“Boxing has a nostalgia problem. Any discussion about the fight game is really a discussion about the past and all arguments are really just variations on the barbershop scene in Coming to America.”
With that big claim attached to a sexy Eddie Murphy reference, Jay Kaspian Kang has got me to thinking about something I’ve suspected for a long time. In the conclusion to his great profile of Adrien Broner, Kang briefly argues that the constant talk of boxing being “saved” stems from boxing fans’ obsession with the past. “When the past looms so large, I suppose, it looms so large,” he writes.
If you hang around with boxing people, in real life or on Twitter, then it’s pretty clear that many boxing fans have at least one eye on the rear-view mirror. Fans and journalists are forever working on their lists of all-time greats, sharing archived fights and discussing the significance of various eras.
Kang even points to fighters’ choice of nicknames: “Every fighter named Ray will, at some point, go by “‘Sugar.’” I guess it’s lucky then that the name Ray is at a low ebb, popularity wise. But at middleweight alone you’ll find a “Kid Chocolate,” a “Real Deal” and a “Marvellous” (well, Maravilla).
One just needs to look at the media’s reaction to Floyd “Money” Mayweather (formerly “Pretty Boy,” after heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson) defeating Robert Guerrero this weekend to see the deference to history. There was universal recognition of Mayweather’s sublime skills, but almost as much discussion of his place in boxing’s pantheon of greats (though Mayweather draws that on himself more than most). Even the New York Times waded in — as did TQBR, of course.
The most obvious manifestation of boxing’s obsession with the past is the old barbershop/bar/gym chestnut – would X beat X? Would Mayweather beat Sugar Ray Leonard? Would Wlad Klitschko beat Muhammad Ali?
Tennis fans don’t go on about whether John McEnroe could have beaten Roger Federer (possibly because the answer is obvious). Tennis has changed; Federer is an entirely different animal.
Other sports have statistics. Baseball fans can fall back on facts – it’s hard to argue against Nolan Ryan’s fastest pitch in history or Babe Ruth’s 714 home runs from 8399 at bats.
Boxing, on the other hand, is subjective and it hasn’t changed. Not much, anyway. Gloves have got a bit thicker and athletes train a little differently, but two guys punching each other in the head are still two guys punching each other in the head.
In a lot of ways, it’s easier to imagine Federer and McEnroe duking it out in the ring than it is to imagine them on the court together. The same goes for Ruth and Ryan. It’s a lot more fun too – hence the appeal.
Then there’s the problem of boxing’s irregular timetable. Weeks, even months, often go by without a major fight. Fans have to find something to do — and imagining Manny Pacquiao fighting Roberto Duran fits the bill.
Boxing fans like to take a trip down memory lane, that much is clear. The question is whether that’s a problem. Kang opines that “the popularity of mixed martial arts can be explained by the fact that it’s a new sport, unburdened with the cranky invectives of old men who won’t let you enjoy a fight without telling you exactly how little you know about the history of the sport.”
Unfortunately, that kind of thing is hard to prove. I can say from personal experience, though, that the emphasis on history is intimidating. After following the sport for five years, I can recite the list of lineal heavyweight champions from memory and I have a working knowledge the upper divisions in the post-war period but things get fuzzy below the welterweight or lightweight.
And some fans won’t hesitate to call you out on that. Boxing’s shrunken fan base is getting older and, perhaps thanks to social media, more impassioned. The typical fan today is more enthusiastic, more of a boxing nerd, than the typical fan 30 years ago. That’s great, but it can also make the sport less approachable.
I don’t use the word nerd in a pejorative sense. I’m a nerd. But some fans take pleasure in flaunting their knowledge of fighters from the past, suggesting that those who aren’t as interested aren’t “real fans.” I mean, if you don’t have Bob Fitzsimmons – a fighter who died in 1917 and of whom scant footage exists – in your top 10 greatest fighters ever, then you don’t really know anything about boxing.
Luckily, that type of fan is rare. The majority of those who are passionate about boxing just want to share what’s great about the sweet science. Does boxing have a nostalgia problem? Certainly it’s a sport that finds itself looking back to bygone eras, perhaps understandably. It doesn’t need to be done in a way that turns people off, though.
Boxing’s lack of change means that fights from the past are timeless and re-watchable in a sense that a game of football isn’t.
If you are interested in the history of boxing, check out @boxinghistory, run by TQBR’s very own Patrick Connor, on Twitter. He posts great fights from the archives every day and I promise he won’t call you a noob.
