Where are Joe Louis' when you need them?

[JLP 6]

I am dying for a reason to watch boxing. Where is that fighter that comes along and smacks everyone back into proper perspective? A guy who have been schooled and is hungry. A guy who can hit and box. A guy is not afraid to risk his "0" on a great match. A guy who fights more than once every two years.

Where is that fighter who wants to be the Heavyweight Champion of the world? That division could be run by Jess Williard. Oh, what I wouldn't give to bring back Dempsey for a good two weeks. The entire division would be empty. Two weeks is all he would need.

I am looking for the Armstrongs, Robinsons, Durans, Alis? Sounds far fetched but, if I don't ask I won't receive. I should stop watching boxing untill these fighters get the point. I am sick pay per view with De La Hoya. I am sick everyone beating up on Mayorga, but not demanding tougher matches.

Where is the Great Cotto? Hatton, what happened? I don't even want to talk about Mayweather. Taylor get back in there. I miss James Toney.

Margarito, Williams, Mosley (I don't like him, but he is great), Pacquiao (please get rid of Oscar), JMMarquez (I love this guy). You guys have to save the sport, untill we get some Louis and co. around.

[Surf-Bat]

I'm hoping Kelly Pavlik fits this mold. If he beats Hopkins then goes on to have at LEAST 3 more bouts before the end of '09 (vs. Calzaghe, Abraham and one other), then we'll have our answer.

[JLP 6]

I forgot about him. I like Hopkins. Like.

But, he is not getting guys outta there. Pavlik is. I don't want to see Hopkins get KO'ed but if is what it takes then so be it. Somebody needs to make a statment like "I run this thing of ours". Whoever doesn't like it come forth!

Where are the warriors. I am sick of these businessmen.

[PeteLeo]

Some of the fault for that attitude lies with us, the fans. It seems that to most of us, if a guy suffers a loss or two early in his career, he can aspire to become nothing "better" than a journeyman, an also-ran, a failed experiment. And if he manages to make it to the Bigtime without tripping and then loses -- even if he gives a great effort and drops a duke to a truly talented opponent --, he becomes a fraud, a hype, an empty tower resting on feet of clay. We're entirely too judgmental these days.

Look at Mickey Walker: one of the Titans of the sport, a deservedly lionozed icon. Yet the Toy Bulldog was blitzed in one round (by K.O. Phil Damont, I think) in his first year of competition. These days, we'd be laughing at the thought of his ever earning his way into legendary status. We'd call for his retirement, since he was so inept as to allow himself to be taken out by K.O. Phil. Dempsey? A used-up old warhorse like Jim Flynn could stop him in one, also? The man's automatically a bum. And don't even dream of mythologizing Henry Armstrong.

The "O" is everything to some followers of the sport these days (and I include my rants against Liston in this indictment). We're very unforgiving. Ask Tyson or RJJ.

I think Marciano ruined us. PeteLeo.

[gregbeyer]

we need promoters that promote the sport. promoters that breed fighters for a future. todays so called promoters look to make instant bucks with a single promotion and sucker the fans into paying top bucks. i think we are wising up. don't pay for crap. i am not interested in paying 50 bucks to see hopkins play safety first. the guy has burned me too many times.

pete is correct about the all important 0. the old trainers used to say a guy has not learned until he has lost. these days managers shy away from defeat to the point that by the time they engineer their charge into a competitive fight a loss is so devastating that they rarely come back. take a guy like danny lopez.danny was a fighter of limited skill but with a heart great enough to overcome a ko loss to bobby chacon yet still stick to it until he became a champion.

there is a certain grit that seems to have left the sport and it is not just the fighters. gone are the great trainers and managers that know how to nurture a prospect. gone are the promoters who think of the health of the sport rather than lining their pockets with the blood of ineptitude.

perhaps it is us also. to me MMA is for fans with short attention spans. the computer age and the speed it has brought us may have helped to kill the game we all once loved and now miss.

greg

[hawk5ins]

And Willie Pep and Sugar Ray Robinson as well.

TODAY's fans look back at a fighter like a Jake Lamotta and an Ike Williams and see all those early career losses and simply can't fathom how they could be considered great.

Lamotta Lost to Jimmy Reeves? Dropped a duke to welterweight Fritzie Zivic? How is Lamotta going to be competitive with a Roy Jones or Marvin Hagler?

Williams kept losing to Willie Joyce and was ko'd by Bob Montgomery? And you think THIS guy could beat Floyd Mayweather who never lost to anyone?

