Friday, November 17, 2006

How Boxing Lives and Dies

Yesterday I was in a place where there were TVs going with the sound off. I was doing something else, so I only paid attention to the TVs out of the corner of my eye. But I began to pay closer attention when I noticed that there was a fight on one of them. It was the middle of the day, and the camera kept cutting away from the fight to show people emoting in the crowd, so I assumed that it was a soap opera. Also, it looked like a soap opera. It had the flat appearance, the stodgy camera, the profusion of inert middle-distance shots, the look of cheapness that all says "soap opera" from a mile away. When the camera cut away from the fight to characters in the crowd, they were standing in little pools of bright light, with the area around them left dark for contrast. They waved their arms and tried to look caught up in the action, but they appeared to be overacting like silent-movie stars, complete with gnawing lips and widened eyes to indicate suspense. It didn't look anything at all like a real fight scene. They weren't even cursing the ref.

But the fighters looked like real fighters. You couldn't see enough of each round to score it--just flurries of action lasting a few seconds--but they were really fighting, and they showed at least basic competence. I got to thinking that it spoke well of this soap opera's producers that they had gone to the trouble to get a couple of real fighters to go through the motions so strenuously. Usually, from what little I've seen of them, the action sequences on soap operas--say, a band of unshaven foreigners rushing in to capture the beautiful young nurse and imprison her on a desert island until she can be saved by the square-jawed doctor who is, in reality, her long-lost amnesiac husband, who suddenly remembers all when struck on the head by a falling styrofoam boulder during the big rescue scene--are as gloriously contrived as a seventh grader's self-produced action-movie spoof on youtube. But these guys were really fighting. I started wondering how it had come to pass that they were on a soap opera, and I started wondering if there was maybe even an interesting magazine piece to do on it...

Then I realized that what I was watching was a rerun of The Contender. I had successfully avoided it so far, but it had caught up with me at last. I think I know now why I have been avoiding it, and why I found it so depressing. The Contender is a reasonably thought-through effort to make boxing attractive to regular TV viewers. The formula makes a certain network sense: take appealing young men, generate melodrama by exploring their hopes and fears and family lives and backgrounds, then put them in the ring with each other, reducing the actual fight to just the "good parts": exchanges, scoring blows, action that looks like action even to the most casual viewer. Use fighters and fights as the raw material out of which to construct a story, in other words, that cuts out the day job, the waiting around, the endless repetitions in the gym, the learning, the clinches, the long stretches in which two opponents' styles fail to mesh explosively.

Makes sense, sort of. But what's left isn't boxing. Action without context is a higlight reel, and even a highlight reel of edited-together knockout punches--supposedly the most exciting thing that can happen in a boxing match--is interesting for at most twenty seconds; then it's thuddingly dull. A knockout punch without the context of the fight around it is like a home run without the baseball game around it--not just the game's superficially exciting parts, but also the breaks between half-innings, the long futile foul-ball-filled at-bats, the pause while a relief pitcher trots in and warms up, all the routine texture of the game from which the well-hit ball suddenly soars free, elevating everyone as it rises.

So, to come back to Frank's post about the long-discussed demise of boxing, I would agree with Charles and others that boxing isn't going to die anytime soon, and may be no more unhealthy today than 20 years ago, but I will say that The Contender represents one way in which boxing might die: to the extent that it's reduced to "material." The Contender represents what happens to boxing when it falls into the hands of people with money and influence who are fundamentally afraid of boxing--afraid that nobody would want to watch a real fight, afraid that it's too much work to endure the parts when somebody isn't getting nailed right on the jaw or at least staging a crying jag, afraid that people would get bored in the same way that, say, the crowds attending NBA games are assumed to get bored during even a minute-long time-out if clowns aren't bouncing on trampolines while shooting nerf balls into the upper deck with rocket launchers. But, of course, The Contender is not the only boxing on TV. If it was, boxing would by dying. Try the Spanish-language channels, for instance. There are some hard-ass little guys boxing up a storm over there. You don't need to be able to speak Spanish--nor do you need to see any trumped-up footage in which the fighters fake their way through soul-baring assessments of their own hopes and dreams--to see that.

