Showing posts with label Boxing Wishlist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boxing Wishlist. Show all posts

Monday, January 6, 2025

A Boxing Wishlist For 2025

Introduction:


It is that time of year once again. What has become a yearly tradition here at The Boxing Truth® ️ where this observer begins the new year by sharing his “Boxing Wishlist" with the dear readers who have followed my writings over the many years I have covered Boxing and by extension combat sports. By the title of this column for those who are unfamiliar with previous editions, this is a list of things that I would like to see happen in the sport of Boxing during the course of the new year. It also should be pointed out for those who may be reading the “Boxing Wishlist" put out by yours truly for the first time that this is not a standard list in the sense of a numbered list from 1-10 for example, but rather a condensed selection of topics that will be highlighted in Bold that I will try to discuss in both a detailed as well as a condensed form as possible within the context of a single column. While I always hope to add new topics that have not been featured before in previous years, unfortunately, circumstances do warrant some things to remain on the list, but will be obviously updated for present context as is necessary.


As has also become standard over the years as this list has evolved into a yearly tradition, this year's list is being compiled in the latter days of 2024 while yours truly is recuperating after what was a busy year for the sport and also a challenging one for me personally. For the purposes of this year's list, it is being composed before the World Heavyweight championship rematch between champion Oleksandr Usyk and Tyson Fury, which was held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on December 21st. Delayed coverage of that encounter will be covered in a separate column that will be released on Tuesday, January 7th. Without any further ado, it is time to get into this year's “Boxing Wishlist." 


A " Boxing Wishlist For 2025”:


A Possible Consolidation Of Boxing’s Power Brokers (Promoters) Under One Broadcast Platform:


This is a subject that is both interesting and could be viewed as both good and bad for the sport depending on one’s perspective. One of the more consistent themes of this observer’s work over the last thirteen or so years has been the emergence of digital streaming networks and more specifically, how subscription-based streaming has the opportunity to bring Boxing into a new era that offers both better value and is more cost effective for consumers. A significant part of this particular theme since 2018 has been the inception of DAZN and ESPN+, two digital streaming networks dedicated exclusively to sports that quickly emerged as successors to previous broadcast powerhouses HBO and Showtime, two premium cable networks that have since both exited Boxing.


Although both networks have offered Boxing fans considerably more content than had previously been offered prior to the advent of streaming and have done so mostly under a subscription-based model, it has been DAZN that has grown significantly to house several promoters respective events all under their broadcast banner including Eddie Hearn’s Matchroom Boxing, Oscar De La Hoya’s Golden Boy Promotions, Universum Box Promotions, Dmitry Salita’s Salita Promotions, and most recently Frank Warren's Queensberry Promotions to name a few of what is becoming a deep and global roster of promotional entities ranging from the top of the sport to promoters on the regional level worldwide.


While it is a testament to the growth of DAZN not just in regard to their involvement in Boxing, but also their ongoing investment in securing additional sporting rights as well as continued expansion of their network around the world, the network is poised to continue building momentum in 2025 and may further add to it's Boxing roster, which could increase the likelihood of the network becoming as close to a one stop destination for all things Boxing that is frankly uncharted territory. 


While this could also be seen as bad for the sport in the sense that it might limit competition if most of Boxing's major promoters and even regional promoters around the world will be openly seeking one platform, for the respective other platforms that exist in the sport, which in regard to here in the United States consist of in addition to ESPN/ESPN+, ProBox TV, Triller TV, Prime Video, and Peacock, like DAZN and ESPN, all of the above are largely streaming-based networks, but it will be interesting to see if ESPN for example, who is preparing to revamp their streaming offering to include access to the ESPN linear cable networks, without requiring a Pay-TV provider to access those feeds through the ESPN app, will be looking to either increase their involvement in the sport or potentially at minimum scale back as the network’s agreement with Hall of Fame promoter Bob Arum's Top Rank Boxing is due to conclude in the Summer of 2025, which has also fueled speculation that Arum could potentially be next to join DAZN’s roster.


Although as of this writing, the latter is speculation and yours truly does not like partaking in the practice of rumor gossip, if Arum is indeed preparing to switch platforms, it will be interesting to see what ESPN and the other networks involved in Boxing might do. Even though DAZN has built a roster of promoters and Boxing programming the sport has never seen before, there is always no shortage of promoters worldwide who will always be looking to make their footprint in the sport and it will be very interesting to see if ESPN and Arum do part ways if the network will look to a different promoter who is not currently signed to any of the aforementioned networks and give them a platform in which to try and make that footprint just as it allowed Arum to do initially beginning in 1980 when Arum’s Top Rank became the first major promoter to provide Boxing on a weekly basis on what was then a network in it's early stages in ESPN. There is also always the possibility given what has happened in the last decade with HBO and Showtime that ESPN, though sports centric, might opt to move in a different direction away from Boxing, which if that were to happen, would open a potential window of opportunity for the other networks that have been mentioned here outside of DAZN to potentially expand their involvement in the sport. How this will all play out obviously remains to be seen, but the question is how could this benefit consumers, which leads to the next and all too familiar item that remains a staple of this observer’s annual “Boxing Wishlist." 


The Need For Boxing To Finally Embrace Subscription-Based Models Over Pay-Per-View:


This one admittedly is the one item on the list year over year that has seen very little change, perhaps due to the stubbornness of those in the sport who are hell-bent on sticking with what has been an outdated and overpriced model for years, as well as yours truly’s refusal to stop speaking up on something I sincerely feel needs to change, not for the benefit of myself, but for the sport I have loved all my life and have covered for most of it.


The silver-lining to a significant amount of promoters all being under one broadcast platform in DAZN, which is a global network, however, just might give the network the opportunity to get back to it's original strategy upon its inception here in the United States in 2018, which in turn would ultimately benefit consumers. Top level Boxing cards under a reasonably priced subscription-based model without the need for subscribers to pay an additional pay-per-view fee to access the sport’s major events on DAZN’s platform.


Those who are knowledgeable on the subject know that DAZN, while remaining a subscription-based network, has deviated from their original promise and has offered Boxing cards including some “Influencer Boxing" events which have required an additional pay-per-view fee, which began in 2022 as a likely response to both coming out of the global COVID-19 epidemic in an attempt to recoup losses, which began for many in the television and streaming industries when the world was brought to a standstill in 2020, as well as a way to get fighters and promoters, who have insisted, despite the significant evidence of pay-per-view being in decline, to continue to use the model, to bring them to their platform.


Those who have followed my work going back to the mid-1990’s when I began my writing journey and entered the sport as a writer, but also spent several years covering the professional wrestling industry as well as periodically also covering Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)  in several online and print publications that predated The Boxing Truth®️, the outlet which I own and operate, know that I have frequently and unapologetically criticized the pay-per-view model, primarily over increasing costs as years have gone on as well as the frequency in which the model has been used in that a vast majority of pay-per-view events were put on pay-per-view as a requirement in contractual agreements and/or demands of promoters and even some fighters, more so than it being a significant event, deemed special that would draw a significant audience. Although I can be significantly more thorough, I will give a brief background into what ultimately convinced me that pay-per-view created more problems for Boxing than it solved. I came into this world in the 1980’s. Back then, pay-per-view as well as the cable/satellite industry as a whole were in its initial growing stages. In the context of Boxing and for a period of time Professional Wrestling, saw their major events shown on closed-circuit television in arenas, and theaters throughout much of the United States, but also on cable/satellite pay-per-view where it was available at that time. 


While there was also a difference back then in how those events were presented in that it was presented as a special event and featured a look and feel of something one would not see on standard television broadcasts of either medium at that time, the prices also were limited to between $15-$30 depending on the market you were in and those events were occasional, which made it feel more special, though pro wrestling was the first to eventually expand on the occasional special event to something that would evolve to one event per fiscal quarter by the time the 1980’s came to an end.


With the brief trip down memory lane now also concluded, I should not have to tell those who are knowledgeable that pay-per-view is no longer the budget friendly model that it once was and in regard to Boxing the feel of the true “Special Event" is at best a rarity. Despite this fact and the continued decline of the model with very rare exceptions, promoters still continue to use pay-per-view, even as evidence of the success of reasonably priced subscription-based models exist and could help the sport significantly in the long-term.


One need look no further than the recent event featuring social media influencer, turned aspiring boxer Jake Paul and 58 year old former two-time Heavyweight world champion and Hall of Famer Mike Tyson in November of last year. A controversial event for a few reasons, but one that, despite Mike Tyson's status as once the biggest draw in the sport in the 1980’s and more specifically throughout much of the 1990’s where the latter period saw most of his fights carried on pay-per-view, the Tyson-Paul event was not a pay-per-view attraction, but was instead offered on digital subscription entertainment network Netflix.


While the event was not without its share of controversy both for what occurred inside the ring, but more specifically relating to issues with the live broadcast stream of the event, which was significant, the event, which was also archived for on-demand viewing without any of the issues that plagued the live broadcast, drew an audience of 108 million subscribers globally for the network that has recently ventured into live sports including carrying two NFL football games on Christmas Day, which thankfully did not have any issues with the live broadcasts and also drew massive numbers around the world, but also signing a deal with WWE to broadcast its flagship Monday Night Raw weekly series in the United States as of this week (January 6, 2025), as well as becoming the global distributor of WWE Network internationally including all of the company's weekly programming, library of past events, as well as live premium live events, (Previously known as pay-per-view) which will likely include the United States market when the U.S. rights become available in 2026.


Although the agreements with both WWE and the NFL are clearly part of a much broader strategy by Netflix as it ventures into live sports and sports on-demand programming in expanding its content to grow it's subscriber base even further, the success of both the Tyson-Paul event as well as the NFL’s Christmas Day games which drew 65 million viewers in the United States alone, should serve as a wake up call to those Boxing hold outs as I call them that the time to move away from pay-per-view has come. Though we do not know as of this writing as to what plans might be in the works as for as Boxing is concerned for Netflix, these kinds of numbers could only be dreamed of via pay-per-view distribution even when the model was considered a bargain and budget-friendly for consumers. 


If one is looking for more evidence, longtime pay-per-view distributor InDemand, previously known as Viewer's Choice here in the United States when it launched in 1985, the leading pay-per-view distributor across cable and satellite television here in the United States as well as Canada announced last year that it will be ceasing operations by the end of 2025 ending forty years of service and for a lot of us who grew up with what was then Viewer's Choice as a pay-per-view provider, a lot of good memories of those “Special Events" as well as an alternative to movie theaters to view the blockbuster films of the day. While the distributor has said that it's streaming platform PPV.com will continue operating after the company closes, it should serve as yet another in a growing list of examples as to not only the lack of viability of the pay-per-view model in now 2025 at the time of this column's release, but of the decline of the cable/satellite industry as a whole. 


Although the possibility exists that a new distributor could emerge as cable and satellite providers look to survive in both their traditional forms as well as attempting to transition into offering live TV streaming packages and services rather than traditional cable or satellite service, the odds of both the pay-per-view model as well as cable and satellite models reverting back to an era of both being consumer friendly and consumer-embraced where both models are profitable for providers, distributors, as well as networks and promoters seems unlikely with subscription-based models easily accessible and consumer friendly on the market, which tends to offer considerably more content as well for the price.


Given all of this, it would seem logical that Boxing promoters and networks, rather than waiting for the inevitable collapse of what remains of cable, satellite, and pay-per-view, get out ahead of things and finally embrace subscription-based streaming as the future. In terms of the endless pursuit of seeking additional sources of revenue, which are always hoped-for, but rarely achieved by pay-per-view, the obvious route would be to both attempt lucrative broadcast agreements with streaming networks that would offer these (Pay-Per-View Quality) bouts to their subscribers as part of their subscription, something both DAZN and ESPN have done well when neither has deviated towards pay-per-view, but to also seek sponsorship deals and endorsements, which could effectively replace the pay-per-view model without forcing consumers all promoters attempt to draw to their events to incur additional costs. The bottom line is with much of the Boxing promotional landscape now either under one broadcast banner, or soon to be joining that banner, the argument of using pay-per-view as a way to draw fighters and promoters who insist on the model to the negotiating table, no longer holds water, nor does the excuse some promoters when confronted on the subject of “Market Changes" or blaming expensive prices, which often begin at a $70 price point as something that is the way things are done in the United States. There needs to be accountability of promoters and networks when decisions that ultimately do not benefit consumers are made. With the pay-per-view model suffering yet another blow with InDemands impending closure, one can only hope that common sense on the need to move away from an outdated model will finally come into the equation. On the subject of the implementation of “Common Sense" it coincidentally leads to the final item on this year's list that is also making a return.


