A Boxing Wishlist For 2024

As the calendar turns to another year, that means it is time once again for what has become a tradition to start the year every year here on The Boxing Truth®️. Yours truly is referring to this observer’s annual “Boxing Wishlist" of things that I would like to see take place in the new year.

For those who may be new to this tradition, this is not a Wishlist in the sense of a numbered list from 1 to 10 as an example, but what I will do is list an item and proceed with an explanation as to why it is on the list and hopefully a brief explanation or as brief as I can make it within the context of a single column as to my feelings on the subject.  Unfortunately, to those who are loving readers,some items that have been on the list in years past will remain on the list this year, but as frustrating as that might be, it is worth revisiting and updating the various subjects that remain in the list in present context.

With what I hope is as clear an explanation of the structure/criteria both for new readers who may be reading this observer’s work for the first time as well as a refresher for longtime readers, there is only one thing left to do. Get down to business. As was the case for the 2023 edition of “A Boxing Wishlist," each item on the list will be highlighted in an effort to make it easier for readers rather than simply moving from paragraph to paragraph as one would expect in a standard column.

“A Boxing Wishlist For 2024”

To see Women's Boxing moved to three minute rounds:

In October of 2023, the Boxing world was treated to a truly historic moment when Featherweight world champion Amanda Serrano defended her unified crown against top contender Danila Ramos in Orlando, FL. What made this a truly historic event in Boxing history was it was the first world championship fight for women in the sport scheduled for twelve rounds and a three minute round length. The same distance and round length as men's world championship bouts.

As one who has long advocated for Women's Boxing through my various writings in almost three decades, this was an emotional moment for me, a man who has never competed in the ring, but one who has said for years that the sport for women needed to be held in the same regard and light as their male counterparts. While only in recent years has the United States seemingly caught up with the rest of the world in staging women's bouts as the main event on cards also featuring men's bouts, a major step towards equality that I had been yelling for, for years was to see women's bouts moved from a two minute round length to the standard of three minutes along with the adaptation of a twelve round distance for world championship fights.

Although the argument of a two minute round length has been used to push narratives regarding both the excitement of women's bouts, but more specifically to address safety concerns, it is an argument that is flawed on both subjects. Firstly, despite fights with two minute rounds having an obvious quicker pace, it does not necessarily equate to an exciting fight and the old adage of styles make fights still applies as it would for men's bouts. Secondly, even though the issue of safety should be taken with the utmost importance at all times, the argument for keeping two minute rounds loses credibility when one considers that women in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fight in bouts scheduled for three five minute rounds for non-title fights and five, five minute rounds for world championship fights, the same standards as what men's bouts in the sport are held. 

When one also considers that women boxers also now compete in various forms of Bareknuckle Boxing, the argument for not allowing female fighters to box under the same standards as men in traditional professional Boxing has less credibility. If one were to look for more evidence, they need look no further than the delayed 2020 Summer Olympics held in Tokyo, Japan in 2021. All women's bouts held in the Boxing tournament in every weight class were held with a three minute round length. More importantly, there were no serious injuries and the fighters who competed in the tournament showed they can do so under the same structure as their male counterparts.

As for what Serrano and Ramos were able to show on October 27, 2023, they too proved they can box in three minute rounds and what was an exciting fight from the opening bell was loudly and proudly applauded by the crowd in attendance in Orlando, FL who spent the majority of the final four rounds giving both fighters a standing ovation. This observer is not ashamed to say that as I covered the bout remotely, the emotion of both the significance of what was taking place as well as the fight itself got the better of me and I had tears in my eyes because seeing it validated everything I ever believed could be possible for Women's Boxing and also vindicated my coverage of women's bouts going back to when I started my writing journey in the mid-1990’s where people would actually say among other things,“Why do you waste your time covering women's fights, no one takes it seriously.” It may have taken almost three decades for me to both see and cover a woman's world championship bout fought for twelve three minute rounds, but I do consider it one of the highlights of my career.

The then Undisputed Featherweight champion Amanda Serrano retained her crown with a twelve round unanimous decision. Unfortunately, as there always seems to be in Boxing, it turned out to be one significant step forward towards equality, but a few steps back in the process. This was due to Serrano indicating immediately after that fight her intention to box in three minute rounds for the remainder of her career, which the World Boxing Council (WBC) has refused to sanction Women's bouts fought with three minute rounds and a twelve round distance for world championship fights. In a true display of integrity, class, and also proving she was serious, Serrano relinquished the WBC World Featherweight championship due to the sanctioning organization’s refusal to allow equality. Along with relinquishing that championship, Serrano also willingly gave up her status as an undisputed champion, putting principle over whatever financial gain she might have received as an undisputed champion.

With all due respect to the WBC, I stand with Serrano and all the other female fighters that want to be equal to their male counterparts. Although Serrano is getting ready to defend the remainder of her titles in March in a fight that will again be scheduled for twelve three minute rounds, at some point in 2024, I would like to see all the respective state athletic commissions, international regulatory boards as well as the various sanctioning organizations adapt the same standards that are used for men's bouts for women. While for the moment, it appears outside of the WBC, that such a standard has to be requested by the fighters themselves, all of those who are tasked with regulating the sport need to realize that it is 2024 and there is no longer any legitimate argument that should prevent women from being able to compete under the same format as men. 

To See Boxing Finally Realize The Time Has Come To Move Away From Pay-Per-View:

Perhaps the one subject that has been on this “Boxing Wishlist '' year after year and for a legitimate reason is to see the hold outs as I call them, who have relied on the pay-per-view model to admit it's time to change. The pay-per-view model unfortunately is something that gets a lot of coverage by yours truly, but as years have gone on, it is because it is a model that does more harm to Boxing than it benefits the sport. In addition to often asinine price points, which are no longer of value to consumers in an increasingly subscription-based streaming world, which predictably has led to an increase in declining buy returns for promoters and networks as consumers continue to reject pay-per-view, the latest casualty was the recent exit of United States premium cable network Showtime, who after thirty-seven years exited the sport after spending much of the last several years producing overpriced pay-per-view cards rather than producing consistent cards on their main network.

In responding to the criticism of the frequent use of the model in the years before Showtime's parent company Paramount Global pulled the plug not just on Showtime’s Boxing programming, but of the network’s sports division as well, then president of Showtime Sports Stephen Espinoza claimed proudly that “Pay-Per-View is a tool." While I do not intend to kick anyone who lost their jobs as a result of Paramount's decision to get out of Boxing and also sports altogether as far as Showtime was concerned, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that while there may have been other contributing factors, which led to that decision, the primary one was the use, overuse, and insistence on an outdated model, which subsequently led to significant losses financially. 

With networks like Showtime and HBO before them having now exited Boxing due largely to the pay-per-view model, with the sport seemingly about to embark on a streaming-based future in 2024, it is imperative that the networks that remain including DAZN, ESPN/ESPN+, as well as recent newcomer Peacock, and soon to enter Amazon Prime Video realize that the time to get away from pay-per-view has arrived and the insistence of those who demand the use of such a model no longer has credibility as evidence continues to point in the direction that pay-per-view is not the answer nor is it a cure-all for the flaws in the sport, particularly on the business end of it, it is a cause of a lot of what holds Boxing back and that will not change though the distribution model seemingly has officially changed from cable/satellite to streaming.

Equally as imperative is the need for those who believe pay-per-view is the only way to make additional revenue including, but not limited to fighters purses for a given bout, to seek alternative ways to get that revenue without alienating consumers.  While major sports leagues here in the United States and internationally have what can be called premium packages marketed to consumers through cable/satellite and now streaming, the athletes in those respective sports make additional revenue through advertising and endorsement deals. The various leagues also benefit from those sources of revenue beyond their licensing rights and live gate attendance figures.

An analogy this observer has used frequently to illustrate the point that pay-per-view does more harm than good for the sport is comparing access of Boxing's biggest events, or what is thought to be via pay-per-view to the playoffs of the National Football League (NFL). Although the NFL has two separate streaming packages for consumers to watch all the league’s games, NFL Sunday Ticket, through YouTube and the league's own NFL+ streaming platform, all playoff games remain free and both of the aforementioned streaming offerings are for games that one would not see in their local market and in the case of NFL+ on demand access of every game in addition to being able to live stream games in one's local market, as big as the NFL has become, imagine if the league came out and said we're going to a pay-per-view model where consumers will have to pay $70+ per game and $85+ for playoff games and the Super Bowl. It should not take a rocket scientist to see that such a model would take the NFL or any other sports league that would attempt it from extremely profitable, popular, and a guaranteed ratings winner for any network, traditional or streaming, and turn it into something that would resemble the stock market crash in the late 1920’s which led to the great depression.

While it is an extreme analogy, it nevertheless illustrates the need to appeal to consumers and what would happen if consumers were to be alienated by what would be asinine business decisions. Despite Boxing and by extension Combat Sports being considered by some to be niche sports or products, much like other organized sports, the need to appeal to a wide audience and make your events as accessible and consumer-friendly as possible exists and for Boxing and other combat sports to continue to rely on a model that has not been consumer-friendly in decades, even as more networks have left the sport and consumers continue to reject said model, is to put it in a word asinine.

To see more fights of significant interest not placed behind expensive paywalls:

To continue with the need for Boxing to move away from pay-per-view, part of the issue, which has led Boxing to what some may feel is a crossroads moment as 2024 begins is the need for Boxing promoters and networks involved in the sport to produce fights that will be of significant interest to draw eyes to the sport, but also do so without requiring a high price tag for consumers to access said events. Originally, this was the strategy of digital subscription-based streaming network DAZN, who upon its entry into the United States in 2018 proclaimed a greater value to consumers by producing pay-per-view quality Boxing events “Without The Pain Of Pay-Per-View!"

It was a successful strategy until the global COVID-19 epidemic hit in late 2019 and 2020, which caused a ripple effect throughout all of sports and for networks like DAZN, with no live sports taking place throughout much of the world through various stages of the epidemic, significant financial losses. While the implementation of pay-per-view, which began for DAZN in 2022 was understandable to a degree in that losses needed to be recouped and the explanation of needing a pay-per-view option, which they insist will be on a selective/occasional basis that will not devalue the network’s core subscription business, was also a way to get those who insisted on such a model to the negotiating table, the time has come to go back to the original strategy and strengthen their subscription-based model as much as possible.

With another network now out of the sport because of relying too much on pay-per-view and also not holding promoters and maybe even fighters who insisted on it's use to a standard of accountability for failing to reach profitable numbers and do so on a consistent basis, which likely would have kept Showtime involved in the sport beyond 2023, it's imperative that networks like DAZN do not follow that same path and use what was working for them prior to circumstances of a global epidemic that essentially shut down the world. Although COVID-19 still exists, we are now years removed from the point where there were shutdowns across the globe and as far as sports is concerned, things are pretty much back to where they were prior to 2020.

If the argument for the continued use is to get folks to the negotiating table and those folks attempt to point to what are perceived successes of the model by selecting certain events as a means of trying to justify their case, arguably Showtime had what was perceived by some to be one of their most successful years in the sport in 2023, even though the bulk of the content produced was produced not for the main Showtime network, but for pay-per-view, it is obvious that it was not a successful strategy as they are now on the outside, looking in. Furthermore, those perceived successes fail to address the issues of refunds having to be issued for Showtime’s events due to technical problems through the now defunct Showtime streaming app, as was the case for the Gervonta Davis-Ryan Garcia event last April, which was also streamed through DAZN and had widespread problems resulting in significant refunds having to be issued. While some may omit facts like that as a means of trying to push a narrative, it does make one question just how successful the model truly was for Showtime even though by appearances they appeared to have a successful 2023.

In any case, the argument for its continued use in spite of evidence that it is no longer a successful formula for the sport is diminished further when one also considers that pay-per-view in recent years has also been contractually obligated. Meaning that a network like Showtime was obligated to produce a certain number of pay-per-view cards over the duration of a contract with a promoter, which in their case was the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters. The obvious flaw with such a structure is it did not matter what specific fights would be reserved for pay-per-view, which ultimately meant that most of the resources went to pay-per-view and away from Showtime's main network. This also meant that fights and cards with limited appeal that might have otherwise have aired as part of the network’s main Boxing programming were moved to pay-per-view and predictably failed to deliver a profit for all involved.

Simply put, the original concept of pay-per-view as not only providing value for consumers, but also only being reserved for rare special events no longer exists and essentially putting fights on the model simply because it can be done rather than merit and also not at a price point that appeals to consumers is a recipe for failure. As 2024 begins, there is a significant opportunity for the aforementioned networks, which operate primarily under a subscription-based model to redefine the idea of offering value through their respective subscription plans.

What this observer means by that is not only providing value in terms of the quantity of Boxing content offered, but also in an effort to re-establish the sport in the eyes of consumers, producing fights and cards of significant interest, but without the expensive price tag. While some in the sport including perhaps some fighters might turn their nose up at such an idea, the reality is it needs to happen for the long-term health of the sport, otherwise circumstances like what has happened with Showtime leaving Boxing will continue happening if the networks that remain and potential new platforms are not making a profit to make their investments in the sport viable and that will not happen by continuing to rely on an outdated model even if said model was the status quo in a previous era. Simply put, times change and the business structure of Boxing needs to evolve.

Conclusion:

As the calendar now turns to 2024, the aforementioned items on this observer’s “Boxing Wishlist” are just some of what would benefit the sport moving forward. While 2024 appears as though it will look different and perhaps feel different in terms of how the sport is presented, one should feel at least a little optimistic that there is at least the potential for Boxing to be in a better position at the conclusion of this year than was the case at the end of 2023. One item that has been on the “Wishlist” for many years that has seen progress made and thus has not been included as a highlighted item is the need for Boxing to establish one world champion per weight division. In recent years, there has been progress made towards this goal for both men and women competing in the sport, but I should not have to tell you dear reader, there is still much more that can be, and should be done. 

Although I have decided at least for this year’s list to omit this topic as a highlighted item, it does nevertheless remain relevant because it is still a work in progress. Part of that progress needs to be a commitment not only by the fighters involved, but also by the various sanctioning organizations to keep world championships unified once they become undisputed championships. This is not an easy task given that there are five recognized world sanctioning organizations, each with their own rules and mandatory defense obligations that need to be met on an annual basis, but for true progress to be made where it is not viewed as temporary, there needs to be an effort by all involved to ensure that the process of making unification bouts, which is often a long, drawn out, and complicated one due in part to the aforementioned organizations’ respective policies, once that process has been done, it needs to be preserved to ensure that all the process that took place to unify a division, does not ultimately turn into a waste of time where the primary motivation will be to start said process all over again.

Some may view that, and all of what has been discussed on this “Boxing Wishlist For 2024” as truly “Wishful Thinking,” but the reality is evidence of the need to change could not be clearer and the need for significant progress and “Legitimate Progress” remains needed for the sport to grow and thrive. Let 2024 Begin!

“And That’s The Boxing Truth.”

The Boxing Truth® is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on the following Social Media Platforms:

X: (Formerly Twitter) www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison  

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BeauDenison1    

Threads: www.threads.net/@BeauDenison1 

Instagram: www.Instagram.com/BeauDenison1 

A Boxing Wishlist For 2023

It is the beginning of a new year. What that means for readers here on The Boxing Truth® is it is time for this observer to share his annual “Boxing Wishlist” regarding some of the things that I would like to see in the sport during the upcoming year. While yours truly is writing this year’s edition of his “Boxing Wishlist” in the latter days of 2022 ahead of its scheduled release, I feel it important to state for anyone who may be reading what has become an annual tradition for me at the beginning of a calendar year that this list does not feature a formal list from 1 to 10 for example as one would see in a countdown-like television show, but rather you will see this observer list an item and go into an explanation as to why it is on the list and hopefully a brief explanation or as brief as I can make it within the context of a single column as to my feelings on the subject. As tends to also be the case with each passing year, there will be items that have been featured in previous years lists that will unfortunately remain on the list as circumstances warrant it. Now that I have explained the structure/criteria for new readers and hopefully a bit of clarity for longtime readers who may have wondered what goes into my process, it is time to get on with the task at hand. Unlike previous years however, I will be highlighting each item rather than simply going from one item to the next in an effort to make it easier for the reader.

“A Boxing Wishlist For 2023”

To See A Clear Distinction Between “Influencer Boxing” And Professional Boxing:

In recent years, the sport has seen the introduction of what is referred to as “Influencer Boxing.” Although I have stated in previous columns discussing the subject that it is twist of sorts on a “Celebrity Boxing” concept that we have seen on and off over previous decades, I feel that the genre if you will of what is “ Influencer Boxing” needs to be clearly defined as to not be confused with Professional Boxing and to be more specific, needs to be clarified to the casual sports fan for which the concept is clearly targeted towards in terms of demographics.

