UFC Co-Promote Boxing?

[ZEB]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Please stop goldengloves. There really isn’t anyone on these forums who disagrees with you-[/quote]

Not one person huh? Now how would you know that? Are you a psychic as well as an imbecile?

we’ve all stated at one time or another that there’s room for both sports.

And that’s what I’ve been debating against? Is it? Your reading comprehension has gotten no better through the years. How many times have I told you? Less posting more reading, you just don’t listen.

But I don’t want to see dipshit turn this into one his “Praise jeebus” threads that go on for 435 pages

I’m sorry that you’ve had a hard life and work for very little money, but blaming God isn’t going to help Irish.

and if he can go on for that long slurring the gays,

I know how it must feel reading all those nasty statistics huh? Facts are a heck of thing to contend with, but I’ve been very cautious not to slur your brothers Irish. I know how sensitive you are and try to spare your feelings

For the sake of the forum, huh?

If you cared about the forum you wouldn’t act like an illiterate spoiled child. Oh, that’s not an act is it? No.

By the way you better get on over to the political forum it’s time for your nightly ass kicking.

[ZEB]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is something I’ve said over and over- there still is a race factor in both sports. Blacks and hispanics are going to gravitate towards boxing- an MMA match in North Philly is going to draw about as many people as a city council meeting. However, put a boxing match there, and it packs the house.

When I meet a white guy, I don’t even bother to mention boxing unless I’m referencing a fight I’m going to watch that night. But if I meet a black guy or a boricua, I’m going to ask him quickly if he likes boxing. If I meet any hispanic that is off the boat from another country, especially a Cuban or a Mexican, it’s almost gauranteed that they’re going to watch it.

There is still a cultural element in those hispanic countries that will keep them going to boxing as well- that Roberto Duran, excessively macho attitude that says real men fight with their fists, not on their backs. [/quote]

Agreed.

The only thing that I think, in relation to the race issue, is that boxing’s popularity in the black community is fading a little bit. This is coming from the, “white guy talking to his black friends” perspective, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like boxing is shifting to be even more Hispanic.

I will also say that my group of 4 showed up at the local Hooters to watch the May-Pac fight, only to be told, they weren’t showing it and they had the UFC (the free Couture-Vera card) on instead. Could have been because the UFC card was cheaper to show, but I did find that interesting.

Also, at the youth center I volunteer at (which is 90% black), just about all of the kids (8-12 years old for the most part) know who Brock Lesnar is, but most don’t know who Floyd Mayweather is. I suspect that’s because he was a pro wrestler though, which is more popular with younger kids than boxing or MMA.

I think everybody knows that boxing is not at it’s heyday right now, but to say that it’s dying is a little silly. Right now, the UFC has a very strong brand and many people (like me) will watch any card, just because they trust the brand. There’s no law that suggests that will continue though. Considering the rapid influx of Hispanics into America (George Lopez already has a cable talk show, how much longer until Hispanics have enough buying power that a netowrk puts somebody of Mexican descent on The Late Show?) and Pac’s insane popularity in the Philipine’s, it’s possible that boxing could be set up for a huge resurgence in 10 years or so.

Right now, American white people aren’t too big on boxing, and American white people tend to be very dismissive of what isn’t popular with them. But we also heard how baseball was dying 15 years or so and the NBA (in it’s Jordan heyday) was exploding, and now baseball is bigger than ever and basketball is in trouble. It’s all cyclical.

One thing that helps MMA is that it is easier to transition from another sport into a grappling art then it is to boxing. Boxing is so reliant on hand speed, that almost every dominant champ was training at a very young age. The strength-dominant wrestling aspect of MMA means that it is possible (although obviously highly difficult) for a high-visibility crossover star (like Lesnar) to go into MMA, where it seems pretty much impossible with boxing. Imagine a Mike Vick-esque star defensive end who gets suspended or kicked out of the NFL and decides he’s done with football and wants to pick up MMA. It’s not unreasonable that he could be good enough to fight in the UFC within two years and that would certainly capture the general public’s eye.

Any combat sport is probably going to be somewhat niche. MMA took off when they got a crossover star who captured the public’s eye for a bit. It will fade when interest in Lesnar dies down a bit. Do you think that a boxing champ can still capture the general public for an extended period of time?

Just some food for thought.[/quote]

Very good well thought out post.