To See Women's Boxing Moved To Three Minute Rounds And World Championship Fights Expanded To 12 Rounds:


Perhaps one subject besides the need for Boxing to move away from pay-per-view in order to make the sport more accessible to all as well as the need to seek new revenue streams as an effective strategy to effectively replace the model, which I am also proud to be associated with is my long-standing advocacy for Women's Boxing. To be more specific, wanting to see progress made for female fighters in the sport that would put women on similar footing to their male counterparts. In taking it a step further, two critical aspects, to see women's bouts moved from two minute rounds to three minutes, the same length as Men's bouts and to see world championship bouts in Women's Boxing go from a ten round distance to a twelve round distance, the same distance as men's world championship bouts.


Much like my stance on the pay-per-view model needing to be either significantly revamped, or outright done away with, this is something I will gladly continue banging the drum on until change occurs. With regard to pay-per-view, it's looking to and wanting to see the sport grow and be made accessible to more eyes regardless of economic level, my desire here for Women's Boxing can be summed up in a word “Equality." 


When Women's Boxing began to be featured on television in the mid-1990’s also coincidentally when I began my writing journey, to be frank, it was treated as an attraction more than it was regarded as the sport it was and still is. One of the main differences between women's bouts and men's bouts were that unlike men's fights,; where rounds were three minutes in duration, women were limited to two minute rounds.


Although the purpose in theory was first out of safety concerns and offered a selling point of “More Excitement" due to the quicker pace , women's combat sports has evolved and when one considers that in the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) women's bouts are contested under either three five minute rounds for non-title fights or five, five minute rounds for world championship bouts, the same standards as what men's MMA bouts are contested under, the idea that women boxers should be limited to two minute rounds has less and less credibility.


To expand on this aspect, in the last two Olympic Boxing tournaments, women's bouts were held with three, three minute rounds and there were no instances of serious injury that could have been attributed to the length of time of a round. Furthermore, the additional minute not only allowed fighters time to pace themselves, but also it seemed to solve the the conundrum that often occurs in bouts held with two minute rounds that often result in close fights being scored draws by allowing the same round length as men's bouts, which allowed for more conclusive scoring.


On the professional side of the sport, some may remember the Women's world championship bout between Amanda Serrano and Danila Ramos, where Serrano put her unified World Featherweight championship on the line, which took place in October 2023 in Orlando, FL was contested with three minute rounds and also saw the bout extended to a twelve round distance, the same as men's world championship fights. There were no issues and Serrano was able to retain her championship with a convincing twelve round unanimous decision.


Despite Serrano wanting to continue competing under what is the standard format for men's bouts, three minute rounds and a twelve round distance for world title fights, unfortunately, there has not been a bout held in Women's Boxing since under the format. Frankly, I would like to know why? 


One of the benefits of Netflix' entry into Boxing with the Mike Tyson-Jake Paul event was the co-main event featured the highly anticipated rematch between Serrano and two-division world champion Katie Taylor. A delayed second encounter between two groundbreakers of the sport who made history in April 2023 when they met in Madison Square Garden for Taylor's Undisputed Lightweight championship of the world at that time. What was a great fight that brought tears to my eyes having long advocated for Women's Boxing, was the first Women's bout to main event a Boxing card in the main arena in Madison Square Garden and drew a sell out of over 20,000 people. As one who faced much criticism over the years and questions of why I covered women's bouts, it was a moment of validation not only for the two fighters, not only for the sport of Women's Boxing, but also for yours truly in a small way having long known what female fighters were capable of and holding firm in my stance that Women's Boxing needs to be under the same format as men's bouts. I will also concede that I had a similar emotional reaction during Serrano's fight with Ramos as the crowd in attendance at that fight gave the fighters one long steady standing ovation for the last several rounds of that fight, very similar to that which took place in Madison Square Garden when Taylor and Serrano met for the first time.