The pristine record is EVERTHING to the modern day fan. They can NOT get past the early losses and think that a fighter who dropped decisions and or was stopped during their career, could EVER compare to a modern day fighter who didn't fight as often and becuase he doesn't have a loss, HAS to be a superior fighter.

Of course this midset doesn't take into account, that fighters fought for meager paydays back then and often had full time jobs on top of being professional fighters. That they got paid squat back then and had to take quantity to bring in money. That they took bouts on obscenely short notice. And Training full time was a luxury only very few were afforded.

I often think that many fans today pay less attention to the talent of Robby and Pep and who they faced, then they do towards the impressive unbeaten streaks both had.

Add this with the "importance" of winning belts in multiple divisions. "How could Monzon be great? He never Rose in weight to go after another belt. And Napoles failed to win a belt at Middle, so he CAN'T be discussed along with greats who DID win multiple belts in multiple weight divisions."

"Joe Brown and Jimmy Carter never rose and won a Welterweight title. SO Shane Mosely is CLEARLY a better fighter than they were. And look at the losses those two had BEFORE they won their titles? Shane Mosley never lost before he won a title."

Yeah. I blame the mindset of the modern day fan as much as anything else for the problems with our sport.

Short sightedness and short attention spans.

Bingo.

Hawk

[wildhawke11]

Hawke -- Perfect

[hawk5ins]

EVERY time.

Hawk(e)

[Surf-Bat]

And Willie Pep and Sugar Ray Robinson as well.

TODAY's fans look back at a fighter like a Jake Lamotta and an Ike Williams and see all those early career losses and simply can't fathom how they could be considered great.

Lamotta Lost to Jimmy Reeves? Dropped a duke to welterweight Fritzie Zivic? How is Lamotta going to be competitive with a Roy Jones or Marvin Hagler?

Williams kept losing to Willie Joyce and was ko'd by Bob Montgomery? And you think THIS guy could beat Floyd Mayweather who never lost to anyone?

The pristine record is EVERTHING to the modern day fan. They can NOT get past the early losses and think that a fighter who dropped decisions and or was stopped during their career, could EVER compare to a modern day fighter who didn't fight as often and becuase he doesn't have a loss, HAS to be a superior fighter.

Of course this midset doesn't take into account, that fighters fought for meager paydays back then and often had full time jobs on top of being professional fighters. That they got paid squat back then and had to take quantity to bring in money. That they took bouts on obscenely short notice. And Training full time was a luxury only very few were afforded.

I often think that many fans today pay less attention to the talent of Robby and Pep and who they faced, then they do towards the impressive unbeaten streaks both had.

Add this with the "importance" of winning belts in multiple divisions. "How could Monzon be great? He never Rose in weight to go after another belt. And Napoles failed to win a belt at Middle, so he CAN'T be discussed along with greats who DID win multiple belts in multiple weight divisions."

"Joe Brown and Jimmy Carter never rose and won a Welterweight title. SO Shane Mosely is CLEARLY a better fighter than they were. And look at the losses those two had BEFORE they won their titles? Shane Mosley never lost before he won a title."

Yeah. I blame the mindset of the modern day fan as much as anything else for the problems with our sport.

Short sightedness and short attention spans.

Bingo.

Hawk

I really can't disagree here. But how did the fans get this way? Don't promoters have to shoulder a hunk of the blame for EMPHASIZING these things(undefeated records, etc) as being important? Hasn't joe-fan been somewhat brainwashed by the snake oil banter of the modern promoter?

The shift in fan attitudes happened somewhere. Hard to pinpoint, but I think the way things have been promoted are a major factor.

[hawk5ins]

uneducated fan has been brainwashed this way.

The proliferation of titles made it easier to show a title fight on Tv in the alte 70's and early 80's and informing the audience that Leroy Haley vs. Bruce Curry was a TITLE Fight, makes it more attractive than Robin Blake Vs. Tony Baltazar......to Joe couch potatoe just tuning in.

And then to sell Blake and Baltazar to a antional audience, both fighters records better look pretty impressive (IE, either zeros or low, low numbers in the loss colum.), becuase it's NOT a title fight, so if their records are glossy looking, THEN it's worth the viewers attention.

Which is why Matthew Franklin at 21-3-2 vs Yaqui Lopez 47-7-0 couldn't make it as a nationally broadcast network TV fight and was only aired locally. That and the fight was scheduled on a TUESDAY and not on Saturday.

