greatly unnoticed. Sure a guy who gets paid big AND is the promoter (ODH) makes 20-40M, but a great majority of boxers toil in hardship financially, probably more so than mma.
Bottom line is, no matter what becomes of boxing, mma is getting bigger, better and more popular.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 11:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
and...
Boxing fan is rapidly aging, while mma fan is younger, for the most part. What will that mean in 20 years?
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
that the two can get along. Pioneers such as Roy Jones are going to show us that soon.
by Bandaka on Mar 4, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is what should be happening. I think eventually it will in many cases. I was always a boxing fan, and I still watch both to an extent, but mma is much more compelling to my personal tastes. That said, I don’t go around bashing boxing to non-mma fans, I simply try and explain why mma is appealing.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This article saddens me becuase I also enjoy boxing and Teddy is my favorite commentor.
by Bandaka on Mar 4, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vargas did it better. He understands his limitations in MMA and partnered with a good MMA promoter.
Roy Jones just threw a few fights together to put butts in seats.
by RoyalB on Mar 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All the money in boxing is in the hands of the few. In MMA… the money is spread out amongst the people. I guess MMA is like communism in that respect and boxing is some kind of totolitarian monarchy shit.
by Bandaka on Mar 4, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The opposite of communism is a totolitarian monarchy now?
Anyway, I could never get into boxing and still can’t really. I’ll probably watch the MMA portion of March Badness and avoid the boxing, unless something crazy happens, then perhaps I’ll watch a clip. That’s just a matter of personal preference for me.
It does amaze me how people can continue to ignore the momentum that MMA is gaining; but as the poster said, they do so at their own peril.
by ruckus on Mar 4, 2009 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The money from UFC doesn’t just go straight to people. Think how much marketing the UFC does. All the ads everywhere. TV spots, they invest in tv shows and more to build the sport. So a lot of the money goes there…. where as boxing, the money from the event pays for the event and that’s it. The extra profits don’t get rolled into development or anything, just someone’s pockets and that’s where it ends.
by adamdd on Mar 4, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's got a point.
Purses at marquee boxing matches greatly outstrip those at MMA events, De La Hoya or now.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but I believe you are looking at a completely different revenue model. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in here. You have promoters bidding and so on…
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MMA companies have to do operationally much more work in-house, so the absorb a lot more costs.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
None of which changes the original point he made:
Boxing purses at the highest levels are bigger than MMA purses at the upper echelons.
Whatever conditions contribute to it, it’s just factually true. You may not like the conclusions he reaches with that as his premise. The reasoning may be flawed. But the underlying premise is sound.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you really suggesting I don’t believe boxers at the elite level make more? And since when didn’t context matter?
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I just thought "drivel" in the first sentence was a strong reaction ...
… given that the underlying premise was pretty clearly obvious.
“How can boxing be doing bad if our guys are making $20 million a fight?”
Seems like a valid question. You dismissed the point by saying it was only De La Hoya who could do that. It may be true that he’s the most bankable, but if Pretty Boy came back tomorrow he could make that kind of coin between guarantees and PPV percentages.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If De La Hoya’s take home is supposed to be an indication as to the health and popularity of this sport in the US, I’m afraid the evidence isn’t that strong.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
But other guys make a lot, too. A great deal more than MMA fighters make. That’s what I’m saying. This De La Hoya thing is a straw man.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other guys make a lot, but nearly to the same grotesque extent. And if we look at the curve of upper echelon MMA fighters, the gap is closing. That’s the salient issue, not pointing towards a complete outlier and saying “Look! We’re rich!”
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In what way is the gap closing? What’s the most an MMA fighter has ever made for one fight, even with off-book bonuses? $1.5? $2?
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At the top, quite a few
The top-tier UFC elites who have bonuses tied to PPV sales have made $2 million or more from those receipts alone, to say nothing about outside sponsorships, locker room bonuses and contractual payment. And it’s only 2009. By the end of 2010 or 2011, a time when it’s far likelier blue chip sponsors will be on board and the UFC’s growth could very well result in higher payouts as it has the last few years, I expect those figures to be much higher.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I sincerely hope you’re right.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude. The UFC has been growing for FOUR YEARS. Thats it, really. Boxing payouts are a function of being mainstream for 100 years. MMA isn’t even legal in all the states.
MMA payouts will continue to shoot up for the conceivable future.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 4, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The premise of “how can boxing be doing bad if guys are making $20 million a fight” falls apart in the same way as “how can AIG being doing bad if the top guys in the company are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year?”
A very small handful of boxers are making vast sums of money of the sport but the vast majority of professional boxers don’t make squat. Where are the future boxing stars going to come from when there is more to be made starting in MMA instead of in boxing? Obscene paydays for the top 1% of boxers and then a huge drop off in pay for the rest isn’t a sign of sports health it’s a sign that they are selling out the future for quick money today.
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Teddy is right!
Boxing is just on another level than MMA. But the wealth is concentrated in 1% of the people involved (promoters)
by Bandaka on Mar 4, 2009 11:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Niether sport is inferrior to the other one
by Bandaka on Mar 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but who is arguing that here in full committment? No one. The issue is about boxing’s own community not adopting the right attitude toward their sport to fix what ails it. I think many of them simply have too much pride to recognize the sport’s failures here in the U.S. (the sport still thrives in many parts of Europe and in Asia).
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Problems with promotions do not equal problems with the sport.
2008 and the beginning of 2009 have been glorious years for boxing, with great match-ups being made and great performances being delivered.
Whether it’s being marketed properly or not is a different argument.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
… boxing’s own community not adopting the right attitude toward their sport to fix what ails it.
Nothing “ails” boxing. Boxing is doing great. Great fights are being made, and the performances these match-ups promise are being delivered.
Whether or not people like Bob Arum are doing a good enough job marketing those performances is really secondary if you have an appreciation for the sport itself. I don’t care how many “buys” a PPV gets, or if the Shaw family is making money. What I care about is seeing great fights and great fighters. And both ’08 and the start of ’09 have been banner years for that.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t care how many "buys" a PPV gets
The boxers do, quite a bit. If that number falls, they are less likely to want to compete.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 4, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I think the perceived decline in viewers has been somewhat of a positive.
Promoters realize that they can’t just push out bullshit anymore and expect people to buy it. The best have to fight the best, or no one is willing to pay $40 for it anymore.
Frankly, the UFC could use this kind of impetus as well, especially given the PPV they’re expecting people to pay $50 for later this week.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully a decline in PPV viewership will get a lot of fights off PPV and onto tv where more people will be watching them. Even HBO says that there is a problem with the way boxing is now.
I can’t tell you that pay-per-view helps the sport because it doesn’t. It hurts the sport because it narrows our audience, but it’s a fact of life. Every time we try to make an HBO World Championship Boxing fight, we’re up against mythical pay-per-view numbers. The promoters and fighters insist on pay-per-view because that’s where their greatest profits lie. It’s a big problem."
http://www.secondsout.com/Columns/index.cfm?cs=24779&ccs=208
(by the way that’s a great article, worth the read)
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Will give it a read.
Thanks.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
His follow up article is a good read too:
http://www.maxboxing.com/Hauser/Hauser010708.asp
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Boxing is doing great even if people aren’t watching it? Is that really the point you are trying to push?
Boxing is a professional sport and all professional sports are for profit, if people aren’t watching then money isn’t being made and people stop getting paid and the sport dies. The health of every professional sport is directly tied to how many fans are watching/spending money on it.
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said ...
… great fights are being made, and great fighters are fighting each other. Not too many high-level boxers seem to be starving, given what I’ve seen on 24/7.
The rumors of boxing’s demise are greatly exaggerated.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So because the top 1% of boxers are living large and the top match ups are still interesting the sport is doing good? What about the next generation of boxers? If the audience isn’t there then those paydays will disappear and they won’t get the kind of exposure the last generation of fighters got and the sport starts to decline. The health of a professional sport is directly tied to how many people are watching it. Boxing isn’t going to die, that’s just not going to happen(it’s a global olympic sport) but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t going into a real decline. Without the the fan/media attention the next generation of boxers will be faced with a much different reality.
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Boxing has plenty of fan attention.
Mexico, Europe, etc.
Just because it’s not growing at the rate in the U.S. that it is elsewhere, doesn’t mean there’s not money to be made.
And young boxers are watching the same 24/7s I am, so I think they’ll be plenty convinced that if they pursue the sport to a high level they’ll be well compensated.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There will always be money to be made in boxing but the fact that boxing is much bigger outside the US than inside is a issue considering that all the big money fights happen in the US and are marketed to US audiences. Heck the vast majority of the money in the sport revolves around HBO’s involvement not being big in Mexico.
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't know if just because a fight is in the U.S. you need American interest to have it make money.
Vegas casinos make a large percentage of their scratch off Asian tourists and gamblers anyway, or at least they did before all our 401ks went up in smoke.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The gambling money will always be there( adjusted for economic conditions of course) and the live gates for boxing are most likely to stay strong, it’s the PPV sales that are a problem(as well as the sport’s reliance on PPV).
This is where the difference in the business models of the two sports makes a big difference, the UFC can make a profit off a card without star power because a lot of what they are selling is the UFC name, boxing only draws off a small handful of stars and doesn’t do a very good job of building new ones. A MMA PPV gives exposure to multiple fighters a boxing PPV is based entirely around a single big fight. There is a middle class of up and coming MMA stars making good money and getting big exposure that boxing seems to be lacking.
by who me on Mar 4, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The question to me is...
Where will the sport be in the future? And I mean decades down the road.
Look at the NFL, possibly the most successful league around. They barely got by for years. The first Superbowls weren’t even sell-outs. Can you imagine tuning in to watch the Superbowl and seeing the stadium not full? Players commonly had full-time jobs outside of the sport. And this wasn’t that long ago.
Look at boxing, it had its ups and downs over the years, but the big business came with ppv and cable TV.
I think we are just beginning to see the very tip of the growth of mma as a sport.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 11:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
My buddy (a boxing lover/mma hater) hates on MMA because he sais boxing is way more skilled. He hates on the fact that MMA allows hammer fists. He sais there is no skill in throwing them and it basically looks like a street fight. I myself also am not a big fan of hammer fists but I don’t hate them.
What do you guys think?
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 4, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hammer fists aren't my favorite thing to watch aesthetically ...
… but in some positions they are undeniably the best way to do damage, or soften the guy up for a coming submission attempt or guard pass.
Boxers are more “skilled” because they focus completely on one skillset. If athletes like GSP spent all their times on the bags and mitts, like Floyd Mayweather Jr. does, they would be equally skilled. However, MMA athletes have to have a wider skill set, so they are more roundly skilled, even if not as fast or technical in that one aspect of the game.
It’s apples and oranges, really. Enjoying one doesn’t preclude an appreciation of the other, as I myself like to demonstrate.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 4, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IMO BJJ is much more technical than boxing and there are lots of guys in MMA that show some amazing skills
by MonkeyCHops on Mar 4, 2009 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BJJ is no more technical...
than high level boxing than basketball is more technical than football. To compete on the highest levels of a sport you have to master the technique in it. I don’t see what the point is of trying to say which sport is “more technical” considering it’s a hollow argument with no possible way of coming to a resolution. I know you’re just giving your opinion but I hate when I see sports compared on the basis of technique. Fuck, there is a lot of “technique” in curling…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 4, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to compare them, we could
create a league where they could compete against each other to see which technique comes out on top..oh, wait….
by Razreshat on Mar 4, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apples vs. Fruit medley.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 4, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can debate the merits of each sport all day with no obvious conclusions except that both sports are different and emphasize different aspects of fighting.
To say that boxing is far-and-away more popular because the top few earners make more than the top earners in MMA is quite a flawed argument. First off, income of athletes isn’t necessarily telling of popularity. I would say that the NFL is more popular than MLB in many respects. However, the top athletes in baseball have made more than those in football, generally speaking. Secondly, if you want to use income numbers as a metric, you should use the totals of all mixed martial artists and all boxers, or at least a broader view than what Atlas has taken.
The fact that there is more income parity in MMA as opposed to boxing doesn’t indicate that MMA is “more like communism” than boxing. There are a lot of variables that determine what fighters are paid, not the least of which are business structures and history. Both aspects are quite different when you analyze one sport against the other.
Denying that MMA is gaining on boxing in respect to popularity is an exercise in futility at this point. Statistics that assess public interest – with far greater accuracy than what amount De La Hoya makes per fight against what Chuck Liddell makes – bear this fact out.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 4, 2009 12:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If you want to compare these to sports leagues
then use Baseball and Football.
Baseball has no salary cap, and therefore some teams have outrageous budgets where as football has a salary cap to keep team v team rosters competitive. Which sport is enjoying unprecedented success and which one is arguably on the decline?
by Razreshat on Mar 4, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is making a ton of money. This is an argument people make that is in no way based in reality.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is more the victim of bad PR related to steroid and labor issues. My argument really dealt with the structure of sports and sports leagues and their significant impact on wages. Personal incomes aren’t that great of a measure of popularity. Teddy Atlas simply picked a favorable variable amongst a large basket of variables and went with it.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 4, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats not really the point.
One sport has individuals (or teams) that really only care about their own success. The other sport can see that the success of everyone means greater success for everyone.
by Razreshat on Mar 4, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure why all these boxing pundits have to keep saying things like this. Perhaps it makes them feel better about themselves and their sport.
Yeah, who got the final Death Blow? 'Cause I thought that Hawaiian guy had it comin' to him. - C. K.
by monkeyfightclub! on Mar 4, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the first part of this statement. I don’t know what the value is in disparaging MMA, and I don’t know why boxing pundits feel the need to do it. I like Teddy Atlas, he’s a good boxing mind and he knows the sport. But there’s simply no value in his comments.
I’m more impressed with Freddie Roach, an older boxing guy, yet one who still has an open mind to MMA. Regardless of whether Roy Jones’ card makes $, I also appreciate his perspective and effort.
I’m primarily a boxing fan, it’s what I’ve competed in, it’s what I grew up with. However, MMA is growing, denying that just sounds like bitterness.
by lcollins1 on Mar 4, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so tired
of all this boxing vs. mma crap. give it a rest already. they are two completly different sports. both are great for what they are. i love them both and dont miss any of the shows. i grew up watching boxing, i lived and breathed it and still do. my first taste of mma came with ufc 1 and i’ve been a fan of that ever since.
its not going to kill you to like and respect both. this bickering and arguing about which is best is just ridiculous. mma’s growth is not going to put hbo or showtime boxing out of business and boxing’s big fighers will always make more than any ufc fighter. getting quotes from a guy like teddy atlas, jim lamply (a complete idiot by the way) and the king of all idiots, larry merchant, talking trash about mma doesn’t change anything nor does dana white talking trash about boxing. its just making boxing guys look bad. maybe they should be quizzed on if they actually WATCH mma, know much about it, the rules, fighters, history, etc? Chances are they don’t so wtf difference does it make what they say. Same goes for any mma loyalist who thinks boxing is stupid but yet cant name any boxing champion.
yes mma is gaining in popularity, coming from where mma has been there really is no place to go but up. with the demise of the great fighters from our youth like tyson, evander, de la hoya, boxing will lose some in buyrates until the next generation comes along. mma might have the same thing happen to them soon as well once chuck and randy get knocked out another time and call it quits and somoene like bj penn calls it quits.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 12:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
mma might have the same thing happen to them soon as well once chuck and randy get knocked out another time and call it quits and somoene like bj penn calls it quits.
I doubt it. The UFC absolutely kicks boxing’s ass when it comes to preparing for the future. If Randy, Chuck, and BJ all quit at once, the UFC will take a minor hit, but they’ve already prepared tons of replacement stars.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 4, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree. its going to be minor. boxings hits have been minor as well. guys like manny pacquiao will get the same numbers as the tysons and de la hoyas eventually.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
guys like manny pacquiao will get the same numbers as the tysons and de la hoyas eventually.
It’s unlikely. Oscar and Tyson are/were massive stars, among the biggest attractions ever. No non-heavyweight has ever come close to the commercial success of Oscar de la Hoya and there isn’t one on the horizon that is likely to come close, either. Part of that is the fact that boxing rode Oscar for all he was worth for about a decade.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i would have said the same thing about a year ago. i still dont think anyone is going to have the draw of a tyson in the states but manny is close. i think hes pretty special. he has the ability and personality and fan base to pull similar numbers with the big fights. i think hes only going to get bigger with shows like 24/7.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pacquiao’s a great fighter and a good dude but his biggest fanbase is the Philippines, obviously, where there is just not real money in comparison to the States or even Hatton’s fanbase in England.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
give it time. i think he can be huge here.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hey I hope you're right
I think he can be (and is) very big, just not on the level of an Oscar or a Tyson.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tyson success was another indicator of a deep flaw in boxing's HW division at the time.
He wouldn’t have been half as big a deal if he wasn’t able to so easily trash the rest of the HW division.
by Razreshat on Mar 4, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it. Tyson and De La Hoya gained their fame and power in an era where there were no fight-game substitutes. They both are/were tremendously charismatic as well.