[goldengloves]

I’d respond to your entire post but it’d be pointless, you’ll either completely disregard everything or choose to repeat the same arguments. In fact you’ve been trying to support the same arguments for multiple pages.

Here’s the site I got the buy numbers from: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/1/2/1230487/ufc-destroyed-all-the-ppv-records

No you have not. Not only don’t you base your conclusions off of any data when I ask you to post where you got a certain piece of information your next post is off running in a different direction, it’s almost like you’re bipolar (on this topic).

I can remember quite vividly posting my source on the UFC’s fan base overlapping more with wrestling’s and the UFC pulling from wrestling PPVs rather than boxing PPVs.

Let’s not nit pick, keep in mind I said about that reading problem of yours is popping up again. I also talked about other mma organizations having fights as well.

Nit pick? No, I’m not. I asked you how many super fights in MMA there are and you proceeded to deem the vast majority of UFC fights super fights despite their poor PPV numbers. Not only that but you’ve never told me how many icons there are in MMA.

Do you know what you’re arguing about? Why don’t you go look at my first few posts and come back to me.

Well you’re saying that MMA being on TV is indicative of its popularity, boxing is on TV quite a lot too. That argument can’t be used in favor of either sport.

No big deal the point was that any UFC show on ppv draws pretty well.

A super fight is quite different than a mediocre card, I’d say calling a mediocre card a super fight is misleading.

None of what you’ve said negates the basic law of supply and demand which is in effect in all business situations. If there is ZERO (or very little) demand for a fight whether it be boxing or mma then there will be no supply. Why you cannot understand used to befuddle me before I realized that I am debating someone who throws logic to the wind. And why? Because YOU LOVE BOXING and facts matter little in your world.

How would it be logical for HBO to only put on PPVs? HBO has more to worry about than PPV, it’s a cable network. PPV only generates a small portion of their revenue, general programming that generates cable subscriptions is what will make them the most money. Airing good non-PPV fights only makes purchasing a HBO subscription more attractive. It’s more expensive to air the fight as a PPV too, that’s probably why it’s reserved for super fights.

Beyond your PPV argument, boxing is on TV quite a lot: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?page=boxing/schedule/index

[anon31651765]

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is something I’ve said over and over- there still is a race factor in both sports. Blacks and hispanics are going to gravitate towards boxing- an MMA match in North Philly is going to draw about as many people as a city council meeting. However, put a boxing match there, and it packs the house.

When I meet a white guy, I don’t even bother to mention boxing unless I’m referencing a fight I’m going to watch that night. But if I meet a black guy or a boricua, I’m going to ask him quickly if he likes boxing. If I meet any hispanic that is off the boat from another country, especially a Cuban or a Mexican, it’s almost gauranteed that they’re going to watch it.

There is still a cultural element in those hispanic countries that will keep them going to boxing as well- that Roberto Duran, excessively macho attitude that says real men fight with their fists, not on their backs. [/quote]

Agreed.

The only thing that I think, in relation to the race issue, is that boxing’s popularity in the black community is fading a little bit. This is coming from the, “white guy talking to his black friends” perspective, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like boxing is shifting to be even more Hispanic.

I will also say that my group of 4 showed up at the local Hooters to watch the May-Pac fight, only to be told, they weren’t showing it and they had the UFC (the free Couture-Vera card) on instead. Could have been because the UFC card was cheaper to show, but I did find that interesting.

Also, at the youth center I volunteer at (which is 90% black), just about all of the kids (8-12 years old for the most part) know who Brock Lesnar is, but most don’t know who Floyd Mayweather is. I suspect that’s because he was a pro wrestler though, which is more popular with younger kids than boxing or MMA.

I think everybody knows that boxing is not at it’s heyday right now, but to say that it’s dying is a little silly. Right now, the UFC has a very strong brand and many people (like me) will watch any card, just because they trust the brand. There’s no law that suggests that will continue though. Considering the rapid influx of Hispanics into America (George Lopez already has a cable talk show, how much longer until Hispanics have enough buying power that a netowrk puts somebody of Mexican descent on The Late Show?) and Pac’s insane popularity in the Philipine’s, it’s possible that boxing could be set up for a huge resurgence in 10 years or so.

