Was Boxing Better in the 2000s?

In short, no. Boxing was not better during the years of 2000 through 2009. In fact, boxing faded almost completely from cultural relevance in the 2000s. Of course, the sport's heyday was in the late 60s and 70s, but even in the 80s and 90s, we had plenty of stars, plenty of household names that even non-boxing fans here in America knew of. By the end of the millennium, that started to change. We still had people like Evander Holyfield, Oscar De La Hoya and Mike Tyson but they were past their prime and in the case of Mike Tyson, had become a sad sideshow.

Does this mean there were no quality boxers and superstar talents? Absolutely not. Some all-time greats were in their prime at some point from 2000-2009 but they didn't really move the needle in terms of bringing in casual fans. Floyd Mayweather Jr. could certainly be an exception. Almost. The problem with Floyd was that he just wasn't very exciting to watch for most people after he became a champ. He had a defensive style and had mastered the art of not taking damage during fights, which also meant that he didn't take a lot of chances either. Boxing purists, most of them at least, loved it but this is exactly the schism that would (and continues to) plague boxing in the 21st century. It became a niche sport for only hardcore boxing fans, with little interest - or at least desire - to bring in the mass audiences.

Floyd also fought anywhere from 126 pounds to about 150 pounds. Unless you are super exciting, super charismatic and have a compelling story, it is very hard to carry the sport in terms of popularity at any lower weight class. Boxing usually goes as the heavyweight division goes and I don't think it can be argued that the new century was a dark time for the big fellas. Here is a list of the heavyweight champions from 2000-2009:

1. Lennox Lewis

2. Herbie Hide

3. Vitali Klitschko

4. Chris Byrd

5. Evander Holyfield

6. Wladimir Klitschko

7. John Ruiz

8. Hasim Rahman

9. Lennox Lewis again

10. Chris Byrd again

11. Roy Jones Jr.

12. Corrie Sanders

13. John Ruiz again

14. Lamon Brewster

15. Vitali Klitschko again

16. Nikolai Valuev

17. Siarhei Liakhovich

18. Wladimir Klitschko again

19. Oleg Maskaev

20. Shannon Briggs

21. Ruslan Chagaev

22. Sultan Ibragimov

23. Samuel Peter

24. Nikolai Valuev

25. Vitali Klitschko again

26. David Haye

There are at least 3 problems with this list. First is that many of these names are not at all familiar to non-hardcore fans, nor were they at the time. Second is that very few of them are Americans, which of course matters to other Americans, but it also matters to the rest of the world a little, too. American fighters are almost always going to be more popular. The third problem is that it is a long list! Nobody was able to hold onto the belt for very long. Some were able to retain the belt, like the Klitschko brothers, but no one remained a champion for more than 2 years in that span. For boxing to achieve mainstream success, it needs dominant fighters and during the better eras, if you were to ask the average layperson who the heavyweight champion was, they could probably tell you or at least muster a reasonable guess. If you asked most casual sports fan this question in the 2000s, I don't think many of them would be able to venture a guess at all.

There was certainly some talent, no doubt. Both Vladimir and Vitali Klitschko had skills, as well as plenty of TKO finishes but not as much of highlight reel stuff that gets people excited and not against big name opponents. Plus, part of selling the sport of boxing (or just about any sport) is personality. The Klitschko brothers are good guys and are heroes in their native Ukraine, but certainly not dynamic, interesting personalities that can act as the face of their sport. Lennox Lewis, who started off the 2000s as the champ, is very much the same thing for me. Nice guy, cool cat, great boxer but doesn't get people excited and interested.

The 2000s also saw more attention and awareness come to the uglier side of boxing, which is the fight business. We certainly saw this in the 90s too, but it really came into prominence later. The average Joe may not have known who the heavyweight champion was at any point during that decade but probably knew who Don King was and had some knowledge that the boxing business was generally messed up. Promoters had control and we started to see a bit more ducking of fights, as well as just fights not happening because the two parties couldn't agree on contractual terms. HBO and Showtime still covered some big fights, although more and more began to migrate to pay-per-view, as boxing knew their hardcore fans would pay a high price and stopped fighting for the casual audience.