When I was informed that the Taylor-Serrano rematch would be taking place as the co-main event of the Tyson-Paul card, I immediately told anyone who asked me about the event or Tyson-Paul that irregardless of what happened in that fight, the Taylor-Serrano rematch would be worth the time to watch and would steal the show at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, TX. Though it did not take long for me to be proven right yet again as the two fighters met again, this time for Taylor's Undisputed Jr. Welterweight world championship, I found myself a bit disappointed because like their first fight in Madison Square Garden, I feel an opportunity was missed here by not allowing the fight to be held with three minute rounds and with a twelve round distance.


Much like their first fight, a grueling and bloody back and forth battle occurred between Taylor and Serrano for ten hard rounds with Taylor once again emerging victorious by the slimmest of margins to retain her undisputed crown. Irregardless of the outcomes of those two fights, which had my votes for Fight of the year in 2023 and 2024, not just in Women's Boxing, but in the entire sport including men's bouts, I feel that style wise Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano could fight ten to twenty times and it would be closely fought from start to finish every single time. One should wonder, however, if the rivalry between these two trailblazers and future Hall of Famers would be even at one fight a piece or potentially even reversed with Serrano having two wins instead of Taylor if the two fighters had the benefit of three minute rounds and an extra two rounds that men who compete in world title fights are afforded. While the fights may have still ended up narrowly decided regardless of duration of round length or distance, simply based on the styles of the two fighters, they deserved three minute rounds and two extra rounds to try to determine a more conclusive outcome. 


My hope for 2025 for Women's Boxing is that those who have stood in the way of progress whether they be sanctioning organizations and/or state and international athletic regulatory boards finally realize that with more women's bouts being held around the world than ever before, with more and more women's fights being positioned as main events on cards also featuring men's bouts, there is no longer a reason to deny female fighters the opportunity to fight under a three minute round or to compete in a twelve round fight in a world championship fight. The time for further steps for equality has come and if top female fighters in the sport are not going to yet be given similar pay as their male counterparts, which they also deserve and is overdue, the least the powers that be in the sport can do is take one step forward by allowing women to compete under the same format as men even if the issue of similar purses for female fighters is a bridge yet to be crossed, but one that much like three minute rounds and the same distance as men's bouts needs to be crossed sooner than later. Female fighters do take the same risks as male fighters take by getting in the ring after all.


Conclusion:


As always by definition the items on this list for now remain “Wishes", but are not ones with the benefit of this observer in mind, but of the sport of Boxing as a whole, the fighters who compete in it and put their lives on the line, and the fans who support it in good times and bad year after year. While some items have remained on the list year after year as circumstances dictate, there are several other things that have been discussed over the years in previous editions of the “Boxing Wishlist" that are as relevant today as they were when they were featured and well likely be featured again in the days, weeks, months, and indeed years when appropriate. With frankly too many of those items to list in the context of one column, it is my hope that this condensed list will not only see progress made as 2025 moves along, but also that the powers that be in the sport take a look and realize that my goal is and has always been from the moment I began my writing journey 30 years ago to benefit Boxing, to advocate for the sport, the fighters, and the fans that support the sport. It is something that has not and will not change. 


With all the above now said and done, it is now time to see what 2025 has in store for the sport of Boxing.


“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   


BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/beaudenison1.bsky.social 



















Sunday, January 5, 2025

Happy 2025

We here at The Boxing Truth®️ would like to wish our readers a very happy and safe 2025. Our 2025 schedule will begin on Monday, January 6th with Beau Denison’s annual Boxing Wishlist for the new year. On Tuesday, January 7th we will provide a special column discussing the recent World Heavyweight championship rematch between champion Oleksandr Usyk and former two-time Heavyweight world champion Tyson Fury, which took place on December 21, 2024 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 


We here at The Boxing Truth® look forward to continuing to provide readers with features, weigh-in results, special previews, fight card recaps, and other content also being released as events approach throughout the sport of Boxing. The Boxing Truth® welcomes the opportunity to continue to provide our readers with accurate information, in-depth analysis, and objective opinions regarding the sport of Boxing as well as the participants and issues that surround it.   Thank you to all our readers for your continued support and we look forward to hearing from you throughout 2025.


