TV's affect on boxing in the 1950s
Bobby Bearden
boxing clubs in the 1950s, leading to less and less quality fighters to fill
the ranks. Going through some of my old boxing magazines, I found that the
subject was discussed in almost every issue and many of the dark predictions
of the time came to pass.
TV led not only to the death of many small clubs, but also led to poor
quality matches as the networks filled up boxing slots to sell soap powders
and other consumer goods. By 1954 there were 4 nights of boxing on TV.
Considering this was the era when there was only one champion per weight
class, and only eight weight classes, that didn't promise many championship
fights.
Also, they began blacking out the areas where the fight took place. The
long term effect of this action led to the loss of many potential boxing
fans. In a major boxing site such as New York many nights of boxing would
have been blacked out. With the advent of the theatre boxing, where you
bought a ticket and watched the fight in a movie theatre live, more and more
bouts weren't even shown on regular TV. In one issue of Ring they complain
how only one out of the last eight championship fights of that year had been
on TV. Of course, this was the forerunner of PPV. The result was the loss of
the sports fan who was only a casual boxing fan. Imagine the effect on
baseball if only the last place teams were shown for free, while all playoff
games, All-Star games, and World Series games were PPV.
Anyway, here are some samplings from the early 1950s Ring magazines.
___________________________________________________________________
The Ring October 1951
"Television and Boxing"
From the fans' standpoint it was an ideal set-up (TV boxing). But the
promoters and the fighters had a complaint and a logical one. The sponsors
could not guarantee the loss of gate receipts- the earning power of fighters
was lessened and the profit of promoters was often nil. It seemed that all
at once scores of fight clubs throughout the country were folding like the
Arabs' famous tents. The fans near the arenas weren't attending. The
once-paying fan would rather watch a show from the big city, New York, good,
bad or indifferent, for free than pay for the small-town promoter's best
efforts.
Receipts and attendance in the United States covering the last five years
show the resulting trend. Less money, lower attendance and fewer fight
clubs.
And without the small, local boxing promoters operating it must come about
eventually that even the top ones cannot successfully stage their events. It
is the out-of-the-way places, the small towns and little arenas of the big
cities where young talent is nourished and developed.
The Ring December 1952
In the regular feature "TV & Boxing":
Theatre TV of major attractions-especially sports- is as certain as tomorrow
's proverbial and realistic death and taxes. This was proven with the
exclusive telecast of the Marciano-Walcott championship fight into 50
theatres in 31 cities across the nation. More than 120,000 fans paid a gross
exceeding $400,000 to view the proceedings and if enough theater seats had
been available 100 times that figure would have gladly paid to see the
fight.
However, many technical improvements are still needed in the "big screen"
television before it can qualify as a success . the majority of the fans sat
bored through a feature film.
Some sort of appetizer should be given the fans- a short film of some past
great fight, films of the principle fighters working out in their training
camps before the bout, etc.
After more than a year of trying, Representative Edmund P. Radwan, Buffalo
Republican, has obtained assurance from the Justice Department that it will
give immediate attention to his demand for an investigation of the legality
of closed-circuit television of sports events. His original interest in
theater television was promoted in June of 1951 by the home TV blackout
imposed on the Joe Louis-Lee Savold fight.
The Ring March 1953:
Former heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey predicts an era of hundred million
dollar boxing gates via television. "There are all kinds of possibilities in
television we haven't even imagined," said the Old Manassa Mauler. "Why,
last year one drive-in theater took in $55,000 for the Marciano-Walcott TV
broadcast. With overseas hookups and charges on individual sets, I can
visualize a hundred million dollar gate."
He pointed out, however, that it would be necessary for the television
industry to become promoters and develop talent to assure boxing such a
fabulous future.
The National Boxing Association charged that unlimited television of fights
has, ".just about killed all small fight clubs" and prepared to consider a
TV blackout in the areas where the fights are held.
The Ring June 1954:
"TV & Boxing"
Certainly "boxing" was enriched by some $5,200,000- but "boxing" in this
case means four weekly major network shows and a scattering of locally
televised programs. Looking at it in that light "they" prospered-made money
and were very happy . but how many shows actually benefited in this manner
and how many promoters throughout the country were forced to close down,
unable to compete against the telecasts of shows from major fight arenas?