For over 100 years, boxing had also been THE combat sport that everybody knew. This would change in the 2000s. Mixed martial arts and the UFC started becoming bigger and bigger, and that spark turned into a fire in 2004. The UFC had launched a reality show on a small cable network, Spike, where prospective fighters trained and competed in a tournament that went on through the duration of the show, culminating in the finale, where the 2 best prospects went against each other in what would be their first,recognized professional fight. Season 1

matched Stephan Bonnar against Forrest Griffin, which is widely believed to be a fight that changed history forever. The UFC had stalled a bit in  popularity and was on the cusp (or at least close to the cusp) of just being relegated to another niche sport until the finale drew in record audiences and catapulted the league into mainstream success. It is said that much of the viewership came in during the broadcast, as people literally called their friends and told them to turn the TV on right now and check out this legendary fight.

Besides combat sports fans liking the UFC's mixed martial arts product, they also liked that in many ways, it was the opposite of boxing. It was a league, controlled by one commissioner just like the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. and if you were the champion, you had to fight all of the best contenders in your weight class. By the end of 2009, the only boxing fight people really wanted - Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Manny Pacquiao - had been stalled for at least 3 years (would be another 5 before it finally happened) whereas the UFC had just enjoyed their greatest success ever with UFC 100. Both sports were trending in opposite directions.

Things wouldn't exactly get better in the following decade for boxing. However, as I write this now, in 2024, I would say that there is definitely some new life in the sport. It's not culturally relevant in the way it was in the 1900s and probably never will be but there is some more overall awareness and in a different way. Social media has changed the game, for sure, and more people actually train in boxing than ever before. It used to be that only boxers learned how to box, but now it is something people do for fun and fitness. While they may not tune into the pay-per-view fights regularly, they may see highlights on Instagram and generally have a greater understanding of the sport and the fighters than most did in the 2000s. There is plenty of talent out there too. Sadly, most of it is still in the lighter weight classes but maybe average fans will start to appreciate them more as they learn the sport so it doesn't have to be carried by the heavyweights.

One more thing I want to say because I only briefly mentioned his name but after learning recently just
how underrated he is according to the internet, I feel like it is worth bringing up Manny Pacquiao again. In my opinion, he was the best fighter of the decade from 2000-2009 and as mentioned in my last post, the greatest southpaw of all time. He had only 1 loss, to Erik Morales which he avenged, in 26 fights during the 2000s against relatively high-profile opponents and finished almost all of them. He was exciting to watch and worth paying to see. There weren't many other people I could say that about during Y2K so here is to you, Pac Man.

Speaking of great fights, I feel I would be remiss in my generally-negative spin on 2000s-era if I didn't mention that one of the best boxing matches you will ever see took place in that decade. Micky Ward vs. Arturo Gatti I in 2002. The whole trilogy was good but this was a slugfest like no other. Erik Morales vs Marco Antonio Barrera I is widely considered one of the best and it is certainly a great fight. Corrales vs Castillo is up there too. I just watched Felix Trinidad vs. Fernando Vargas and probably liked it better though. And Ward-Gatti is still my #1. One great thing about living in modern times that, of course, we did not have in the good ol' days is that we can watch any of these fights, or any other classics from any era, online with the touch of a button and that is pretty sweet!

Best Southpaw Boxers of All-Time (well, in the last 50 years at least)

Since the sport began, boxers have stood in a staggered stance (one foot in front of the other). The main reason for this is simple - you want to be able to move in all directions equally as well as be balanced in all directions. If your feet were together or completely square and someone were to push you straight into the chest, you would fall backwards.

There are other reasons to have a staggered stance and one of them has to do with punches. We traditionally like to have our power side (dominant hand) furthest from the target. Provided that the punch is thrown properly and continues to accelerate, this means it will deliver more power the further it travels. You can also put more of your body, more rotation, into the punch. This is the same reason that people stand in a similar type of stance when they want to throw something as hard/far as they can.

