How to quote?
Poll:  Boxing 4th most hated sport
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

GYXU > Boxing > Poll: Boxing 4th most hated sport 14 March 2005 11:46:15

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Poll: Boxing 4th most hated sport

Robert Phillips 10 March 2005 02:07:07
 ...short article available at
http://channels.net­scape.com/ns/sports/­package.jsp?name=fte­/hatedspectatorsport­s/hatedspectatorspor­ts


Pie
Add comment
Clarke 10 March 2005 03:36:14 permanent link ]
 Pie,

Wow....that is a bad. If you look back at the history of boxing, there
has always been a criminal stigma associated with the sport. Why is
boxing so unpopular now?

Does it lack quality athlethes? Are the fighters to removed from
possible fans?

Interesting story...



Robert Phillips wrote:> ...short article available at > http://channels.net­scape.com/ns/sports/­package.jsp?name=fte­/hatedspectatorsport­s/hatedspectatorspor­ts >
Pie
Add comment
Crafty_counterpuncher 10 March 2005 05:04:56 permanent link ]
 i wouldn't be too concerned. they have nascar at number 8 and it's got
millions and millions of fans. i'd also have to see the methodology
behind the survey.

Add comment
Strategy 10 March 2005 05:24:35 permanent link ]
 
Robert Phillips wrote:> ...short article available at>
http://channels.net­scape.com/ns/sports/­package.jsp?name=fte­/hatedspectatorsport­s/hatedspectatorspor­ts>
Pie



I just voted for PGA Seniors


I hate watching old people play golf!



STRATEGY

Add comment
Paul "Mr.Wonderful" Orndorff 10 March 2005 11:16:29 permanent link ]
 
"STRATEGY" <Strategy510@gmail.­com> wrote in message
news:1110417875.713­414.81670@z14g2000cw­z.googlegroups.com..­.>
Robert Phillips wrote:>> ...short article available at>>
I just voted for PGA Seniors>
I hate watching old people play golf!>
STRATEGY

WNBA! How could that not have made the list. Probably because it's less of a
sport than dog fighting or wrestling.


Add comment
Mwhaught 10 March 2005 19:06:06 permanent link ]
 Bobby,

Very well thought out post.

IMO, further distilled: Boxing's biggest problem is that it is not a
compelling sport for the average fan any longer. In my lifetime we
have gone from Roberto Duran on free TV to Zab Judah headlining PPV
cards.

Enough said.

-mwh

Add comment
SkippyPB 10 March 2005 22:15:53 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:07:07 GMT, Robert Phillips <rpie@cfl.rr.com>
enlightened us:
Pie

The online poll numbers are somewhat different than the Sport
Marketing Groups. Here are what they were when I voted:

Which spectator sport do you hate the most?
Dog fighting45%

Professional wrestling13%

NASCAR11%

Major League Soccer6%

PGA Tour6%

Bullfighting5%

LPGA Tour4%

ATP Men's Tennis3%

PGA Seniors3%

Professional boxing3%

Total Votes: 46542


Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"The key to someone's heart is never lost:
It's just that the locks were changed 'cause
you're some sort of psycho."
-- Jean Sorensen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~­~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
Add comment
Robert Phillips 13 March 2005 20:07:49 permanent link ]
 Bobby Bearden wrote:

He was exciting, in the ring, in his early years. But it's been his bizzare > behavior in the last decade or so that has kept him in the spotlight, not > his great fights. Name a great Tyson fight since his comeback?

Which comeback?
No matter which comeback you're talking about, he has scored savage,
dramatic knockouts. He hasn't turned into a jabber who wins rounds and
wins by decision. About Tyson, it was never about "great Tyson fights,"
because so few of them were ever "great" even during his heyday. So
it's a little specious for you to try to burst the bubble that way. No,
about Tyson it was always about great Tyson *knockouts* - and he's kept
that up with the KOs of Etienne (perceived to be a top contender, even
if he sucked), Golota (turned into an NC only by technicality which had
little to do with his performance), Lou Savarese (a legit KO despite the
after-the-bell brawling), Julius Francis, etc. That Tyson has not worn
a belt since 1996 does not mean he has not given his fans the same sort
of knockouts he'd given them since 1986.