Boxing is still riding off the fame of the past 100 years, and more importantly the fame of the past 20. The UFC and MMA haven’t been in power long enough to take a significant bite out of the fanbase either through taking away fans or taking away the supply of new fans. Its over the next 10 years the pain will really be felt; I would not be shocked if boxing were a minor sport on the level of kickboxing in the US in the span of 25 years.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 4, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it. Tyson and De La Hoya gained their fame and power in an era where there were no fight-game substitutes. They both are/were tremendously charismatic as well.
I take slight issue with this. Oscar has no charisma at all, he’s just handsome. He was a freaking teen idol in his younger years. Oscar also had the benefit of being polarizing. A lot of people paid to see his fights hoping he’d lose.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks are a component of charisma, as is his hispanic background, yadda yadda yadda. Point is that he’s an outlier, you can’t replace him easily if at all.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 4, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that I agree with
I shudder to think where boxing would be without Oscar the last 15 years.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i could have done without oscar fighting guys 2 and 3 weight classes below him for the past 15 years.
without oscar, guys like mosley would have been given their due respect.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without Oscar, Mosley never would’ve made as much money as he has. Shane’s never been able to draw as an A-side. He’s a better fighter, but he’s not as big of a star and there’s nothing that changes that.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also, honestly
I’m not feeling the “Oscar didn’t fight the best guys” thing. He fought Mosley twice, Pacquiao, Trinidad, Hopkins (who is a much bigger man than him), Quartey, Whitaker, Chavez, Mayweather, Mayorga, Vargas, Gatti, Camacho, Molina, Leija, Genaro Hernandez, etc. His strength of schedule is the last problem when it comes to him.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok lets look at this.
mosley – lost twice. legit losses. no question
chavez – completly shot at the time of first fight. decides to fight him a second and beat him again.
whitaker – i though he won but MANY still say he lost. close fight
quartey – lost. quartey dominated most of the fight. even won the last minute of the 12th round where he was dumped.
mayweather – lost
mayorga – past his prime. blew up in weight to fight him
gatti – a jr. lightweight fighting at jr. middle
camacho – shot
molina – actually lost this fight too. also a jr. light going up in weight
leija – a featherweight, going up to lightweight to fight him
hernandez – jr. light going up in weight. also tail end of a long career
a career of fighting guys much smaller than him. great fighters though.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you emphasized how hopkins was much bigger than oscar in their fight but failed to mention how much bigger oscar was in his fights against gatti, camacho, molina, leija, hernanadez, pacquiao, forbs, dorsey, paez,etc.
yes i even mentioned troy dorsey and paez fights. both guys were dwarfed by oscar.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forbes was illegitimate and a sham. Guys go up in weight over their careers save for rare cases like Hagler and Hatton (who’s had two unimpressive fights at 147). I really don’t have any problem. Also Mayorga wasn’t really past his prime, Oscar just beat his ass because Oscar’s a lot better than Mayorga.
Oscar-Gatti was at 147, too, not 154.
It’s also overlooked that Oscar is a very big welterweight. He’s as big as Margarito.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
of course guys go up in weight….because most out grow it. stevie forbes, paez, dorsey, hernandez, leija etc etc were not those cases. they moved up because they were hand picked to fight oscar.
ah so gatti was 2 divisions above his prime fight weight. my bad. my point is still the same.
mayorga was passed his prime. he had already got his ass handed tim him worse by tito.
saying ocsar is a big welterweight only proves my point more
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forbes had long since moved up and fought even heavier than he did against Oscar. Forbes moved up to make money and continue his career.
My point re: Mayorga is he never really had a prime.
I get what you’re saying, but I really don’t think the fighters he fought is part of Oscar’s problem.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 5, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agree. im saying guys like him could have been bigger. hbo would have rode his gravy train for years. along with guys like tito and even bazooka quartey
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i see your point in your first paragraph but in all due respect you’re out of your mind in the second.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
riding off the fame of the HUNDRED years? come on man.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I may have exaggerated slightly with the specific number, but it really doesn’t matter once you get past a couple generations. That shit matters. Boxing was a fundamental component of American culture back in the 1920s and been integral ever since. Children were raised with the stories of great fighters and learned to respect boxing at their grandparents knee, and today you have families where three or four generations watch boxing and make up part of the fanbase. Letting a man stand up before you hit him again is a fundamental concept in people’s minds about fighting, and thats because boxing has been a part of the culture so long.
Compare that to the UFC, where most of the previous generations had either never heard of it or thought of it as a horrible bloodsport, where people who aren’t familiar with it see the ground fighting and think of it as monstrous, and where the only growth comes from among the youth culture, without any driver from older generations or the overall American culture.
