Although his comment seems to have gotten a bit off topic, I’d like to give a quick reply to Nathan as to his question: “What really quantify’s the “success” of a sport anyway?” Two things…it’s popularity and the amount of money the sport generates. Period.” This post is not about what makes a true fan, but of the popularity (or lack there of) of a sport which has seen better days.

I don’t quite understand your point. That there is a correlation between a sport’s exposure and it’s popularity is obvious. The last time boxing was mainstream was in the 1980s, when boxing was all over the place and not just on a premium cable network that airs about 25 cards a year. When one says “such and such fight drew nearly 3 million viewers, wow, boxing is back!” then all you have to say is “well, no, boxing used to get much bigger ratings CONSISTENTLY as recently as 10 years ago.” More people watched the sport in the U.S. back then than they do now. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. If a sport is not “successful,” it will disappear, like six-day bicycle races, WUSA, the NASL, USFL, and, more or less, jai alai. Your curling point, I don’t get either. It’s not a question of the inherent “quality” of a sport. And, yes, curling in the US is much less successful than the NFL, which is a billion dollar industry. Ratings, attendance, mainstream exposure, and mainstream media coverage are all vital to a healthy sport. Every sport, no matter how obscure (like DB Drag Racing), has its adherents, but the smaller the fanbase in boxing, the less money there is to come up with solid matchups which would attract the public. The reason boxing has such a small following in comparison to its past (when boxing was the #2 sport in America) is that networks and unscrupulous promoters decided to ignore, with contempt, the general public’s demand for quality.

Interesting article and I appreciate all the ratings data that you provided to back up your argument. I strongly agree with both you and Will that having major network exposure is critical to the success of boxing and keeping the sport “alive” so to speak in the minds and hearts of the american public. It’s left me wondering however if viewer ratings really have a direct relationship to fanbase and success? What really quantify’s the “success” of a sport anyway? If ratings numbers rule, then I would imagine that the sport of curling is much less successful and perhaps inferior to let’s say the NFL? Would the a curling fan agree with that?

I guess my point here is that network ratings shouldn’t matter in the eyes of the sportfan despite whatever sport that person may be a fan of and better yet, give that sportfan any doubt relative to the sport he/she admires. I think most would prefer a smaller dedicated fanbase over a larger one who the majority could care less about the sport anyway.

two comments in one night/morning! I feel honored. I have no beef with Arreola either, except he bamboozled the public and gets right back on HBO again. HBO pretends they are not matchmakers, etc., but really, this kind of fight is every manager’s dream and exactly the kind of matchup a manager would make for a fighter on the comeback.

I’m not sure I understand your second point. Are there more things to distract people from boxing these days? Yes, but it’s not more boxing. There is less boxing on TV now than since the late 1940s (except possibly for a fallow period in the early-mid 1960s) and despite that fact, ratings don’t match up to those of even 10 years ago. Theoretically, fewer outlets might mean higher ratings because the same audience has to converge on a handful of events. But it hasn’t happened because the audience has not been there for the most part.

If you mean the HBO fights are split across channels and replays–that’s true, but the same was true in 1999. There was an HBO, an HBO2 and an HBO3 in 1999 as well. So the Pernell Whitaker-Felix Trinidad fight–to use my example–garnered a much bigger audience than its 16.5 rating. Not to mention fewer people had HBO back then and that makes the ratings look even stronger. I picked several examples to prove that the Whitaker-Trinidad thing was not just a one-shot deal a decade or so ago.

I agree that boxing has some momentum, but to say that it is approaching 1980s levels of popularity, as the AP suggested, is pretty boneheaded. Sugar Ray Leonard, Ray Mancini, and Larry Holmes were all featured in Time magazine articles. Gerry Cooney was once on the cover of Time Magazine, and that was when Time did not have to compete with the internet, etc. It was no big deal to see this kind of media coverage for boxing. Now, it’s so rare, that the whole boxing community goes into convulsions whenever it happens, which actually bolsters the argument against its supposed uber-popularity. I’m not one of the “boxing is dead guys”, but I also understand the value of perspective and I dislike the “ready-made” thinking of both sides.

Anyway, it only takes one superstar (read: Manny Pacquiao) to convert casual observers and today we actually have two, counting Mayweather. All it will take for boxing to really take off in the US is two big names swapping punches in a great fight on NBC in prime time….

As far as ESPN goes, that stuff is usually unwatchable and I don’t see a purpose in 60-75% of their telecasts. And since HBO has decided to use ESPN caliber fighters for some of their shows, it means ESPN has an even smaller pool to draw from. Heh.

Thanks for the input, WF, and don’t be a stranger…

I hear you on the rating numbers CA– but isn’t it true that has the number of channels have saturated the viewing audience, its a zero sum game and the ratings of most TV programs have suffered. In some ways the “pop culture buzz” that the sport is now generating– especially after a long dormant period– is perhaps the most optimistic sign that I see that things are perhaps picking up. But regular TV exposure is a must– and that means sponsorship willing to pay for a small, but diehard, fan base. I understood the Telemundo cancellation last fall wasn’t due to poor ratings, it was due to high costs of putting a show together week in and week out– and better for the network bottom line to show programmings without such fixed costs.

Now ESPN claimed to cancell WNF to “put the money into better FNF matchups”. I didn’t see much improvement in that regard this year, did you? Especially in the summer months, Teddy constantly complained about the lack of competitive matchups. I don’t expect P4P matchups every week on ESPN, but I do expect a decent matchups and meaningful fights, and we all too often don’t get that.

You’re better off drinking old coffee than reading TCS in the morning!

Thanks for writing. I am not saying the situation is dire…I am merely trying to put things in perspective with some facts. Boxing has momentum right now, but to say that it is as popular as it was in the 1980s is just silly.

BTW, I never said Pacquiao was not a household name. I referred to him as a genuine superstar. And his Nike deal is nice, too. The point is, after Pacquiao and Mayweather, things get a little slim.

Also, celebrities have been at ringside since at least the 1920s.

Good point. But it is also safe to assume that rodeo folks get together to watch bull riding and calf wrestling. Same with MMA fans. So their numbers are also higher than the ratings suggest.