Right now, American white people aren’t too big on boxing, and American white people tend to be very dismissive of what isn’t popular with them. But we also heard how baseball was dying 15 years or so and the NBA (in it’s Jordan heyday) was exploding, and now baseball is bigger than ever and basketball is in trouble. It’s all cyclical.

One thing that helps MMA is that it is easier to transition from another sport into a grappling art then it is to boxing. Boxing is so reliant on hand speed, that almost every dominant champ was training at a very young age. The strength-dominant wrestling aspect of MMA means that it is possible (although obviously highly difficult) for a high-visibility crossover star (like Lesnar) to go into MMA, where it seems pretty much impossible with boxing. Imagine a Mike Vick-esque star defensive end who gets suspended or kicked out of the NFL and decides he’s done with football and wants to pick up MMA. It’s not unreasonable that he could be good enough to fight in the UFC within two years and that would certainly capture the general public’s eye.

Any combat sport is probably going to be somewhat niche. MMA took off when they got a crossover star who captured the public’s eye for a bit. It will fade when interest in Lesnar dies down a bit. Do you think that a boxing champ can still capture the general public for an extended period of time?

Just some food for thought.[/quote]

Lot of good stuff. But yes, I think a champ can still get the public- if Tyson came out now at age 19, he would get EVERYONE’s attention.

And fights are INSANELY expensive for bars to broadcast, so any free card attracting any kind of attention will go on before a PPV match (although May and Pac never fought, so I’m not sure which fight you’re talking about).

But it’s not going anywhere.

[anon31651765]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
A bunch of worthless crap.
[/quote]

Another worthy post. I’d expect nothing more from some pussy ass, inbred, hypocritical bible thumper though.

Do what you like redneck.

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
I’d respond to your entire post but it’d be pointless, you’ll either completely disregard everything or choose to repeat the same arguments. In fact you’ve been trying to support the same arguments for multiple pages.[/quote]

You’re confused, you’ve been the one who has regularly ignored the facts that I’ve posted.

Here’s the site I got the buy numbers from: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/1/2/1230487/ufc-destroyed-all-the-ppv-records

I can remember quite vividly posting my source on the UFC’s fan base overlapping more with wrestling’s and the UFC pulling from wrestling PPVs rather than boxing PPVs.

You did say that but you didn’t post any information to back it up to my recollection. But if I’m wrong please post it again I’d love to read it.

[quote]Let’s not nit pick, keep in mind I said about that reading problem of yours is popping up again. I also talked about other mma organizations having fights as well.

Nit pick? No, I’m not. I asked you how many super fights in MMA there are and you proceeded to deem the vast majority of UFC fights super fights despite their poor PPV numbers. Not only that but you’ve never told me how many icons there are in MMA.[/quote]

First of all I don’t see the numbers being “poor”. I’m not comparing them to the rare super fight that boxing puts on. Also, this debate (because I think you forget) is not about mma superstars is it? It’s about my original premise which was (and remains) boxing is NOT as popular as it once was and may fade further if something is not done.

If you’re don’t believe me just scroll back to the beginning. If you’re changing the debate then let me.

[quote]Do you know what you’re arguing about? Why don’t you go look at my first few posts and come back to me.

Well you’re saying that MMA being on TV is indicative of its popularity, boxing is on TV quite a lot too. That argument can’t be used in favor of either sport.[/quote]

There are a fair amount of boxing matches on TV. However does boxing have its own show such as mma does with the Ultimate Fighter? And again, I’m not saying boxing doesn’t have its shows, its fans and a following. I’m saying that it’s not what it was and in danger of getting worse.

[quote]No big deal the point was that any UFC show on ppv draws pretty well.

A super fight is quite different than a mediocre card, I’d say calling a mediocre card a super fight is misleading.[/quote]

All boxing has is “super fights” big deal. The reason is they have no depth in the sport right now, the only people who can sell tickets are the super stars and there are a dwindling number of them.

[ZEB]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
A bunch of worthless crap.
[/quote]

Another worthy post. I’d expect nothing more from some pussy ass, inbred, hypocritical bible thumper though.

Do what you like redneck.[/quote]

LOL, Irish my, my what a bitter little man you are. Which do you think has harmed you more; your poor upbringing, lack of education, or current low socio-economic status?

Hey, why split hairs it’s probably a little of each.

Fair enough?