5 years of popularity to generations worth of popularity. It matters.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 4, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as for purses
Pacquiao is being guaranteed $12 million before the purse split to fight Hatton, who is going to make somewhere around a $4-5 million guarantee. Mayweather wants a $20 million guarantee to come back and fight; that’s what he supposedly asked Golden Boy for when they contacted him to fight Shane Mosley.
Top-tier boxers make a lot more. But it’s a dumb argument. UFC brings in oodles of cash every month with a big show. Boxing generally has a “big show” every month or so, but it’s not the same. It’s not the talk of the sport for that short period of time every time. Right now the only fight casual fans are really discussing is Hatton-Pacquiao; that’s all nice that it’s such a big fight, but it doesn’t indicate growth or anything.
HBO is making some gradual adjustments by turning down mismatches. Their schedule has been excellent this year and they’ve made a lot of production and presentation changes that are all for the better. But sticking to it is the key thing. They’ve proven in the past that they just don’t.
As far as Teddy Atlas goes, I respect him immensely but he’s been really awful on Friday NIght Fights this season. It’s like he woke up in 2009 and went, “I’m done!” And his argument that boxing does big PPV buys is grotequely off base. One of the major problems in 2008 was the fact that a lot of major PPVs badly underperformed. Pavlik-Taylor II, Calzaghe-Jones and Pavlik-Hopkins especially. Oscar-Manny did great and there were strong successes with Marquez-Pacquiao II, Jones-Trinidad and Cotto-Margarito. Joens-Trinidad was a blip, though; neither fighter has any future and it was more novelty than anything. And Oscar-Manny was one giant leap toward the end of the de la Hoya Era. The second-biggest star in boxing is a guy that doesn’t fight (Mayweather), and the first is a guy that’s all but finished (Oscar). Past that you have Hatton and Pacquiao, who fight each other and…then what, you know? Pacquiao-Marquez III is a great, great fight to make, but it’s not going to do over 500K, and it would be considered a huge, unprecedented success for them to do that many.
There IS more looking toward the future in boxing now than there was a year ago. The economic crisis and the Oscar mauling made HBO sit up and accept that they have to change, at least for the time being, and HBO is the player in American boxing. But getting all the promoters to get their shit together will be harder and more painful.
Overall what Atlas has to say is pretty irrelevant; in the grand scheme of things he’s pretty unimportant. He’s not a matchmaker, he has no money invested in boxing. He’s just a guy that watches it and talks about it. He’s forgotten more about boxing than I’ll ever know, but he’s no businessman and he sees only what he chooses to.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree. anything teddy says is irrelevant. teddy has been awful for a while. his claim to fame is training tyson for a year or two 25 years ago and getting michael moorer knocked out by a 45 year old man.
hbo is getting worse and worse too. the ppv cards are horrendous and their are still mismatches. not to mention the commentators are completely biased and clueless.
agree too that there is a big push toward the future. just watch the last few hbo shows, they keep pimping out guys like chad dawson and james kirkland and tellling us they are the future.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
HBO has gotten better this year. It’s two months in, but their main events have all been legitimate, intriguing fights (Margarito-Mosley, Marquez-Diaz, Berto-Collazo, Campbell-Funeka) and there isn’t a bum main event on their schedule as it stands. Saturday they’re putting two good young action guys (James Kirkland and Joel Julio) in a main event with Victor Ortiz and Robert Guerrero featured prominently on the undercard. Every fight they have lined up has merit.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the below post was meant as a reply. sorry about that
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yea the cards have been ok. its back to quality fights. lets wait for the ppv’s though.
you can not say the same thing about their announcing. i used to like kellerman but his obvious bias for jmm was sicking to listen to.
i really want the don king supershows to come back. he had 4 and sometimes 5 world title fights on one card.
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
PPV
The only one that HBO has is Hatton-Pacquiao, and that has a Steven Luevano (#2 featherweight in the world) fight as the main undercard attraction for the time being. They’re cutting back on PPVs. They are distributing the April 4 Golden Boy show, which has four legitimate fights.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 4, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yea the lightweight show should be good. cards like that are few and far between though.
since they are cutting back they should be able to put on better cards. i’m hoping but i dont think its going to change.
like i said, i would love for old don king ppvs to come back. there is just no comparison to the ppvs of today and back in early – mid 90s
by sonofapsycho on Mar 4, 2009 1:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I guess the better question is what on earth does the top guys payout have to do with the sports place in the culture.