We will not, at this time, go into the problems confronting the sport as to
where new talent will eventually come as more and more of the smaller clubs
go out of business but suffice to say that while an occasional "independent"
show might draw well, on the whole clubs are continually folding.
The Ring November 1956:
"Is the TV Boxing Public Sick of Mediocre Fare?"
Students of the television situation in boxing, and this category includes
all promoters, managers and fighters, as well as magazine and newspaper
writers and broadcasters, have run into some very intersting evidence of
late.
This evidence tends to lead to the conclusion that there is a serious waning
of telecasting of important fights, even as regards closed circuit.
This evidence also seems to prove that a good way to get a fair gate for a
fight is to keep it off the screen. This conclusion, of course, hardly is a
new one.
It is evident that there are many things wrong with the TV boxing situation.
Many of the matches made for these contracted telecasts are perfunctory,
unsatisfactory, ill favored, unattractive.
There is a date to be filled, and two perhaps mismatched scrappers fill it
so that the brewery's or the ear muff manufacturer's contract may be lived
up to.
In the meantime, boxing is hurt. The small clubs, which cannot compete in
the TV atmosphere, linger dormant, if they are not already dead.
Is the public sated with the run-of-the-mill stuff that is being dished out
to it? The evidence tends to prove that it is.
Recent polls indicate a dropping off of the number of fans watching the
bouts on video. This is sure to cause a minor disturbance among the sponsors
of these programs. Combine this problem with that of the small "live"
attendance at fights since television has taken over and the conclusion is
revealing.
Boxing has come to depend on TV. But to keep it so the evidence seems to
indicate that the fans receive the type of fights they want to see.
________________________________________
The roots of small clubs closing, less of a talent pool to produce great
fighters, loss of the casual fan, fights of poor quality shown to fill time
slots, the birth of PPV and the take over of boxing by the Networks so that
only they and a few choice promoters make money are all there in those old
Ring magazines.
Hope some of you find this interesting.
Bobby Bearden
Ozzie Phillips
Very interesting. Thanks for putting that together!
BTW, the articles state that the number of clubs was declining back then.
Are you aware of any numbers that would describe how many active
professional fighters there were then vs now?
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:qDiK6.8372$ho6.5...@news5.aus1.giganews.com...
Bobby Bearden
Ozzie Phillips <ozzie_p...@cinet.com> wrote in message
news:tfjqf6r...@news.supernews.com...
> Bobby,
> Very interesting. Thanks for putting that together!
>
> BTW, the articles state that the number of clubs was declining back
then.
> Are you aware of any numbers that would describe how many active
> professional fighters there were then vs now?
>
>
No I don't, but I'd guess there are probably 50% less or even more. Melenie
Lay can probably give some figures on the amateurs then and now.
Bobby Bearden
Larry Roberts
that there were between ten and fifteen thousand active
fighters in the late fifties, and back in the late nineties
that number was down to roughly 5,000 in the pro ranks.
Larry
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:49nK6.53936$sP6.3...@news3.aus1.giganews.com...
Bobby Bearden
Larry Roberts <rob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Mx1L6.70730$2_.24...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Don't know if this is accurate, but I dimly recall reading
> that there were between ten and fifteen thousand active
> fighters in the late fifties, and back in the late nineties
> that number was down to roughly 5,000 in the pro ranks.
>
> Larry
If that's so, consider this also. Fighters fought a lot more back in the
1950s, probably 3 times as often as they do now. If those 5000 boxers put on
an average of 4 fights a year, that would be 20,000 pro matches for the
fans. But, in the 1950s, 5000 boxers would fight 60,000 times. And with
15,000 the fans had a choice of 180,000 matches.
Of course all these figures are off the top of my head and I don't know the
base figures, but the percentages are probably pretty close.
At any rate, the qoutes I made from the magazines of that era show that the
handwriting was on the wall and they were astute enough to read it.
Bobby Bearden