[goldengloves]

You’re confused, you’ve been the one who has regularly ignored the facts that I’ve posted.

Lol.

You did say that but you didn’t post any information to back it up to my recollection. But if I’m wrong please post it again I’d love to read it.

http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=3922

[quote]First of all I don’t see the numbers being “poor”. I’m not comparing them to the rare super fight that boxing puts on. Also, this debate (because I think you forget) is not about mma superstars is it? It’s about my original premise which was (and remains) boxing is NOT as popular as it once was and may fade further if something is not done.

If you’re don’t believe me just scroll back to the beginning. If you’re changing the debate then let me.[/quote]

Ever since about the mid 2000s HBO has opted to have few PPVs, it wasn’t forced into having fewer PPVs due to lack of popularity. To even have a fight as a HBO PPV fight it’ll have to be a super fight.

You’ve also tried to state that boxing relies on a handful of super stars. While it’s true you haven’t shown that MMA doesn’t too rely on a handful of super stars.

There are a fair amount of boxing matches on TV. However does boxing have its own show such as mma does with the Ultimate Fighter? And again, I’m not saying boxing doesn’t have its shows, its fans and a following. I’m saying that it’s not what it was and in danger of getting worse.

Of course it wont be what it once was, super fights used to be the biggest events of the year. The popularity of boxing hasn’t even been drastically reduced by a competitor, it just isn’t the only combat sport anymore.

All boxing has is “super fights” big deal. The reason is they have no depth in the sport right now, the only people who can sell tickets are the super stars and there are a dwindling number of them.

That’s bound to happen outside of a league/organization. What does it prove though?

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

Ever since about the mid 2000s HBO has opted to have few PPVs, it wasn’t forced into having fewer PPVs due to lack of popularity. To even have a fight as a HBO PPV fight it’ll have to be a super fight. [/quote]

Yes because that’s the only sort of boxing that will sell, as I said before.

You’ve also tried to state that boxing relies on a handful of super stars. While it’s true you haven’t shown that MMA doesn’t too rely on a handful of super stars.

The proof is in the pudding as my grandfather used to say. Boxing only has a few “super fights” per year because the few super stars can only fight so many times. The fact that UFC has so many fights on is because they have a larger talent pool and I think just about everyone on this site would agree with me on that one. It’s an obvious problem that boxing has. Doesn’t mean that they can’t come back from that, as I’ve stated many times, but right now they are down.

boxing hasn’t even been drastically reduced by a competitor, it just isn’t the only combat sport anymore.

Well now if it “isn’t the only combat sport around anymore” don’t you think that one (only one there are many) of boxings problems is the fact that it isn’t the only combat sport around any more? It seems logical doesn’t it?

[quote]All boxing has is “super fights” big deal. The reason is they have no depth in the sport right now, the only people who can sell tickets are the super stars and there are a dwindling number of them.

That’s bound to happen outside of a league/organization. What does it prove though?
[/quote]

It helps prove what I’ve been saying for many posts, boxing does not have the depth of fighters that it used to (HW division one example) and that is hurting them. Now I have no idea if it because mma is rising, but it could be. As another poster on this thread stated, there might not be as much young talent going to boxing as there used to be.

I don’t think that any of my points are unreasonable. Boxing has seen better days and I think you’ll even admit that, you have before. So, what’s your real beef?

[anon31651765]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

LOL, Irish my, my what a bitter little man you are. Which do you think has harmed you more; your poor upbringing, lack of education, or current low socio-economic status?

Hey, why split hairs it’s probably a little of each.

Fair enough?
[/quote]

HAHAHAH! I’ll bet my fucking life that I’ve got more and better of whatever you’ve got. The fact that you think that you are better in any one of those categories is absolutely laughable.

The only thing you’ve got on me is years and time (to answer every post line by line? Really?)

(looking around, rolls eyes, shakes head, still thinks Zebs a fuckin pussy.)

[goldengloves]

Yes because that’s the only sort of boxing that will sell, as I said before.

No, it’s because it isn’t profitable for HBO. As I’ve said before; HBO PPV is a business venture. First and foremost it’s a cable network competing with other cable networks, it’s also a billion dollar company. It’s not going to lose money on PPVs to engage in a dick swinging contest with a company that generates a fraction of the revenue they do. Fights that sell “pretty well”[by your standards] end up making fighters and promoters money, not HBO.