Yet rate these 3 fights in order of what one SHOULD want to watch, Franklin Lopez is 1, Blake Baltazar is 2 or 1A and Haley Curry is #11...out of 3.

So YES, the promoters and more importantly and specifically, the Networks, were the ones who are guilty of this brainwashing. But As a young fight fan in the 70's and 80's, I felt I educated myself enough to see through the bullshit and spot a great fight or matchup REGARDLESS of what the win loss colums said on their resumes.

Hawk

[sweetsci]

The popularity of NASCAR proves that sports fans are capable of paying attention for long periods of time. The popularity of the NFL proves that people are willing to pay attention to subtleties and extreme drops in action and wait for bursts of thrills.

My father has turned into a NASCAR fan - he's thrilled that "his guy" might make the top-10 this year. I don't watch NASCAR at all, so I have no idea what "top-10" means. Winning the championship isn't necessary. Getting close means almost as much. People know it's a crowded field.

People love comeback stories. A fighter that turns his career around after a bad early start would be much appreciated. People like to be reminded that you don't have to be great straight out of the gate to have a great career.

Problem is, there is no proper marketing of boxing these days. With the proper marketing and promotion, boxing could be as big as ever.

[hawk5ins]

I'm totally lost with the Nascar Analogy.

I have ZERO knowledge of the sport and have no idea if thier actual fans pay closer attention there than fans of other sports do.

And this is where I insert my redneck inference/sarcasm/joke......

Hawk

[10-8]

If you've been married three times and still have the same in-laws you might be a NASCAR fan......

[sweetsci]

I was getting ready to head out the door when I typed my NASCAR post. Apologies for not being clear. I was attempting to address some criticisms about boxing and why fewer people are interested in boxing these days, and my opinion that the sport simply needs a better marketing machine behind it. I'll try to expand upon my points and hopefully clarify them.

I've heard it said that one reason people don't like boxing is because the fights are too long and boring (something any fan who's tried to watch a heavyweight title fight lately might agree with!) and that MMA is as popular as it is because there's more action in a shorter period of time. My attempted point was that this is untrue and I tried to cite NASCAR racing and NFL football as examples of sports where lots of people watch something boring (to me) for long periods of time. I don't understand the subtleties or the appeal of auto racing, but a lot people love to spend weekend afternoons watching long NASCAR races and are VERY into it. These people might be rednecks - my father has a bit of redneck in him - but they're the same people who used to be into "the fights". My father doesn't have a clue about boxing these days, yet in the late 1970's he was the one who turned me onto boxing by watching it on TV all the time. I use my father as an example because he's an average american sports fan who'll watch what's served up on TV.

I've also heard it said that there are multiple titles so networks can market more fights as "title fights". In my NASCAR example I was trying to show that this is unnecessary because people want to see a good fight and want to see boxers they are fans of. Every contender doesn't need to be a champion. People understand this. Hometown fans will be happy if their local fighter gets into the top 10. If he gets a title shot and loses, sure it's disappointing, but people know that everyone can't be champion. That's what makes championships so special.

The third point I was trying to make is that being undefeated really isn't that important. Sure, if a guy is undefeated after beating, say, three contenders and a former champ, that's great. But I think people want to see competitive fights. Arturo Gatti proved you don't have to be undefeated to be a TV draw.

Finally, I was trying to say that I don't think the solution for "saving boxing" is a young Louis / Ali / Tyson, but good old-fashioned marketing. Develop young fighters by putting them on TV - whatever TV network will run them. Do "up close and personal" profiles of them. Showcase them often. Make sure the papers & local sports news stations run fight reports. Tell the public what is happening. Let them know who these athletes are. I remember, as an 11-year old boxing nut, my aunt telling me she hated boxing but liked Sugar Ray Leonard because she'd read that he was a nice guy. This was in early 1979 before Leonard won any titles! She knew who he was! Marketing.

(Of course, if boxing is ever going to be properly marketed it'd be nice if there weren't all these damn alphabet politics and titles. But we could go on all day about that.)

[hawk5ins]

Only being able to lend to similar jokes that 10-8 made as it relates to Nascar......

The point of being undefeated and it not being important.......I agree. It ISN'T important.

What I think I was trying to state, and others before me on this thread as well, is that the pristine record IS important to far too many of the modern fan.

I think the ignorance of the modern day fan is the problem, but I agree that the marketing, promoters and networks all have a part in this as the nice glossy record is what they have pushed.