Happy New Year.


“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    


BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/beaudenison1.bsky.social 









Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Happy Holidays/Schedule Update

We here at The Boxing Truth® would like to wish our readers a very happy and safe holiday season. While we are between rounds for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, any content that is sent in for release by promoters, networks and others involved in the sport of Boxing will continue to be made available to readers here on the website as normal as they are sent in. We would also like to inform readers that our 2023 schedule will begin on Tuesday, January 3rd with Beau Dennison’s annual Boxing Wishlist for the upcoming year. Happy Holidays.

“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 


Friday, January 7, 2022

A Boxing Wishlist For 2022

 

The time has come once again where this observer shares his “Boxing Wishlist” for the coming year. Unlike previous years where this annual feature here on The Boxing Truth® has usually begins the schedule at the beginning of a year, for 2022 that was not the case. This was due to the Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) group of promoters staging cards on Christmas night and a pay-per-view card on New Year’s Day. While this column has been written in advance of those cards and will be released after both cards have taken place that will be the subject of a feature next week here on The Boxing Truth®, in a coincidence, it leads to the first item on the 2022 “Boxing Wishlist.”  To see promoters that have relied on the pay-per-view model finally embrace the benefits of the subscription-based streaming model that has gradually populated much of the Boxing broadcast coverage throughout the sport over the last three years thanks largely to the success of digital sports streaming networks DAZN and ESPN+.

 

It should be no secret to longtime readers that a consistent theme of my coverage of the sport over the last several years has been to point out the benefits of the subscription-streaming model as compared to what is often an overpriced and undervalued model of pay-per-view where consumers are charged fees that in the current landscape usually begin at the $60 or above price range on a per card basis. Unfortunately, as the ongoing global COVID-19 epidemic has continued, there has seemingly been an increase in the amount of pay-per-view cards that has only furthered the decline of the model. This is due largely to multiple pay-per-view cards being scheduled within a narrow timeframe, which in addition to the price points has resulted in the returns of the majority of those pay-per-view events producing underwhelming numbers for the promoters who put the events on as well as for the networks that produce and distribute the broadcasts via the pay-per-view medium.  Although InDemand (Formerly Viewer’s Choice), the longtime number one pay-per-view cable distributor here in the United States has recently launched a pay-per-view-centric streaming platform under the PPV.com branding, which should be seen as the distributor’s attempt to transition to streaming in response to more consumers opting for streaming television and leaving traditional cable/satellite pay-TV providers behind, the mere amount of events at the aforementioned price points could make the potential success of such a service debatable.

 

Some reasons for that in addition to subscription-based options offering more value to consumers for the price of a subscription, there are other streaming-based pay-per-view providers such as FITE that have been established for several years, which could make it a challenge for InDemand to succeed in the streaming realm. Another aspect of the traditional pay-per-view model that will likely not fare well if InDemand is simply looking to transition their existing distribution model to streaming, that has proven beneficial for networks like FITE and those networks that operate on a subscription model is the feature of on-demand access being made available either with a PPV purchase or a subscription. Traditional pay-per-view distributors do not offer such a feature and if they are looking to transition to streaming as the cable/satellite model continues phasing out, they will likely need to add the benefit of on-demand access for those who purchase events live if they hope to compete effectively in the space.

 

While I certainly have no expectation that the pay-per-view model will disappear in 2022 as promoters and some networks that have been resistant to adapt to subscription-based streaming, those that yours truly often refers to as hold outs, despite mounting evidence that adaptation is likely a better option, if pay-per-view is to remain, I would like to see more value added for the price of a pay-per-view fee. The best way to add value regardless of who might be at the top of a card, would be to see every bout on a card broadcast on the pay-per-view feed. This is something that both DAZN and ESPN+ do with most of their Boxing events. It is also worth noting that FITE has done this before with many of the events they offer that are not also offered through the cable/satellite model. Typically, pay-per-view cards that are produced by networks such as Fox Sports and Showtime here in the United States only broadcast the top three or four bouts on a card that could have anywhere from eight to ten bouts. It should not take much explaining as to why such a model lacks value, though Fox has aired a portion of preliminary bouts on either the national Fox network or their cable sports networks, which depending on a consumer’s pay-TV provider may not always be easy to access.  Even though I remain firm on my stance that the PPV model needs to be done away with or significantly revamped, putting every bout on a card available on a pay-per-view channel for those purchasing an event rather than simply the top three or four fights on a card would be a step in the right direction simply by adding value for the price.