[quote]
The proof is in the pudding as my grandfather used to say. Boxing only has a few “super fights” per year because the few super stars can only fight so many times. The fact that UFC has so many fights on is because they have a larger talent pool and I think just about everyone on this site would agree with me on that one. It’s an obvious problem that boxing has. Doesn’t mean that they can’t come back from that, as I’ve stated many times, but right now they are down.[/quote]

Please, the UFC puts on few super fights. Putting on a greater number of PPVs means absolutely nothing, the UFC depends on those PPV numbers. The UFC’s whole objective is to put on PPVs, HBO’s isn’t.

Well now if it “isn’t the only combat sport around anymore” don’t you think that one (only one there are many) of boxings problems is the fact that it isn’t the only combat sport around any more? It seems logical doesn’t it?

No, not since it’s been shown UFC PPVs don’t pull from boxing PPVs.

Most casual fans probably watch both UFC and boxing anyway, it really wont be an issue.

[quote]It helps prove what I’ve been saying for many posts, boxing does not have the depth of fighters that it used to (HW division one example) and that is hurting them. Now I have no idea if it because mma is rising, but it could be. As another poster on this thread stated, there might not be as much young talent going to boxing as there used to be.

I don’t think that any of my points are unreasonable. Boxing has seen better days and I think you’ll even admit that, you have before. So, what’s your real beef?[/quote]

Depth isn’t the problem, it’s who the champions are. The Klitschkos are European, typical European fighters[Wlad anyway], and primarily fight outside of America. The same can be said for David Haye, he’s not very appealing to Americans either, he only fights in Europe. I’d say the popularity shifted from HW to lower divisions because Americans no longer dominate the division, they dominate lower divisions. The HW division just wont be as dominant in America without a fighter who’s either American or fighting primarily in America.

A big problem isn’t depth, it’s the nature of boxing. Promoters make investments and they want to protect that investment, you could win a gold medal at the Olympics and your promoter will still bring your career along slowly. Even if you’re good enough to be a world champion[again] it’ll probably be five years before you’re given the chance.

[jtrinsey]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lot of good stuff. But yes, I think a champ can still get the public- if Tyson came out now at age 19, he would get EVERYONE’s attention.

And fights are INSANELY expensive for bars to broadcast, so any free card attracting any kind of attention will go on before a PPV match (although May and Pac never fought, so I’m not sure which fight you’re talking about).

But it’s not going anywhere.[/quote]

Yeah, I meant Pac and Cotto; I was projecting my fantasy I think.

I think a guy like Tyson would definitely get people’s attention. Right now, all the heavyweights seem pretty vanilla.

I think lack of branding and too many weight classes also hurts boxing. Right now, with MMA, the general-public impression is that anybody on a UFC main card is one of the best fighters in the world and the guys on the prelims are hungry young guys looking for a shot. Whether this is true (and it’s obviously not necessarily true) or not is somewhat irrelevant, because that is what the average American seems to think.

Also, only having 4 weight classes (not excluding feather/bantam/etc., which only the hardcores care about) helps MMA. It’s easy for a casual fan to know that Penn, GSP, Silva and Lesnar are the guys to beat. To be honest, I couldn’t even name you half of the weight classes in boxing, much less who the best in all the divisions are. And I’m the kind of guy who right now orders 2-3 boxing PPV’s per year, and would certainly order more if I had a better idea about what I was getting. Casual fans like to know what is at stake and where the guys who are fighting stand. Most UFC cards (exceptions exist obviously, such as the godawful Coleman-Couture one coming up) feature either a champ or two guys trying to get a shot at the champ.

Casual fans will order UFC 110 because (in part) they know that Nog-Velasquez are fighting for the shot to take on Lesnar. They’ll watch 111 because the champ (GSP) is fighting. They’ll order 112 because another champ (and possibly two) are fighting. They’ll order 113 because the champ who just won a controversial decision is taking a rematch.

I think that white America is increasingly falling in love with order and analysis in their sports. We love fantasy football. We love March Madness (partially) because somebody has seeded this team 13 and told us it would be incredible if they won their first game. We know what’s at stake. I think that white America just doesn’t really understand too much about what is at stake in each boxing match, especially the undercards. We like to know how good somebody is supposed to be, so we can decide whether to root for the underdog or the dominant favorite.