How many times has that been pointed out on HBO boxing and other sports > programs? How often has Ring magazine mentioned it? HBO began a policy of > not mentioning, or downplaying, all the bogus titles floating around.

No, just the ones that didn't help any particular broadcast. They've
been consistently inconsistent regarding which titles they're willing to
mention and which ones they're not.


Pie
Add comment
Robert Phillips 14 March 2005 07:31:23 permanent link ]
 Bobby Bearden wrote:

It does affect the quality, and is a diluting process. When someone holds > one sanctioning body's belt, he doesn't have to defend against the second > best in his division. At most, he will be required to defend against the > second best chosen by the sanctioning body which gave him the belt. Look at > the lists over the last decade and see how often someone holding a belt > isn't even listed on another sanctioning bodies Top Ten list.

That's not significant, it's *policy*. You're implying that a champion
of one body who doesn't appear in the rankings of another santciong body
isn't good enough to be ranked in that body's Top Ten. In actuality, he
might be, but mutual policy is that champions of other bodies are not
ranked.
I thought we all knew this...?
This greatly affects the quality of the fights. You have multiple belt > champions being stripped of a belt by one body for fighting the number one > contender in another body.

But in such scenarios...a champion fought a #1 contender, and not his
own #4 contender or whatever. Isn't that preferable? Aren't we told
the sanctioning bodies are so meaningless that we shouldn't even care if
they strip the guy for fighting that other #1? If we as fans are
encouraged to ignore the sanctioning bodies (absolutely impossible),
shouldn't we be glad this champion fought the other body's #1? Aren't
we being encouraged to ignore the alphabets (impossible without
exception) and concentrate on the actual fights and the actual fighters
so we can agree by consensus who the "real" champion is?


Pie
Add comment
Guest 14 March 2005 11:46:15 permanent link ]
 Bobby Bearden wrote:> <isaiahcamacho@hotm­ail.com> wrote in message> news:1110694075.472­257.140230@z14g2000c­wz.googlegroups.com.­..> > Bobby Bearden wrote:

<snip>

Those are watched mostly by fans of the sport. We're talking about
non-fans dislike boxing.> >
I don't think it's dislike that's hurt the sport. It's indifference.


It's both, but this was in response to a poll that showed boxing to be
the most disliked real sport.


<snip>

Uh, OK. The word "dilute" implies a weakening so this is a
tautology.> > However, adding more championships does nothing to affect the
quality> > of the fights, which ultimately is what makes the sport. And anway,
next time a great HW comes around, he will either unify all the
belts> > or make the ones he doesn't hold irrelevant.> >
It does affect the quality, and is a diluting process.


How?

When someone holds> one sanctioning body's belt, he doesn't have to defend against the
second> best in his division. At most, he will be required to defend against
second best chosen by the sanctioning body which gave him the belt.


Which may, in fact, be the second-best in his division. Also, we
frequently see title unification fights.

Look at> the lists over the last decade and see how often someone holding a
belt> isn't even listed on another sanctioning bodies Top Ten list.


It's "always", not "often". That's because the sanctioning bodies don't
rank other world champions. But again, unification fights happen when
there is enough interest (we spell "interest" M-O-N-E-Y) to make them
happen.

This greatly affects the quality of the fights. You have multiple
belt> champions being stripped of a belt by one body for fighting the
number one> contender in another body.


OK, so how does that affect the quality of the fight? Do you think that
fighters perform worse when they know they will stripped of a belt? I'm
really confused about your position here.

When a great heavyweight comes along again, he probably will unify
belts, if he's allowed. But in the meantime more and more people lose
interest in boxing.


Sure, but then the problem is a lack of a great HW, not an excess of
sanctioning bodies.


<snip>


-Isaiah

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


GYXU > Boxing > Poll: Boxing 4th most hated sport 14 March 2005 11:46:15

see also:
Holy Cow!!! Sven Nys did not win…
Jan Ullrich--stupidest pro rider
pass tests:
see also:
4to za xerj ?
pipiska!!!upja4ka!!!pshli nax!!!
...

  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .