Anyway I find the Time magazine article to be full of poop.
Will the De La Hoya-Mayweather Fight Save Boxing?Apparently picked up from some Golden Boy promoters hypey comment...
"This could be the night that saves boxing," says Richard Schaefer, CEO of De La Hoya's company, Golden Boy Promotions, which is staging the clash.
Boxing needs something to rescue it from years of disorganization. There are now 17 weight divisions, none with a unified champ among the sport's four sanctioning bodies. Scandalous match decisions have worn out boxing's aging base and turned off younger fans. Though the sport's migration to pay-per-view television has enriched fighters, it has cut off the sport's access to a broader audience.
This morass has fueled the stunning ascension of mixed martial arts and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Though derided as "human cockfighting," the UFC feeds the video-game bloodlust of young fans and has ripped market share from the sweet science. "If boxing were a stock," says veteran boxing historian and television commentator Bert Sugar, "I'd sell it short."After reading it I can't help thinking the article is one of those trendy columns passing off popular wisdom as such. When has boxing ever in need of saving or for that matter ever NOT on the ropes? Think about it. 120 years ago championships were fought on barges a and belts were awarded (if there was a belt at all) a few steps ahead of the police, sometimes forced to jump ship near exhausted to escape the cops from grabbing the proceeds.
And the "golden age of boxing", did that ever happen? Some people who remember or were told by those who do might recall that Jack Dempsey wasn't all that universally liked. They called him a "slacker" and many wanted to see him crushed by Gene Tunney because he served as a marine. The Dempsey Cartpentier match sometimes called the "fight of the century" pitted Dempsey, a true heavyweight, against a guy who was barely a light heavyweight.
Called the "battle of the century" by boxing enthusiasts, the fight between Jack Dempsey and Frenchman Georges Carpentier at Boyle's Thirty Acres was an extravaganza that introduced sports as leisure for the masses at the beginning of the 1920s.
The contest for the heavyweight championship took place on the overcast, humid Saturday afternoon of July 2, 1921, and was scheduled for 3:00 PM. Randy Roberts, author of Jack Dempsey: The Manassa Mauler, places the historic fight in the cultural perspective of the post-World War I era: "In an age where man seemed to be guided by amoral forces beyond his control, the Dempsey-Carpentier fight represented man as master of his fate" (119).
The official attendance for the fight was 80,183, but by all accounts the stands built for over 91,000 were packed to capacity. Roberts reports that "the fight grossed $1,789,238, well over twice as much as any previous fight" (120).45 years later they were calling Muhammad Ali a "draft dodger" and many writers bemoaned the lack of talent in the Heavyweight ranks and the lack of excitement in the lower weight classes. Twenty years later some of the same people said Larry Holmes was a poor man's Muhammad Ali and said he fought in his shadow, apparently the "draf dodger" had ascended to the greatest just like Jack Dempsey (who fought a mega fight against a guy. During Joe Louis's reign they called his opponents "Bums of the Month" and made the same pitch. And in the 1950's the mob moved in briefly and fixed all kinds of fights as well as they did in the 1930's, including the Heavyweight Title (Primo Canara).
Say, and lets not forgot old Jack Johnson, who had to fight in places like Australia and Europe until the police finally nabbed him for violation of the "Man Act"...roughly translated as "foolin with the wrong women". That era was also called the "no-decision" era because many bouts weren't sanctioned to have a winner...duh. I wonder who you had to pay off to be allowed to declare a winner?
Yeah, here we go again. Boxing needs to be "saved".
A bit of the old hype if you ask me bro. Although I think the skills of these two fighters are real.
======================================
Just to back up my bit about Dempsey...
But he was "labeled as draft dodger" (Roberts 112) during World War I. Dempsey applied for a domestic exemption to support his family, was granted 4A status, and continued to fight during the war. Carpentier, or the "Orchid Man," was hailed as a popular war hero having served in the air force; he received the Croix de Guerre from the French government and was referred to as "handsome, urbane, slender, and debonair" (Roberts 103).
Not only did Rickard under stand the psychology of the use of money, he also was a master of dramatic symbolism. The people sought to attract to boxing were not particularly lovers of a good fight, but rather men and women, especially wealthy ones, who were interested in the drama inherent in a battle of contrasts . . . . Never would the issue and symbols be so simple and so devastating." (Roberts 109)http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/D_Pages/Dempsey_Carpentier_Fight.htmDempsey creamed him in 11 minutes. So much for the "golden age" of boxing.
====================================
In other words Rickard tried to pair Dempsey up with vets whenever he could because Dempsey was "the bad guy". Not the good guy. The people that went to Dempsey's fights were ALL wealthy...but that didn't "cut off the sport's access to a broader audience" as Time magazine states. As a matter of fact, witht he rise of the small Indian Casinos boxing is alive and well.