I don’t have any solutions. I think the Super Six thing is a cool idea that can catch on more and more. Obviously, the splintered belts and promotions are a problem. Eventually it will become a problem with MMA and it will be interesting to see how they deal with that. Maybe the best thing that could happen with boxing would be for it to “die out” a little more in America and have a Dana White-esque figure consolidate some fighters into a strong promotion. But that comes with its own set of problems.

I think it’s an interesting thing to take a look at. I am more of a fan of MMA (for some of the reasons listed), but it is also hard to beat a boxing superfight. I think I would watch May-Pac over any fight that MMA could put together, with the possible exception of a 2v2 tag-team match between the Machida and Rua brothers. For the forseeable future, boxing has the historic background (there is unlikely ever to be an MMA equivalent to Ali, Lewis, Marciano, Braddock, or even guys like Pac and De La Hoya who can run for Mayor and actually win), the support of the Hispanic community and the less brutal appeal to the more casual fans. MMA appeals much more to teenage and young-20s white guys who have the potential to be the ones driving mainstream media and buying power. But they also have potential to stop caring about MMA and start buying NFL season tickets.

Only time will tell.

[ZEB]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

LOL, Irish my, my what a bitter little man you are. Which do you think has harmed you more; your poor upbringing, lack of education, or current low socio-economic status?

Hey, why split hairs it’s probably a little of each.

Fair enough?
[/quote]

HAHAHAH! I’ll bet my fucking life that I’ve got more and better of whatever you’ve got. The fact that you think that you are better in any one of those categories is absolutely laughable. [/quote]

Just going by what you’ve said through the years right here on T Nation. I know you’ve complained about your low paying job etc. If you’re doing better it only proves one thing, if you can do it anyone can make it in America, And I mean ANYONE! God Bless the USA.

The only thing you’ve got on me is years and time

I say people in your position should believe just about anything if it helps them get through the day.

(looking around, rolls eyes, shakes head, still thinks Zebs a fuckin pussy.)

(Still thinks Irish is an uneducated low-life, and deep down he knows it too

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Yes because that’s the only sort of boxing that will sell, as I said before.

No, it’s because it isn’t profitable for HBO. As I’ve said before; HBO PPV is a business venture. First and foremost it’s a cable network competing with other cable networks, it’s also a billion dollar company. It’s not going to lose money on PPVs to engage in a dick swinging contest with a company that generates a fraction of the revenue they do. Fights that sell “pretty well”[by your standards] end up making fighters and promoters money, not HBO.[/quote]

I think we agree on this. That’s why they need big names to make it sell and boxing has no depth. In other words the big names in boxing sell tickets, but there are only a few.

The proof is in the pudding as my grandfather used to say. Boxing only has a few “super fights” per year because the few super stars can only fight so many times. The fact that UFC has so many fights on is because they have a larger talent pool and I think just about everyone on this site would agree with me on that one. It’s an obvious problem that boxing has. Doesn’t mean that they can’t come back from that, as I’ve stated many times, but right now they are down.

Please, the UFC puts on few super fights. Putting on a greater number of PPVs means absolutely nothing[/quote]

I disagree, if money could be made with more boxing matches (at any level ppv wise) they would put them on. The fact is, as I’ve repeatedly said, there are only a handful of boxers who can sell tickets so they are “super fights”. MMA has far more depth of talent right now which allows them to put on many more of fights per year.

[quote]Well now if it “isn’t the only combat sport around anymore” don’t you think that one (only one there are many) of boxings problems is the fact that it isn’t the only combat sport around any more? It seems logical doesn’t it?

No, not since it’s been shown UFC PPVs don’t pull from boxing PPVs.[/quote]

That’s nonsense. You are claiming because a Mayweather fight is able to out draw a UFC that boxing is not hurt by the UFC being on the same night. That simply isn’t true. There are many who would pay to see a boxing super fight if there were no UFC. They do in fact share the same demographic as I’ve pointed out it’s the 18-39 male age group.

Most casual fans probably watch both UFC and boxing anyway, it really wont be an issue.