While some Boxing purists would probably call the “Influencer” concept more of an intrusion than to the sport’s benefit, I do see it as a benefit in the sense that it does generate interest, particularly amongst those who have either never been exposed to Boxing before or for whom the sport is of only a casual interest. Where I feel there needs to be a distinction between what is “Influencer Boxing” and what is Professional Boxing is in the fact that most of those who are influencers are not professional fighters and, despite the boasts of some of those who have generated interest, you are not likely to see one known as an influencer competing against pro boxers that are either contenders or world champions simply because they are not taking a route into the sport that amateur fighters take upon turning professional and though many influencers have proven to be good promoters, the structure of the sport needs to be respected and if an influencer truly wants to compete against boxers, they should go the same route as every other fighter that enters the sport.

 If however, influencers are only interested in facing others on a similar level it needs to be defined clearly as different from Professional Boxing particularly since we have seen influencers pushed in main event positions on pay-per-view cards without facing professional boxers. If nothing else, it should be defined for consumers as well. Although I have said that any influencer/celebrity that enters the ring will get a fair shake from me as long as the sport is respected, which will continue, the difference between what is “Influencer Boxing” and what is “Professional Boxing” needs to be clearly defined.

To See An “Exhibition Circuit” Established In The Sport:

While some might argue that this and “Influencer Boxing” go hand and hand, there has also been an influx of Exhibition Boxing that has surfaced over the last two years. Some may recall the exhibition that took place on Thanksgiving weekend 2020 at the venue previously known as the Staples Center in Los Angeles, CA where Boxing Hall of Famers Mike Tyson and Roy Jones boxed an eight round exhibition in a fanless environment due to the COVID-19 global epidemic. The event, which was broadcast on pay-per-view was a humanitarian effort by Tyson and Jones in a charitable gesture to the first responders of an epidemic that as we enter 2023 continues.

Both Tyson and Jones should be praised for the initiative they took, but in an inadvertent way, that event, which was done for a cause, has given way to an unofficial circuit where retired fighters like Tyson and Jones engage in exhibitions. Sometimes those exhibitions are between former fighters, while other times it may be a former fighter going against a badly overmatched celebrity/influencer. It is important for me to say before I go further that I am not against the idea of fighters staging exhibitions especially when it is for a charitable cause, which was one reason beyond curiosity that I was happy to cover the Tyson-Jones exhibition in 2020. Having said that, one thing that I as someone who truly cares about Boxing that I do have an issue with is when exhibitions are staged not for a charitable cause, but as an attempt by some to secure lucrative offers to participate in clear mismatches that ultimately have no benefit to anyone, least of which the sport of Boxing.

With this in mind, if former fighters are truly interested in partaking in exhibitions rather than actively competing in the sport, I think it would be wise to establish an “Exhibition Circuit” within the sport, but there also should be some guidelines if such a thing were formally established. The first and perhaps most obvious among them should be to ensure that any boxer partaking in an exhibition goes through the same thorough medical screenings and neurological testing that all boxers should be subject to prior to getting licensed to fight. Some may recall the regrettable exhibition, which took place in September 2021 between the fifty-nine year old Hall of Famer Evander Holyfield and former MMA world champion Vitor Belfort. An exhibition that was moved to South Florida due to the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) refusing to clear Holyfield for the event citing his age, many years of inactivity, and the punishment he had sustained over a long career prior to retirement.

While the CSAC should be applauded for trying to prevent what could have been a tragedy, a clearly compromised Holyfield was allowed to get into the ring and was quickly overwhelmed by Belfort before Referee Sam Burgos did what the Florida State Athletic Commission apparently would not do and protected Holyfield against himself and from possibly permanent damage if not worse. If this were not a bad enough black eye for the sport, it should also not be unnoticed that the fight was listed as an official professional fight prior to the event, but was changed to an exhibition afterwards, perhaps in response to the subsequent backlash. Although I made my feelings on that shameful night clear in my coverage of that event, I am still embarrassed for the sport that something like that, despite clear evidence that one of the participants should not have been in a ring, was allowed to go on. Especially, after one state commission refused to license said fighter citing concern for his health.

Therefore, under an “Exhibition Circuit” all participants should be put through as thorough screenings and neurological testing that currently exists. Furthermore, no participant should be cleared unless it is clear by testing/screening that they would be licensed by just about any state or international regulatory board one could name. It may be true that you cannot completely eliminate the potential for accidents inside the ring, but at least if such protocols were in place under an exhibition concept as they should be in active competition, the risks should at minimum be reduced.

While not likely in the present time we live in, it would also be nice if an “Exhibition Circuit” were in place to see a standard set that such exhibitions are to be staged to benefit a cause. Whether that be for things like relief efforts or circumstances like those of COVID-19 will obviously depend on the circumstances at a given time, but I personally would like to see some of these exhibitions used to raise funds to assist retired fighters and others who have been involved in the sport both financially and with healthcare. Exhibitions are a great way to spread good will and for charitable causes, but it would also be nice if it were also used as a way for the sport to help care for it’s own and give back to those who gave so much to Boxing.

To See The Push Towards Undisputed Continue Throughout The Entire Sport:

One of the regular additions on the “Boxing Wishlist” seemingly every year is the desire of yours truly to see one undisputed world champion be crowned per weight class throughout the sport's seventeen weight divisions. A wish that as I have pointed out in the past is truly easier said than done with five recognized world sanctioning organizations with each having their own respective ratings per division and policies in terms of regulation.

Despite this, it is one consistent item on the “Boxing Wishlist” that as years have gone by has actually seen gradual progress being made not just in regard to the men competing in the sport, but for Women’s Boxing as well. With undefeated Heavyweight world champions Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk appearing to be the next fight in the pipeline that will determine an undisputed world champion in the Heavyweight division for the first time since 1987 when Mike Tyson scored a twelve round unanimous decision over Tony Tucker for what was then an undisputed world championship with the crowns of the WBC, WBA, and IBF being on the line in that bout, the yet to be announced unification bout between Fury and Usyk will be the first in history where all five recognized world championships will be on the line in a single fight with the WBO and IBO, two organizations that were not established in 1987, now being included in the process of determining an undisputed world champion. 

Although unfortunately any process towards determining an undisputed world champion will have its obstacles and complications regardless of weight class, only with rare exceptions, my hope/wish is to see the progress that has been made in recent years continue. With fighters below the Heavyweight division either moving up or down in weight depending on whatever opportunity might be available to them, which includes some fighters who are able to become undisputed champions in a given division, the idea of seeing one undisputed world champion per weight division at any time may seem impossible. The progress that has been made however is something that cannot be ignored and given the amount of progress being made in just a few years time, there should be cautious optimism, but it is certainly not complete and should be viewed as an ongoing process.

To See The International Olympic Committee Institute A Permanent Boxing Taskforce For All Future Olympic Tournaments:

One subject that I have been keeping an eye on over the last year or so is the one regarding the potential that Boxing may not be included in the upcoming 2024 Summer Olympics. Anyone who follows Boxing closely including the amateur ranks knows that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been at odds with the Amateur Boxing Association, now known as the IBA, due to numerous issues involving alleged corruption in previous Olympic tournaments. While that subject is one that would frankly probably require yours truly to write a series of columns to cover the whole scope of the long-standing issues between the IOC and the IBA, it were those issues that led to the IOC implementing the use of a “Boxing Taskforce” to oversee the delayed 2020 tournament as part of the 2020 Olympics held in Tokyo, Japan in the summer of 2021, which had no involvement from the IBA.

Although an Olympic tournament is truly a marathon over sixteen days of competition and thus is nearly impossible to insulate from potential controversy, I personally felt as someone who with the exception of the 2012 London games, has covered every Olympic Boxing tournament since the 2000 Olympics in some form, that the delayed 2020 tournament was a significant step in the right direction if the goal is ultimately to ensure the credibility and integrity of the tournament.

As much as I feel it was a step forward, the IOC, does not appear willing to keep the taskforce that they put in place going forward and with the committee’s ongoing issues with the IBA continuing, have threatened to remove Boxing from the 2024 Olympics in Paris, France. Without going into specific incidents that led to accusations of corruption against the organization now known as the IBA, the issues of possible corporation is something that unfortunately goes back decades and while I applaud the IOC for attempting to address the issues that be in an effort to both hold the association accountable and restore integrity in the tournament, I feel threatening to remove Boxing from the Olympics is going too far.

While I make no secret of the fact that I look forward to covering the Olympic Boxing tournament every four years, and keeping in mind that I detest corruption in the sport on any level, removing the tournament while on the surface seems as though it would be punishing the alleged wrong doings of an association that is supposed to oversee and regulate Amateur Boxing, the only ones who will be truly punished are the fighters around the world who aim to conclude their amateur careers by attempting to win Olympic Gold before setting their sights on the professional ranks.