7 Comments:

At 10:31 AM, Blogger Frank Lotierzo said...

If I implied boxing was on it's way to being an afterthought, that's not what I meant.

I was trying to convey that I see what could be a gathering storm in the works to push it down the Sports Food chain further than it is.

Ring Magazine top-10 P4P Fighters:

1-Floyd Mayweather: he's been a pro 10 years, yet none of us will implicitly say he's great. And he doesn't excite fringe boxing fans.

2-Winky Wright: Great basics and fundamentals. The problem with him is, only advanced observers appricate his style. He also has this habit of losing to the upper-tier fighters his weight that are at or close to their peak.

3-Manny Pacquiao: Very exciting to watch, but too small to capture the American fan, who he needs to become a star. Has a cult like Philippino following.

4-Jermain Taylor: Last I heard from this group, I was the only one who thought he had a chance to become an upper-tier fighter. What If I'm wrong?

5-Bernard Hopkins: At his best, one of the top ten middleweight greats in history. However, the 2007 version is a businessman looking for gimmick fights.

6-Marco Antonio Barrera: One of the all-time greats like Hopkins. Like Pacquiao, too small to draw fans of the UFC and NFL. Not to mention, he's at the end of the road.

7-Rafel Marquez: He can fight, but how many bantamweights drew fans from other combat sports to boxing?

8-Ricky Hatton: Not an elite fighter campaigning in a brutal era and division.

9-Jose Luis Castillo: I love him, but he's showing the effects of fighting the best of the best during his career.

10-Joe Calzaghe: Has had one signature fight. And it just happened to be versus American Jeff Lacy. I just asked a guy in my office, who likes and watches boxing, and had me over his house to watch Hopkins-Taylor II on PPV.

Frank: Andre, is Joe Calzaghe any good?

Andre: I never heard of him.

Boxing isn't going to be abolished. It'll still be around in 50 years. However, it's becoming less a factor than I've ever witnessed before.

Muhammad Ali drew me to it. I'm sure others were drawn to it because of Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson and Oscar De La Hoya. If there's another fighter out there who'll capture the sports public like they did, I don't know him.

Olympic Boxing isn't on in Prime Time. The Scoring also turns off the fans who do happen to catch it. On top of that, the networks haven't aired live boxing for 15 years.

With no exposure to boxing, it's less likely the next Ali or Leonard will come along. Boxing needs those type fighters to draw guys to want to box.

Who is the fighter out there today who five year old Frank Lotierzo could be exposed to that it would draw him to want to follow boxing, and maybe even try it? I know it's not Floyd Mayweather. De La Hoya wouldn't have either.

The Ali, Leonard and Tyson fans of today, watch and care about Kobe Bryant, LaBron James, Ray Lewis and Barry Bonds.

I'd love for that to change, but I don't see that being the case anytime soon.

 
At 11:27 AM, Blogger Carlo Rotella said...

I think I disagree with your basic premise, Frank. I don't look for one very charismatic fighter to bring me to boxing. Nor do sports fans in other sports rely exclusively on that. Look at football, for instance, which has many stars, and doesn't desperately pimp just one or two of them in the way that the post-Jordan NBA has been so feebly trying to do. What's appealing about football is the whole aura of the game: the hitting, the sound and velocity, the situations, the reversals of fortune, the intricacies of play calling and execution, the sheer grinding spectacle of one team wearing the other one out and pushing it down the field--and the texture of the event, from weather to food to the rhythm of a fall Sunday.

What draws me to boxing, similarly, is the totality of the fight world, which is populated by all kinds of characters who find themselves in all kinds of situations: old guy trying to find it within him to beat young guy; short guy dealing with tall guy; guy who got KO'd trying to figure out a way to win the rematch; and so on. What brought me to boxing was that there were people who knew how to _do_ this thing, and that they had to reckon with each other. So I'd much rather look for a deep division than one with a major star at the top of it, if that were my choice. Yes, you can argue that the depth isn't good these days, relative to the golden age (which varies from division to division), and you can argue that the top ten list isn't particularly thrilling, and I'll be convinced by those arguments, but pining for a big star to bring people to boxing isn't necessarily a position for which I have much sympathy. I always found Sugar Ray Leonard kind of repellent, actually, except when he was actually fighting. I much preferred Hagler, who wasn't regarded as anywhere near as cute.

If there's one fighter who brought me to boxing--both as a kid watching TV and as an adult going to the gym and the fights in person--it was Larry Holmes, who is not known for turning the world on with his smile. Even with the general decline in skills and experience across the board in the fight world, I think the lower weight classes can produce a Larry Holmes type in the foreseeable future. That is, a guy with skills, heart, an engagingly quotable personality (prickly and profane, in Holmes's case, rather than glossy and cute, but I prefer prickly and profane), and some worthwhile opponents against which to test himself. It's not like such fighters come around all the time, but there are some out there.

Boxing may actually send itself down the tubes if it waits for another Ali to save it. But it might just get by as an interesting niche market if it lets good fighters fight good fighters.

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger Frank Lotierzo said...

Carlo, Ali was bad for boxing in some ways. Not to mention, he overshadowed greats like Foster, Monzon and Duran during the 1970's.

The thing I think you're missing or maybe don't think it means as much as I do is, boxing we'll always have fans and observers like you and me. We're a given.

Boxing doesn't need Ali, Leonard type fighters to be healthy. What it needs them for is to keep it on the map. There aren't enough die-hards like us who love watching Hopkins, Toney or Holmes.

The fighters I highlighted bring fans to boxing and crate interest in it. As a result they get to see the other good fighters who always put on good fights.

Despite hearing and reading about Carl "The Truth" Williams, I never saw him fight until I saw him on the undercard of Pryor-Arguello II against Purcell "Magic" Davis. I told my buddy Greg, the guy I took over to Cobb's house, this kid looks like the next Holmes. The result of that was I followed "The Truth" from that point on.

What made me want to see Pryor-Arguello I or II? Maybe them fighting on CBS/NBC on the weekend for a few years ignited me to go watch them on Closed Circuit.

Boxing hasn't had much exposure lately. And when it has, the fights haven't been anything that we'll remember or long to see again. The other big problem you touched on. That being the best fighters don't fight each other.

Sure, below middleweight there's good fights/fighters. The problem is, boxing needs a few outstanding heavyweights, light heavyweights and middleweights to bring in other Sports fans.

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger Carlo Rotella said...

Well, Frank, you've convinced me once again that you're right and I'm wrong.

Just kidding. My writing that sentence in earnest would be a sign of the imminent heat death of the universe. Actually, I do agree that Ali wasn't all good for boxing. But I don't agree that what boxing needs to do is rope in the casual sports fan. Or, rather, I don't agree that the best way to get X number of pay per view buys from casual sports fans per year is to trot out one ultra-charismatic fighter who happens to weigh at least 200 pounds.

First, what's your definition of charisma? Look at major sports stars. Michael Jordan? Tiger Woods? Have two more tedious men ever lived? Yes, both might be fun and interesting to watch when they play (I can't vouch for Woods, since golf, to me, is a TV tuned between stations), but mostly because they're _good_, not because they have any charm worthy of the name. So this idea that boxing needs a smiley cretin with perfect teeth and a camera-friendly manner is misplaced, I think. So is the idea that it must seek the opposite, a boogeyman of the sort that Mike Tyson was asked to play. I don't think you have to be some kind of connoisseur of boxing to see that Bernard Hopkins is both an infinitely better fighter than Oscar De La Hoya and a human being infinitely more worth watching, listening to, and following over the course of his career. When Hopkins gave De La Hoya a public spanking, it was like watching Abe Lincoln settle Regis Philbin's hash with an axe handle.

Second, if you do need charmers to bring fickle sports fans to boxing, who says they have to be big guys? Yes, Shaq and Yao Ming are popular, but, if you're thinking about celebrity and martial skills, look around: How much does Jackie Chan weigh? How about Jet Li? How about Bruce Lee? People al over the world, including a lot of Americans, fork over lots of money to watch them play-fight. Among the ranks of those adept at administering a beating to others, Bruce Lee might almost have rivaled Ali in popularity in the 70s, and he was only pretending (mostly).

All I'm saying, Frank, is that the slavish desire for the things we've been talking about--1) a big man, 2) a telegenic charmer as defined by the standards that brought us, say, Britney Spears, and 3) the attention of casual sports fans--may lead boxing astray. Not that these things are bad, but maybe it's more worthwhile investing in other approaches to building the sport's depth and its foothold in the culture.

 
At 11:33 PM, Blogger Brian Moore said...

1. I've been told Floyd Mayweather oozes charisma like an open sore, but no one seems to fret much about his retirement.

2. Carlo, you can take comfort in the fact that "The Contender," like boxing, enjoyed a run on network television before demonstrating insufficient mass appeal, thus ensuring an anonymous existence on cable.

 
At 3:27 AM, Blogger Eddie Goldman said...

In boxing as in many aspects of society, the 21st is not turning out simply to be another American century. We may regard a fight between Klitschko and Valuev as almost being on a par with Hulk Hogan vs. Andre the Giant, but in Germany it might sell 40,000 tickets. Boxing remains on free network TV in the UK, Germany, and Japan, just to name a few with which I'm familiar. And it often draws very high ratings. So its decline in America is but one aspect of its fortune.

Boxing might not require another Ali to survive -- or, for that matter, another decade like the '60's whose events made his story possible -- but it already is producing quite a few new and current stars. Amir Khan in the UK, the Kameda brothers in Japan, Calzaghe and Hatton in the UK, Pacquiao in the Philippines, perhaps Cotto in Puerto Rico and New York, Duddy in New York (and maybe Ireland), and even Klitschko in much of Europe have large followings. Calzaghe-Kessler might not interest many American sometime fans, or inspire the clueless cable suits, but in Europe it would do big business. And newer markets like Russia and China have barely been used yet.

What is certainly missing for now is another African-American star, whose presence, both among fans and haters alike, drove boxing for much of the past 90 years. Jermain Taylor is a longshot to grow into that role, and he also needs a dance partner. Although I like Floyd Mayweather Jr. and expect him to defeat De La Hoya if they do fight, it seems that he has too many enemies in the boxing establishment and too few grassroots supporters to break through, again at least for now. Winky Wright is an acquired taste, and from there this list tails off even more dramatically.

Has there ever been a time when major boxing cards were held in so many different countries at once? Similar globalization developments have been happening in other major sports, including basketball, hockey, and baseball, although they each have their own specifics.

That said, if boxing remains without a credible international monopoly running it, as it seems certain to, the resulting corruption and scandals may burst these far-flung bubbles as they have already helped do in the USA.

 
At 9:38 AM, Blogger Carlo Rotella said...

It does seem funny, when you put it in that global context, that the requirements for a single savior to bring "us" (read: people who watch ESPN SportsCenter) "back" to boxing are so ludicrously specific: there can be only one such savior, he has to be American, he should weigh at least 200 pounds, he has to be either a) charming and flashy or b) brooding and potent, and he has to be black, and ideally not of middle-class background (or he has to be able to suppress that background and seem to be "street" in a way that will persuade those ESPN viewers--not that that's hard to fake). How weird is that? And how unbelievably parochial, short-sighted, and dumb?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home