CAN WHAT’S BROKEN ABOUT BOXING BE FIXED?

Posted on | February 23, 2010 | 3 Comments

(by Darren & Patrick McElligott)

[mpinpage]

For as long as boxing has been popular, there has been a “flip side,” with people saying that the sport is dying, or that it should be outlawed. Yet, when one looks at the amount of money that fights such as Mayweather vs de la Hoya, or Pacquiao vs Hatton make, it is obvious that the sport is in no danger of a sudden death. And when a proposed fight, such as Mayweather vs Pacquiao could set financial records for a sporting event, it is unlikely that boxing will be outlawed in the near future.

However, the majority of people in the boxing community in the United States recognize that there is room for improvement in the sport. There are four general topics that come to mind: (1) The need for a high-quality, national boxing commission; (2) The reduced number and quality of boxing magazines, and writers in the sports’ sections of newspapers; (3) The diminishing number of boxing gyms/training camps available for young fighters; and (4) The issues relating to weight classes, including the lack of quality and interest in American heavyweight boxers.

We thought it might be interesting to get a discussion going on Fight News Unlimited, about each of these issues. We will start this series by examining some of the potential advantages of having a national boxing commission. In a sense, the idea of a national commission can be viewed as similar to the commissions for sports such as baseball, basketball, and football. The idea of having fifty different state commissions enforcing fifty different sets of rules is ludicrous. Likewise, it would be confusing if there were six or seven “alphabet” commissions holding their own “World Series” or “Super Bowl.”

Neither fighters nor fans benefit from the current state of affairs in boxing that could be addressed by a national commission. Only one interest group does: those who make money off the sport without entering the ring. Now, this does not mean that all promoters and managers are “bad” for the sport. They have a job, and they can not be expected to do it for free, or at a financial loss. But there are a number of high-profile promoters, alphabet commissioners, and managers who are parasites. A national commission could help
to put them in check, and by doing so, make boxing a far better sport for fighters and fans alike.

The controversy over drug testing that derailed the proposed Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight is an example of how a national commission could be beneficial. Not only should there be one standard in the United States for this, but the bar should be set high. The Olympic-style testing makes the most sense, for insuring that no individual has an unfair, illegal advantage over another. Because of the incentive to find new and improved ways to cheat, by way of new substances that are intended to go undetected, those standards must
be flexible, in order to keep up with advances in pharmacology.

Likewise, the “loaded hand wraps” controversy from the Margarito vs Mosley fight illustrates another area a national commission could be of value. A fighter who is suspended in one state, say California, should not be even considered for a license in another state, such as Texas. One set of rules, where the high standards are respected, is going to discourage those who are prone to cheating.

A single, high standard could also be helpful in reducing the number of mismatches that are all too common in the sport. For example, much in the manner of the current amateur policy, a standardized license could be useful in keeping traveling knockout victims from going state-to-state, to pick up meager pay checks for serving as human punching bags. A fighter who has actually been knocked unconscious should not be allowed to travel to a distant state to fight so soon that it increases the risks to their long-term health.

A national boxing commission should also be large enough to include individuals who can play a central role in assisting retired fighters transition into their new lives outside the ring. There are numerous private, non-profit groups who are involved in this type of work. The national commission should help coordinate these efforts. Recent advances in science have shown, for example, that not only are retired boxers more prone, due to brain chemistry, to substance abuse than the general population, but that the risk of organic
brain damage is geometrically increased. In the “Good Old Days,” retired pugs were often called “punch-drunk.” In today’s world, alcohol is far from the only drug that is readily available to abuse. The combination of damage from the impact of punches, along with the abuse of a toxic substance such as cocaine, will definitely lead to neurological impairments. Even the casual boxing fan can easily identify some of the tragic results that we have seen as a result of this dynamic.

But the issue is not limited to former high-profile fighters: far too many men who never achieved great success in the ring are suffering today. The boxing community needs to be able to work in a coordinated, unified way to take care of its own.

One of the biggest problems in the sport is incompetent officials. In general, referees tend to do an adequate job. Judges, however, are a different story. Scoring a round in a competitive fight is, of course, largely subjective. No one would want to move towards the nonsense that is the current standard in judging Olympic boxing. And in relatively close fights, there will always be people who view the outcome differently. That alone is not a problem.

However, there are an unfortunate number of judges who are too biased to be allowed to score any boxing matches. Again, even casual boxing fans are aware of this, and it is one reason that our sport has lost the respect of many of these fans. Promoters obviously play a role. At a professional boxing card in upstate New York last summer, not a single fighter from the “home town” corner lost a fight. At least not on the judges’ cards. In one fight, a person from the state commission had to immediately over-rule a referee’s stopping a fight, and attempting to give the home town favorite a TKO victory after the fighter committed an obvious foul. Officiating will never be perfect, but it should not be disgraceful.

Despite the very real problems associated with boxing, it remains the greatest sport. The anticipation for a Mayweather vs Pacquaio fight provides evidence of this. And while there are no “super fights” on the horizon in the heavyweight division, the sport will provide a large number of very interesting fights in 2010. One of the highlights is definitely the “Super Six” round-robin tournament in the Super Middleweight division. A national commission would attempt to schedule similar events in many of the other weight classes, in order to identify the true champion. Any fighter wanting to be recognized as the real champion would welcome such an opportunity. And what fight fan wouldn’t love to see this?

The need is real. The benefits are within reach. And, equally important, the talent is available. Who do we think could be potential commissioners? Several highly qualified people come to mind, among them Oscar de la Hoya, Teddy Atlas, and Thomas Hauser. In regards to individuals who could serve in fighter-advocacy roles, Gerry Cooney and Margaret Goodman stand out. Certainly, other people will be able to identify other highly qualified individuals.

The only people who would be opposed to having the sport address the problems associated with boxing, are those who are presently making large amounts of money by exploiting the fighters and fans. But it’s time that they are retired from the sport.

What do you think?

[/mpinpage]