 If there were to be a removal of Boxing from the Olympics, I feel that a situation will emerge where fighters will be forced to turn professional simply because the pinnacle of Amateur Boxing competing in the Olympics will have been taken from them through no fault of their own. Unlike a scenario where an individual country might boycott the Olympics as the United States did in 1980, this would be on a global scale and may ultimately result in Amateur Boxing needing to be completely reformatted, which could take many years before the sport is able to be a part of Olympic competition again.

While some may feel a complete restructuring of Amateur Boxing is needed and I do not necessarily disagree with such a view, there has to be and should be a more sensible way to both hold accountable and ensure the integrity of the tournament is upheld without doing away with the tournament and the sport’s participation in the Olympics altogether. It is my hope that the IOC reconsiders it's stance and tries to build on what they were able to accomplish in 2021 with it’s Boxing Taskforce. Until the IBA can demonstrate over several years that it has addressed the issues of corruption and therefore can be trusted to oversee the tournament again, the IOC should keep it's taskforce in place. The solution is not to punish kids, who simply want to compete in the Olympics, by taking the opportunity away from them.

To See Fights Of Significant Interest Made In A Timely Manner:

This item may truly be easier said or let me rephrase, easier “Wished For” than done. One of the biggest drawbacks that I hear on a more frequent basis then I would like to admit particularly among those who criticize Boxing is that it takes often too long for a fight that has significant interest to be made. This is something that you are likely to hear either from those who are casual fans or from those who are primarily fans of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA), who often cite that fights that have significant demand from the public often occur in a much more timely manner in that sport than is the case in Boxing. To be more specific, fights made between stars of the sport, which occur when the fighters are at or near their physical prime.

This is something that frankly is hard to argue against simply because there is plenty of evidence with regard to Boxing that shows that such fights often occur well past the time where both fighters are at their competitive best. Rather then list an endless log of examples, what are the reasons for this? More often than not, the philosophy that I have heard used is by delaying a fight from being made in a timely manner and continuing to let anticipation build as two star fighters continue to meet and presumably defeat other opposition, it allows for promoters, managers, and networks an opportunity to try and maximize potential revenues that could be gained when a fight is finally made. The obvious flaw with that argument/philosophy is such tactics often benefit outside interests like those aforementioned aspects more than it does the fighters involved.

As time has gone on, we see more an emphasis or so it would appear that what is more beneficial for a promoter or network and the vested interests therein often take priority over what is in the best interests of the fighters and more importantly the sport in terms of giving the Boxing fans the fights they want to see on a consistent basis. While the last couple of years has seen improvements overall for the sport, even in the midst of an ongoing epidemic, there is still much more that can be done and progress to be made. A good starting point might be if there is sufficient demand for a fight between two fighters, maybe the best thing a fan can do is take their arguments as to why a fight should happen directly to the promoters and networks involved. In the age we live in where social media is a source of communication for many, there may be no better way for the fan to get their point across, short of choosing not to continue supporting the sport financially and otherwise, than to go straight to the source. Which coincidentally leads this observer to the final addition on this year’s “Boxing Wishlist.”

To See The Pay-Per-View Model Either Significantly Revamped Or Done Away With In The Best Interest Of The Sport And The Fans That Support It:

As a longtime critic of the pay-per-view model, it should surprise no one that the conclusion of this year’s “Boxing Wishlist” features perhaps the one singular item that has been featured year after year with very little variation. To see the pay-per-view model either done away with completely or to see a significant revamp. What do I mean by “Revamp?” It is really simple, a reduction of both the amount of events/cards that are considered to be “Pay-Per-View Level” as well as what the price points are to the consumer. 

Although I do not want to delve into the past too deeply for the purposes of this column and at the risk of showing my age, when I was growing up in the 1980’s and to a certain point in the 1990’s prior to when I began my journey writing about and covering combat sports with Boxing as my primary, the pay-per-view model was one that was used sparingly, and for the most part, was only used for the “Big Fights,” the “SuperFights” to use a term that this observer has used more than once to illustrate a point whenever this topic is discussed.

 Furthermore, even the biggest fights of that era were affordable to the consumer with many not exceeding $40 in most cases. While I can sit all day and often all night talking about the ills of the pay-per-view model and how it does more damage to Boxing than it does to benefit the sport, as 2023 begins, we have regressed slightly in the implementation of reasonably priced subscription-based models, which could ultimately replace what is often hoped for, but rarely achieved in terms of pay-per-view revenue.