MMA and the UFC are on a roll. Boxing is… boxing, and the last guy the average person even knew existed is about to retire. Meh.
by toxic on Mar 4, 2009 2:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My thoughts on the good ol' boxing vs MMA debate
- Let’s start on a positive. A rather big positive actually. And that’s that the debate has become a whole lot more civil lately & that there’s now & pretty large middle ground between fans of the two sports.
It’s taken a few years, but the extreme polarization that we used to see so rediculously much of has faded. Now, we see a lot more intelligent debate, discussion & agreement between hardcore boxing fans & rabid followers of MMA.
Of which, I’m both BTW.
I began following boxing fanatically when I was 14 back in ’76 & became a boxer myself at 17. Which eventually led to me training at one of the first hybrid boxing/kickboxing gyms in the country in the mid ’80s which led to a black belt in Kempo & a love for the martial arts. Which naturally led to a huge interest in the first UFC. And the rest is history.
So, I have crazy love for both sports.
- The Teddy Atlas remarks are unfortunate, but I get what he was trying to say.
He started out well with what he said about MMA, but finished up in a rather half assed way for sure.
I actually met & worked with the man on several occasions back when I was still active in the game & he’s a terrific human being. Someone who’s back I’d have without a second thought. Which is why I’m offering that his love & dedication to boxing is such that I think it’s difficult for him to accept just how popular another combat sport in MMA has become SO popular SO fast, while boxing has remained standing still here in the States.
- Boxing’s stagnant state is something that is probably not going to be addressed properly here in the USA until all the old time power brokers are passed. That means that the old school guys like Bob Arum & Don King that have ruled the roost for the past four decades are going to have to give up the ghost before the younger generation of promoters like Golden Boy & Shaw & Dibella REALLY take over.
Then, we might see some dramatic, hopefully positive differences in how boxing is run.
- Speaking of which, I too, would LOVE to see a return to the “good old days” when Don King Productions would give us a steady stream of four & five championship fights on a single PPV. But, unfortunately, those days are gone. At least as far as King is concerned.
His heyday really ended a decade ago when he had a big stable of fighters like Chavez, Trinidad, Terry Norris, Tyson, Ruddock, Holyfield, Moorer, Simon Brown, Julian Jackson, Camacho, Ricardo Lopez & so on.
Now?
Who does he really got? Ricardo Mayorga?!! John Ruiz? Tim Bradley?
I mean seriously, his assets are VERY thin these days.
Which, is his own fault because he’s always been about signing ( or stealing, if you will ) established stars rather than developing fighters. And as a result, now he’s well into his senior years, in poor health without a whole lot left to offer.
by Jim Allcorn on Mar 4, 2009 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Many great points and views.
The one I am totally with you on, is the change at the promotional level once the King and Arum types have moved on. Really, it is just that boxing needs the next generation from top to bottom, with fresh perspectives and views. I, for the life of me, cannot understand, WHY these people cannot just accept both sports.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 4, 2009 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason boxing is on the way out in terms of money is because the spectacle is shifting towards MMA in a big way.
For whatever reason, wrestling and kickboxing never did captivate the interest of people in the US the way that boxing did. But the problem for them is that no pure boxer will ever be able to claim to be the “baddest man on the planet” now that MMA has arrived.
I think the presence of MMA has forced those guys to make all the tough fights that they can because they smell their demise. But it has made for entertaining boxing matches. And the good ones still make a lot more than MMA fighters.
I could see a bunch of MMA fighters try their hand at boxing as long as the money is good.
by penxv on Mar 4, 2009 6:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I am curious as to the pay rates for 2008s top 50 boxers vs MMA. I cant argue with the “top” boxers making huge money but I would believe that the lower numbers start to even out.
Didnt the UFC total PPV buy for 08 set the all time record? I know they put on more events but that does indicate a loyal fan base. I think boxing is more about a handful of fighters. I bet smoogy could name a huge mma draw for every boxer.
Its sad to see this, I grew up with Hearns, Hagler, Holmes, Spinks, Duran and such. I can say boxing isn’t the same sport it was 30 years ago.
Best fight I have seen in recent years was Calzahge vs Lacy. But I will be the 1st to admit my following of boxing has fallen to zero lately. I think the Calz vs Lacy fight is what is right about boxing, if you like any form of combat sports this is a must see.