I'd love to take a survey of title fights pitting two or even one undefeated fighters prior to say 1970 and then compare it post 1970, but breaking it up by decade to see the increased frequency with which this has happened over the years.

A LOSS on a fighters record, should NOT be important if the fighter is a proven commodity.

Heck Duran when he left the Lightweight ranks he was 63-1. He Lost to DeJesus in 73. Should he hold his head in shame? Should we say that Mayweather who never "officially" lost at 135 in the 3 fights he had at that weight was a better Lightweight? Or Oscar for his abbrieviated Stop? He never lost there. Mosley?

Oy.

Hawk

[hawk5ins]

My post in post#10, were partly/mostly thoughts I had stuck in my head from something I KNEW I had read somewhere earlier.

And It kind of bugged me so I made a point of trying to find where this came from.

FOUND it.

April 1988 issue of Boxing 88. From the article penned by Steve Farhood: From the Golden Age to the Stone Age...What Happened to the Light Heavyweight Division? The article made a comparison of the LH division from December 1977 and December 1987.

On page 52: "Secondly, Network TV Boxing has Drastically altered the strategy of the Sports managers. In 1977, ABC would consider airing ONLY an established champion with marquee vlaue (like Galindez) or one of the stars from the highly successful 76 US Olympic squad. And CBS and NBC presented Ali, Duran, Ray Leonard and a few other fighters. If you were Yaqui Lopez or Matthew Franklin, it was financial suicide to wait for the big money of network TV. So the light heavyweight contenders fought each other.

'In those days, it was easier to make 10-round fights amon the contenders becuase it was the only wat the fighters could make money and move up in the ratings,' said Peltz. 'If number eight wanted to become seven, he would have to fight and beat number seven.'

Today, ABC, NBC and CBS air more fights, and HBO and Showtime kick in major dollars for premium attractions. An outstanding-if not perfect-boxing record is critical in atttracting weekend TV offers. As a result, fighters become contenders by piling up wins over useless opposition and then wait and wait for a TV shot at one of the three world titles. A crossroads clash agianst another contender along the way is usually the last option they'll consider."

So yes, admittedly I'm pretty much a thief and I stole, if not word for word, the essence of what Farhood wrote.....20 fricken years ago.

That's my mea culpa for the day.

I KNEW Reading and retaining was bound to get me into trouble.

Honest to a fault.

Hawk

[JLP 6]

I want to say that I don't put much in a 0. It is the times. Fighters are held for some reason in the highest esteem for only accomplishing no losses.

I consider someone with no loses not a vet. I still think of Cotto as a prospect. What he does next will either change me or confirm me. I consider Paul Williams a vet. He bounced back from his first loss like a champion.

Fighters for the most part, are not fighters, they don't respect the sport. They are in the business of boxing. This is Mike Tyson's legacy to the sport. As great as he was, people just wanted him, not great fights. So now the promoter say well this guy is undefeated and has drawing power, let put him in with a can and let bank up. Don't risk him on some real fighters who will have a legit chance of beating him. Let just get as much money as we can out of him.

[sweetsci]

Hawk - I totally agree with you. The "0" is certainly a proven commodity and is important to the modern casual fan. And it's sure nice to have a forum like CBZ where everyone knows that "0" often doesn't mean that much. Great quote from Farhood, too. Nice find.

I just Googled "NASCAR Jokes" in hopes of adding one to my post. What I found was, among other things, was loads of jokes about individual drivers. These drivers are household names! Crazy. Anyway, here's a few I copied from a page. (Forgive me...)

---

You Know you are a NASCAR Fan if...

You can't balance your checkbook, but CAN explain the point system.

You run out of gas and try to explain to the cop (who's giving you a sobriety test) your weaving from lane to lane was just an attempt to get fuel into the pickup.

You teach your child to count like this... Park, Wallace, Earnhardt, Hamilton,Terry Labonte, Martin, etc. and then it confuses him because of the driver changes every year

When you have an accident, the first thing you try to do is pull off the steering wheel.
The second thing you do is blame Robby Gordon.

Every time you rotate your tires at home you put the stop watch to it and record the time and try to better it next time.

You're sitting behind someone at a red light, and when it changes, you yell, "GREEN! GREEN! GREEN! GO! GO! GO!

If you were Rusty you would have just gone when the other light turned yellow!

---

There are LOADS of these pages. Can you imagine boxing being popular enough to have several sites just devoted to boxing jokes?