If you admit that they “share” fans then you must also admit that when boxing is on at the same time a UFC event is on that they must choose one, they’re certainly not buying both. Hence, whichever one wins has still been hurt by the other being on. Certainly you can admit that any sane person would. In addition to that if one combat sport is on one weekend followed by another combat sport one week later the one that follows the first is also harmed because there is only so much money that can be spent on combat sports per month. Most people have only so much disposable income.

[quote]It helps prove what I’ve been saying for many posts, boxing does not have the depth of fighters that it used to (HW division one example) and that is hurting them. Now I have no idea if it because mma is rising, but it could be. As another poster on this thread stated, there might not be as much young talent going to boxing as there used to be.

I don’t think that any of my points are unreasonable. Boxing has seen better days and I think you’ll even admit that, you have before. So, what’s your real beef?

Depth isn’t the problem, it’s who the champions are.[/quote]

But who the champions are will rely on the depth of the sport. If when Mayweather retires there isn’t a person of equal stature to take his place (at some weight class) then boxing suffers, simple economics.

The HW division just wont be as dominant in America without a fighter who’s either American or fighting primarily in America.

I agree, but that still hurts boxing in America.

A big problem isn’t depth,

But it is see above. It’s one problem there are many in boxing.

[quote]Promoters make investments and they want to protect that investment, you could win a gold medal at the Olympics and your promoter will still bring your career along slowly. Even if you’re good enough to be a world champion[again] it’ll probably be five years before you’re given the chance.

I agree, that’s one more thing that harms boxing. The promoter doesn’t always have the fighters best interest at heart. People like Don King or Bob Arum have harmed boxing.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lot of good stuff. But yes, I think a champ can still get the public- if Tyson came out now at age 19, he would get EVERYONE’s attention.

And fights are INSANELY expensive for bars to broadcast, so any free card attracting any kind of attention will go on before a PPV match (although May and Pac never fought, so I’m not sure which fight you’re talking about).

But it’s not going anywhere.[/quote]

@jtrinsey, I think you’re right.

@FIrish, that is MY main point:
A young Tyson wold probably be drawn towards MMA today. Assuming, he is not latino nor philippino, like already established.
But let’s agree to disagree. You two had solid arguments.
In ~10 years, we will probably see a definite trend.
It will be most interesting to see where Europe and the ex-eastern bloc will gravitate to,the dark horses, so to speak.

[anon31651765]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@FIrish, that is MY main point:
A young Tyson wold probably be drawn towards MMA today. Assuming, he is not latino nor philippino, like already established.
But let’s agree to disagree. You two had solid arguments.
In ~10 years, we will probably see a definite trend.
It will be most interesting to see where Europe and the ex-eastern bloc will gravitate to,the dark horses, so to speak.[/quote]

Certainly possible- but again, an MMA Gym @ $120 a month, or a boxing gym at $25. Which one will a young ghetto rat be able to afford?

If that changes in the near future, then it absolutely could happen.

[anon31651765]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
more worthless shit
[/quote]

You can say whatever makes you feel better. Knowing that the best years of your life are over has to be depressing, especially when younger guys like me are passing you in every respect. Keep fooling yourself though.

[jtrinsey]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@FIrish, that is MY main point:
A young Tyson wold probably be drawn towards MMA today. Assuming, he is not latino nor philippino, like already established.
But let’s agree to disagree. You two had solid arguments.
In ~10 years, we will probably see a definite trend.
It will be most interesting to see where Europe and the ex-eastern bloc will gravitate to,the dark horses, so to speak.[/quote]

Certainly possible- but again, an MMA Gym @ $120 a month, or a boxing gym at $25. Which one will a young ghetto rat be able to afford?

If that changes in the near future, then it absolutely could happen.[/quote]

I agree, young Mike Tyson is not going into MMA. The youth center that I mentioned before is adjunct to the MMA gym I train at. Kids can take free lessons in boxing, wrestling, ju-jitsu, etc., and in return the county picks up a lot of the facility costs. This place is not in a great area, so I think the kids there certainly qualify as “young ghetto rats.” I can tell you that they have absolutely zero interest in putting somebody in their guard and practicing a triangle choke. Standing rear naked choke? Sure. Power double-leg takedown? Definitely. Half-guard lockdown with head control? “That’s faggot shit.”