 

This brings me to the second item on this year’s list. Reducing the pay-per-view price points to make it more economically reasonable for consumers. The bottom line in addition to the other aforementioned flaws of the pay-per-view model that has resulted in a consistent decline in pay-per-view revenue on a regular basis, beyond the fact that there are subscription-based alternatives on the market that offer generally better value for the price is, the pay-per-view model has gotten to the point where it has priced out many Boxing fans who can simply not afford a $60 or above price point on a per card basis, that would likely be more willing to tune-in if those price points were more reasonable.

 

Some personal perspective for the reader. I grew up in the 1980’s and 1990’s during the boom period of cable/satellite television. I can recall more or less pestering my parents whenever there was a Boxing or pro wrestling pay-per-view event coming up during those days. Back then, pay-per-view offerings were not every month or every few weeks, but were reserved for the legitimate “Big Fights.” The type of fights that everyone even those with only a casual interest in Boxing would be talking about in one form or another. You would also see much more promotion for such bouts on television via late night talk shows, advertisements, as well as radio interviews and such, but the one thing that I remember perhaps more than most was that in many cases, the price points for pay-per-view Boxing did not exceed a $35 price point regardless of what the main event might have been. I do however, recall instances where pay-per-view providers like InDemand, then known as Viewer’s Choice would offer promotions in offering events at a slightly reduced cost if ordered in advance while keeping the full retail price in place for those who ordered an event on the day it took place.  I will not bother explaining which method my parents and I would use when such a promotion was offered as it should be self-explanitory.

 

While obviously some events/cards will always do better than others with regard to buys, I would be willing to say that those events at a lower price point tend to do better in terms of overall buys as compared to those that have a much higher price point.  In the current landscape, the only region in the world that offers pay-per-view at a reasonable price point that is similar to my youth and even my early days as a writer covering combat sports in the mid-1990’s is in Europe and more specifically the United Kingdom where most pay-per-view cards do not exceed a £25 price point.  As much as I have criticized the pay-per-view model and will continue to do so for the aforementioned reasons as well as in many cases today, the model simply being used as a source of potential revenue regardless of what might be on the card as opposed to the legitimate “Big Fights,” if the price points were lower, the model may be more successful even if those promoters and networks, the “Hold Outs,” refuse to air every bout on a card as yours truly has suggested would add more value for the price as well as allow those “Hold Outs” as stubborn as they might be, to compete with subscription-based streaming alternatives.

 

Now, the reader may be wondering since I have spent the majority of this column pointing out the flaws of the pay-per-view model as well as offering suggestions as to what I think might at least make it more viable, what else I could have in mind for this year’s “Boxing Wishlist.” Well, the third item on this year’s list is something that frankly needs to happen for the benefit of the sport. Promoters regardless of television network affiliation need to work together on a regular basis to make fights that have significant public interest occur in a more reasonable timeframe than is typically the norm.

 

It is something that is as old as the sport itself that has always been a source of frustration not just for me, but anyone involved in Boxing that truly has the best interest of the sport at heart. How many times throughout Boxing history has there been a scenario where two fighters in or around the same weight class are able to garner significant followings and drum up interest amongst both Boxing fans and experts alike in a potential fight between the two, yet for one reason or another whether it be rival promoters that do not want to work together for their own business interests if nothing else, rival television networks that would rather take cheap shots at competitors rather than offering the best bouts that could be made for their audience, or simply the perception that one fighter, a fighter’s team, and/or a fighter’s promoter ducking another fighter, for one reason or another it results in fights at times taking several years to be made.

