After the fight: Errol Spence Jr., Terence Crawford, and faith in boxing

Errol Spence Jr. made a victorious return to the sport of boxing, defeating Danny Garcia, but not all were pleased with the impending aftermath. 

After coming off a 15-month layoff and a nearly fatal car accident, welterweight boxing champion Errol Spence Jr. boxed impressively to defeat former champion, Danny Garcia. Spence’s victory looked like a feel-good comeback story on its surface, but many boxing fans and pundits walked away with a bad taste in their mouths.

One opinion piece from Yahoo had boxing Twitter questioning the state of boxing based on the prospect, or lack thereof, of a unification bout between IBF and WBC titleholder Spence and fellow undefeated WBO champion Terence Crawford.

The writer, Kevin Iole, announced on Twitter that he was angry following the Spence fight and vented his grievances with the sport of boxing. He saw the ongoing drama in setting an eventual Spence vs. Crawford clash as representative of all that’s wrong with boxing.

The article’s arguments were logical and made sense, but to assume these problems are relatively new and isolated to modern boxing is inaccurate.

Professional boxing has a history of virulent flaws. It goes back all the way to its start.

Tex Rickard was the first prominent promoter in the U.S. He had a knack for staging and hyping boxing matches since his start with Joe Gans vs. Battling Nelson in 1906 in Goldfield, NV. The gate set a record that exceeded over $69,000.

Rickard promoted some of the biggest matches in history, but in many cases, helped establish the status quo of promoters exploiting their fighters and using them up to their detriment, all in the name of greed.

Rickard’s reign stretched into the late 1920s, and he helped establish Madison Square Garden. He also upheld segregation in boxing and was a ruthless businessman who manipulated the sport for decades.

Others over the years have followed Rickard’s example. The International Boxing Club (IBC), under the control of Jim Norris, fraudulently ran boxing for over a decade. His ties to organized crime and career mobsters like Frankie Carbo created a sinister monopoly over boxing that made fighters to sign with IBC or be frozen out.

The IBC used the mob to enforce its will, and fight fixing was rampant as exposed during the Kefauver hearings. The IBC era was probably the most corrupt era in boxing, which came to a close in the early 1960s.

Since then, sanctioning bodies developed and took over the sport in conjunction with numerous promoters that have come and gone. Top Rank’s Bob Arum is the one that has withstood the test of time, but manager Al Haymon, who is the brains behind Premier Boxing Champions (PBC), has found a way as a manager to impact the sport. PBC was the force behind this weekend’s pay-per-view event between Spence and Garcia in conjunction with several promoters.

Errol Spence Jr. vs. Terence Crawford would be a remarkable fight, but the state of boxing doesn’t rest on their shoulders

There’s no doubt that boxing is more legitimate today under the free market system than was the case of the monopolies of the past. It might make it harder for the best bouts to be made, but at least you don’t worry about massive fight fixing and leg-breaking that went on behind the scenes in days past.

So what are we talking about here? Are promoters and the fighters themselves the reason for boxing’s decline? That’s a loaded question, and with most complex situations in life, it’s complicated.

Yes, cross-promotional bouts would help foster more attractive fights that would please fans, but that’s not the primary reason boxing’s popularity has waned over the last 60 years. Boxing’s popularity has declined steadily from the 1920s onward.

Boxing clubs used to be a popular fixture in New York and the northeast and beyond. It was one of the most popular sports in the U.S. because it was one of the few sports in the U.S. In the first half of the 20th century, boxing’s only competition was major league baseball and college football.

During the 20s, Jack Dempsey and Babe Ruth were the biggest sports icons. Professional sports have come a long way over the last 100 years, and the NFL, MLB, and NBA rule sport’s popularity contest in the U.S. In the U.K., boxing is still one of the most prominent sports, second to soccer or football, depending on where you’re from.

Boxing in the U.S. is considered a niche sport, but certain boxers can expand into the realm of casual fandom. Muhammad Ali partially resurrected boxing, but there weren’t too many boxers controlling the U.S. market other than Ali during his era.

He was the greatest in terms of ability and charisma. Ali was a generational talent only paralleled by the aura of Michael Jordan, except Ali’s political activism made his mark on the world much deeper than Jordan’s. He was the greatest sporting icon because his legacy stretched far beyond sports. It’s not fair to compare any other boxer or athlete to Ali.

Outside of Ali, boxing declined in the 60s and 70s. The death of Benny Paret in the ring against Emile Griffith in 1962 nearly ended the sport altogether. Boxing lost its sponsorships and air time. Ali was so special that pay-per-view and closed-circuit television thrived because of his marketability.

The 80s saw several groundbreaking fights like Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. Yes, they were aggressive in making that fight happen, but it’s often public clamor that makes fights happen. Some fights are missed, like Deontay Wilder vs. Anthony Joshua, but eventually many of the best matchups like Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao are made because the money is too good to pass up. Even then, a matchup of legendary headliners doesn’t guarantee a fan-friendly fight.

So how does boxing make its move back into sporting prominence?

Again, it’s complicated.

Good matchmaking is part of it, but Spence vs. Crawford wouldn’t bring boxing back to its zenith. One fight isn’t going to do it. Vasiliy Lomachenko vs. Teofimo Lopez is one of the better matchups you’ll see, but it alone won’t solve boxing’s problems.

Maybe the key isn’t to try to “fix” boxing. Try to let things play out and let the chips fall where they may. Boxing might never be what it once was 100 hundred years ago, but that doesn’t mean it will be forgotten. As long and people are willing to dedicate their lives to competition in the ring, people will be willing to watch. It is still the ultimate contest of wills, physicality, and heart. It’s the best sporting metaphor for life that we’ve got. Just like life, boxing will go on.