Not to say that none of these kids would ever train MMA, nor do you need to spend your youth training jujitsu to be an MMA fighter. But this idea that all the inner-city kids are going to start training full-scale MMA instead of boxing (which is still cooler and has more black stars) is wrong. America is not Brazil where grappling arts are more respected and part of the culture and the training is more accessible to everyone. Right now, the American MMA talent pipeline seems to be mostly collegiate wrestlers with a splash of “street brawlers who aren’t polished enough to make it in boxing but can learn enough grappling to compete in MMA.”

The BJ Penn, “ghetto boy turned jujitsu expert” is going to be pretty rare in America, at least for a while.

[ZEB]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
more worthless shit
[/quote]

You can say whatever makes you feel better. Knowing that the best years of your life are over has to be depressing,[/quote]

First of all, it really doesn’t make me feel better to make you look like an ass every time you have the urge to wonder off topic attack me and spew more of your internal bitterness and venom all over the T Nation message board. Also, I don’t think anyone over on the political threads actually enjoys making you look like the little uneducated punk that you are, but hey, we have to do it otherwise you’d actually think you were contributing and you’re not.

Secondly, at least I had good years and have made something of my life. What have you done Irish besides drink too much, earn too little and run from responsibility?

Sad I think.

especially when younger guys like me are passing you in every respect.

The only thing that you should be concerned about “passing” is 12th grade. At least get your GED sheesh.

I can understand why you’re bitter but at least try to do something about it, it’s never too late to change.

[goldengloves]

I think we agree on this. That’s why they need big names to make it sell and boxing has no depth. In other words the big names in boxing sell tickets, but there are only a few.

That’s how boxing has always been. Even in league sports, do people care about the average player? No, people care about the super star player on teams. The only difference is the league can attract attention to itself as a league, individuals can only attract attention to themselves.

I disagree, if money could be made with more boxing matches (at any level ppv wise) they would put them on. The fact is, as I’ve repeatedly said, there are only a handful of boxers who can sell tickets so they are “super fights”. MMA has far more depth of talent right now which allows them to put on many more of fights per year.

You’re completely overlooking that HBO hasn’t put on a PPV that hasn’t had at least 1,000,000 buys for the past few years. How many UFC PPVs do at least 1,000,000 buys per year? The standards are higher and HBO doesn’t rely heavily on PPV revenue. Rather than put on a PPV that sells modestly they air the fight for free.

They could be putting on more PPVs as it’s, rather than making the fight a PPV they air it for free though. They’ve nothing to gain from PPVs unless they’re making money off of it, unless that fight sells close to or more than 1,000,000 then the fighters and promoters are the only people benefiting from it.

That’s nonsense. You are claiming because a Mayweather fight is able to out draw a UFC that boxing is not hurt by the UFC being on the same night. That simply isn’t true. There are many who would pay to see a boxing super fight if there were no UFC. They do in fact share the same demographic as I’ve pointed out it’s the 18-39 male age group.

There hasn’t been a disparity in HBO PPVs buys since the UFC came around and it’s been shown that conflicting UFC PPVs don’t have any negative impact on HBO PPVs.

If you admit that they “share” fans then you must also admit that when boxing is on at the same time a UFC event is on that they must choose one, they’re certainly not buying both. Hence, whichever one wins has still been hurt by the other being on. Certainly you can admit that any sane person would. In addition to that if one combat sport is on one weekend followed by another combat sport one week later the one that follows the first is also harmed because there is only so much money that can be spent on combat sports per month. Most people have only so much disposable income.

There’s no data to support that, in fact that conflicts with the available data. UFC PPVs don’t pull from boxing PPVs, they pull from wrestling PPVs.

But who the champions are will rely on the depth of the sport. If when Mayweather retires there isn’t a person of equal stature to take his place (at some weight class) then boxing suffers, simple economics.

That’s assuming it doesn’t happen

I agree, but that still hurts boxing in America.

Not when you take into consideration that boxing has been ruled by a handful of fighters except for the 1950s. Welterweight and middleweight have been competing with the heavyweight division for years, the only thing that has changed is the welterweight is winning right now.

I agree, that’s one more thing that harms boxing. The promoter doesn’t always have the fighters best interest at heart. People like Don King or Bob Arum have harmed boxing.

It started way before Don King and Bob Arum.

To be honest I’d say the big problem in boxing is the number of belts and lack of tournaments to unify the belts. That and the NFL, boxing has probably lost a lot of future heavyweights to the NFL lol.