 

While some might say that such tactics end up drumming up more interest and make fights even bigger in terms of making them an event, more often than not, when two marquee fighters finally get into the ring, it can and has left a bad taste in the Boxing fan’s mouth and thus leaves the sport open to more criticism and ridicule than really should be the case.  In recent times, despite the willingness of networks like DAZN and ESPN to work together to make fights happen, the PBC side of the equation does not always show such willingness and seems more content to only make fights happen if it happens under their promotional banner and on their broadcast platforms, even if it may be in the best interest of not only the sport, but also the fighters that compete under the PBC platform to face fighters that may not be attached to their platform.  Unfortunately, this serves as a detriment to the sport and benefits no one involved. Much like my thoughts on the pay-per-view model, I don’t expect things to change in 2022, but I hope steps in the right direction are taken, even if it came as a result of a promoter or network trying to survive in the sport.

 

This brings us to the fourth item on this year’s “Boxing Wishlist.” For Boxing’s respective sanctioning organizations to finally come up with an alternative to “Interim/Regular Championship” designations. Those who have followed this observer’s “Boxing Wishlist” for years probably know that this particular item is something that is pretty much a mainstay on the list every year. Although I spend much time during a calendar year pointing out that such designations are not world championships, but are in actuality a number one contender’s designation, the short answer here is though it is well-intended by the sanctioning organizations as a way of ensuring that a top contender gets an opportunity to fight for a world championship one way or another, it is something that needs to be revamped or preferably done away with outright. In 2021, the World Boxing Association (WBA) at least stated their intent to eliminate such designations in their respective rankings per weight division. It goes without saying to any knowledgeable observer that the WBA’s rankings and “Interim/Regular” designations have created more confusion than it has solved problems that more often than not are related to the business end of the sport. Much like the other items on this year’s list, the elimination of “Interim/Regular” designations is something that will not happen overnight and will take time. It is my hope however, that the WBA sticks to their word and that other organizations in the sport that use a similar structure in their rankings follow their lead.

 

The final addition to this year’s “Boxing Wishlist” is something that yours truly has long advocated for and if it were not for the detriment of the pay-per-view model, would have been listed as the number one item on this year’s list rather than the closer. To see Women’s Boxing finally be moved to three minute rounds.

 

Anyone who is familiar with Women’s Boxing knows that the sport for women is in a period of long overdue exposure and recognition. Although thankfully, it is no longer uncommon to see a women’s bout headline a Boxing card either here in the United States or internationally that also features men’s bouts, one thing that continues to be a drawback is the fact that rounds in Women’s Boxing are scheduled for two minutes in duration. While the argument some have used is the two minute round length all but ensures an entertaining fast-paced fight for women competing in the sport, it usually results in fights that may not otherwise go the distance if it were fought under three minute rounds, the same length as men competing in the sport, or very closely scored bouts that could end in draws.

 

When one keeps in mind that the sport of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) allows the women that compete in it to fight for either a three five minute round distance or a five, five minute round distance for world championship fights, the same distance as male MMA fighters, the argument that women boxers should not be allowed to fight for three minutes per round becomes less credible. One should also consider that during the delayed 2020 Olympics, which took place in the summer of 2021, women boxers were allowed to compete in three minute rounds and I personally felt that while there were still bouts that were very competitive and ended in close decisions, the women who competed in those Olympics were able to prove that women boxers are more than capable of Boxing for three minutes per round.  Those who read this observer’s coverage of those Olympics heard me state that it was my hope that those on the professional end of the sport would follow the lead of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Boxing taskforce and move women’s bouts to three minute rounds. While I would also like to see women allowed to progress to a twelve round distance for world championship fights, the same as their male counterparts, if those who regulate the sport from the respective athletic commissions around the world to the sanctioning organizations would take the step to three minute rounds for female fighters competing in the sport, it would be one more step in the right direction for Women’s Boxing.

 

Unfortunately, all of the items on this year’s “Boxing Wishlist” still comes under the midst of an ongoing global epidemic, which may or may not bring Boxing and the rest of sports to a halt at any given moment due to the several variants of the COVID-19 virus and the obvious uncertainties that come with it. Obviously, I hope that there will be no such pause and that the sport of Boxing will be able to have a full year of action in 2022 as was the case throughout much of 2021. We will have to wait and see what happens, but as a new year has now begun, yours truly is eager to see what is next for the sport of Boxing and to cover the events that unfold throughout 2022.

 

“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