What has brought me from boxing to MMA was the technical aspect of the sport. BJs ground game allows him to use his stand up. Chucks sprawl allowed him bang. Once people stopped trying to take Chuck down he was getting slobber knocked. His game didn’t evolve, so now hes suspect.
I guess what I am saying is, its OK to like both sports for what they are. Trying to compare the two is impossible. I prefer to enjoy the performances these incredible athletes put on. Its just that today I prefer MMA.
by Riney on Mar 4, 2009 7:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Best fight I have seen in recent years was Calzahge vs Lacy. But I will be the 1st to admit my following of boxing has fallen to zero lately. I think the Calz vs Lacy fight is what is right about boxing, if you like any form of combat sports this is a must see.
I’ll make you a mix tape. Of suggestions. With fights way better than this one. This was an incredible performance by Calzaghe, but Lacy’s a … how do I say it? He’s not what he was cracked up to be. Calzaghe ate his lunch.
Israel Vazquez-Rafael Marquez: The Trilogy
Juan Manuel Marquez-Manny Pacquiao, both fights
Miguel Cotto v. Antonio Margarito
Joel Casamayor v. Michael Katsidis
Sakio Bika v. Jaidon Codrington
Somsak Sithchatchawal v. Mahyar Monshipour
Jermain Taylor v. Kelly Pavlik (first fight)
Michael Katsidis v. Czar Amonsot
Michael Katsidis v. Graham Earl
Steve Cunningham v. Tomasz Adamek
Rafael Concepcion v. Jorge Arce
Carl Froch v. Jean Pascal
Miguel Cotto v. Shane Mosley
Miguel Cotto v. Zab Judah
Marco Antonio Barrera v. Juan Manuel Marquez
These are all from the last two years, plus the Juan Manuel Marquez-Juan Diaz fight from last Saturday was outstanding. I’m not being smug, either, so please don’t take it that way. There are some great fights you’ve been missing and I think you should see them. At least check out the Vazquez-Marquez trilogy; the first two fights are embedded in this post.
"If they cut my bald head open, they will find one big boxing glove. That's all I am. I live it." -- Marvin Hagler
by SC on Mar 5, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
About PPV buys...
The biggest boxing PPVs are still bigger than the biggest UFC PPVs, but not by a whole lot. They also cost more to buy usually, but not by a whole lot. When it comes down to it though, the UFC is putting on 12-14 PPVs per year compared to boxing doing maybe two or three huge PPVs a year. I’m pretty sure the UFC already has surpassed boxing in terms of both total annual PPV buys and total PPV revenue.
I don’t think boxing is dying, especially with Don King being less relevant than ever, but they certainly aren’t growing, while MMA is still growing by leaps and bounds.
by Chromium on Mar 5, 2009 12:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The UFC past HBO boxing and the WWE for PPV buys back in 2006(UFC, HBO and WWE make up the vast majority of the PPV market). Boxing has been having a couple of huge mega-events a year for the last couple of years (mostly because of Del La Hoya) but for the most part their buyrate numbers aren’t any better than the UFC’s average buyrates. I’m not sure how the UFC does compared to boxing as a whole as all the numbers I have seen compare company to company not company to a entire sport and I haven’t seen any numbers for what Showtime’s PPV’s have been doing lately.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Calzaghe vs Lacy the best. REALLY?
I’m not trying to give you a hard time Riney, honestly, I’m not.
But I am rather surprised that THAT was the best boxing match that you’ve seen lately. As that bout was about two years ago & really wasn’t a competitive fight, but rather a one sided beat down that Lacy very nearly got stopped in.
Only Lacy’s guts & Calzaghe’s workrate & skill level made the contest that interesting.
For much, MUCH better examples of what makes the sport of boxing so great & examples of the game at it’s best, I’d suggest watching Corrales – Castillo I or any of the three Vasquez – Marquez fights. ALL of which are amoung the VERY best fights of all time.
by Jim Allcorn on Mar 5, 2009 12:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
“You don’t have the public talking about all the other fights in between.”
-Atlas explained it best himself….pointing to two fights in 12 months of a calendar year as proof that Boxing is still the penultimate combat sport is a fallacy.
Gatti.
Dekkers.
Pele.
Tadahiro Nomura.
Hidehiko Yoshida.
Aoki.
Kang.
Vanderlei.
by theworldsoldestsport on Mar 5, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Penultimate
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
by FRANKIE on Mar 5, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