How has the sport regressed? I think a major reason why you have seen digital subscription-based streaming networks like DAZN, which marketed themselves heavily as an alternative to the pay-per-view model, reverting to use the model on what they insist is an occasional basis, can be in some ways directly attributed to the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic. DAZN much like many sports networks and sports leagues was severely impacted by what was a months-long pause in sports in 2020 and the circumstances of what may be a global economic recession also plays into the need if one wants to call it that, for them to use the pay-per-view model.

As someone who has been very vocal in supporting what digital streaming networks like DAZN and ESPN+ have done in terms of offering a viable alternative to the inflated, overpriced, and undervalued model of pay-per-view via reasonably priced subscription plans, I would not be objective or honest with the reader if I said I were in favor of using the model, even on an occasional basis. When one looks at the competitors to subscription-based streaming networks, using only here in the United States as an example as these are the platforms I personally have access to, you have premium cable network Showtime and Fox Sports. Each have produced pay-per-view cards in recent years promoted by the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters that more often than not start at a near $75 price point before taxes and additional fees are added into the equation. Not surprisingly, many of those events have failed to be profitable, which I believe is a case of both an overuse of the model and more specifically the price points.

It should also be pointed out that a reason given for DAZN’s implementation of the pay-per-view model was that it was the “Only way” for some fights to be made and to draw certain fighters to the negotiating table. If one views this objectively, there may be some merit to that claim. After all, fighters are often promised additional money from the pay-per-view model and as such, much to the determent of the sport, some fighters per those promises feel that the model is a requirement for them.

Before I go further, let me state that it is not my intention to criticize fighters with my previous statement. Boxing is after all a combat sport and fighters should be able to make as much money as they can, while they can because a career can end almost as quickly as one begins. Having said that, if pay-per-view cards at inflated price points fail to draw significant numbers in terms of buys where it is profitable for all involved, network, promoter, cable/satellite providers, streaming platforms, and finally the fighters, things need to change.

One such approach that I have suggested is for a network like DAZN, who is still a subscription-based platform that has for lack of a better term been forced to implement what is an outdated model for the time being is to say to fighters and promoters if pay-per-view is a requirement for you, we expect to hit x amount of buys not as a break even point, but for profit. Failure to meet that number, we will not do pay-per-view going forward. As I have also pointed out before, if a network were to impose that kind of standard, it does put the onus on the fighter and the promoters to ensure everything is being done on their end to make an event successful. The reality that a lot of these fighters and promoters need to realize is as 2023 now begins, pay-per-view as a source of revenue may still work on an occasional basis, but the key word is “Occasional.” Furthermore, when the market is predominantly focused on reasonably priced streaming networks and subscription-based options therein, many will not be willing to pay $70 to $80 a pop regardless of who might be on the card. Promoters who have also criticized the pricing model of pay-per-view, but still use the model and also charge the same inflated price points that they criticize also need to be held accountable.

The solution from the standpoint of what is good for the sport is a simple one and was already firmly established prior to the COVID-19 global crisis by networks like DAZN and ESPN+. Subscription-based alternatives that are reasonably priced for the consumer. As for how that might get over with fighters who have been conditioned to think that pay-per-view is the only way to achieve additional revenue, I believe a solution to that might be giving a percentage of subscription revenue, especially if certain milestones are met based on a fighter’s appearance on a network/platform. I would also feel confident that additional revenues can be found in the advertising/sponsorship area. 

It is a matter of getting the fighters and promoters to see that what they think is being generated by pay-per-view in terms of revenue is not matching reality and thus the need to adapt to change is necessary both for promoters to survive and for fighters to make what they can, while they can. The solution to continued declining numbers at inflated prices is not doing more of the same. It is time for Boxing as a whole to embrace change rather than segments of the sport continuing to fight against it.

Conclusion:

As 2023 now begins these are the main things that I as a proud Boxing Lifer, would like to see over the course of the year. Whether or not we will see continued progress in any of these areas remains to be seen, but someone who truly has the best interest of the sport can at least hope.

“And That’s The Boxing Truth.”

The Boxing Truth® is a registered trademark of Beau Denison All Rights Reserved.

Follow Beau Denison on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Beau_Denison