Thus, for the 90% of us who are right-handed, we would stand with our left foot forward, right foot back. For the 10% of lefties, otherwise known as southpaws, they would do it the opposite way - right foot forward, left foot back. This disparity tends to give southpaws a little bit of an advantage over right-handed, or orthodox, fighters. Imagine you have 10 people training together. Based on the average, 9 of them are orthodox fighters and only 1 is a southpaw. That one person is going to get a ton of experience fighting against righties whereas the orthodox group is only going to have one southpaw to practice with. Fighting against them will be awkward and different because it is not what you're used to. But it is what they are used to. 

This made it difficult for a lot of land-handed boxers to get fights in the early days. Probably still does in certain cases. If you are an up and coming fighter and trying to manage your career wisely, you don't want to take any chance that you might take a loss to someone who may not necessarily be better than you, they just fight in a style that you aren't used to. Once a southpaw makes a name for themselves, it is a different story but getting over that initial hump could be tough. Eventually, plenty of lefties did make names for themselves and went on to become some of the greatest fighters of all time.

Here are my Top 5, plus a longer list of currently active boxers who may easily become an all-time great southpaw, once their career is over:

Honorable Mention - Rocky Balboa

Despite the fact that Rocky was not a real boxer nor even a real person, I believe he deserves special mention here. His character was indeed a southpaw (unlike Jake Gyllenhaal in the movie actually called "Southpaw") and it was woven into the story. In fact, many average people were introduced to boxing through the Rocky films. Some became fans of the sport, some didn't, but those movies became part of our pop culture. In fact, even just the term "southpaw" got into our modern vernacular because of Rocky. And a case can easily be made that Rocky may be the most important boxer of all time, outside of Muhammad Ali when you look at the cultural impact. So this is for you, "Italian Stallion" and now onto the real fighters...

#5) Hector "Macho" Camacho

There are others who could challenge for this spot, like Vincent Saldivar, Tiger Flowers and Gabriel Elorde, but they all fought many years ago and I can't speak too intelligently about how good they really were and how good their competition was. Then there are more modern guys who I did see fight, like Prince Naseem Hamed and Sergio Martinez but I would put Macho ahead of them because he was a relevant fighter for a longer period of time and he was a hell of a lot more exciting than all those guys. Had probably the best hand-speed for his size, finished most of his fights in his prime and only got knocked down one time after many, many fights. He showed heart and toughness when he was getting pummeled by a younger, hungrier, and all-time great himself, Julio Cesar Chavez. Plus, before personal problems and drug abuse started to take its toll, his style was very fun to watch and he brought a joy into the ring that no one else really ever has.

#4) Joe Calzaghe

One of the strangest styles of boxing you will ever see, Joe Calzaghe threw fast, slappy punches that
would still manage to knock people out and overwhelm them with aggression. Kind of like the Diaz brothers' (also southpaws) "Stockton Slap." He won titles in two different weight classes and is largely recognized as the best Super Middleweight of time. Joe retired undefeated, at 46-0, with wins against Chris Eubank, Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr. I might have put him a spot higher on my list if he performed better in some of his seemingly easier fights. And he might be more of a household name if he fought more in the USA but he mostly competed in the UK, particularly in his native Wales.

#3) Pernell Whitaker

"Sweat Pea" Whitaker is undoubtedly one of the best defensive fighters ever and was truly a master of the sweet science. His head movement and footwork was as slick as they come. From the mid-eighties to the mid-90s, Pernell was mostly unhittable. Hardcore boxing enthusiasts might rank him even higher than I would because he was such an amazing tactician and that makes them sound smart but for me, who is not as cool nor smart, I need more fight finishes (the majority of his victories were unanimous decisions) as well as signature wins to consider him the top of the tops. But still, he is awesome. Champion in 4 different weight classes and defended his unified lightweight belt 6 times, which I think is still a record.

#2) Marvelous Marvin Hagler

The consummate boxer-puncher, Hagler had speed, power and a granite chin. In his 67 fights, he was only credited with being knocked down once and it was pretty clearly a slip. He had an 84% knockout-to win percentage, highest of all undisputed middleweight champions and he held that same belt for 6 and a half years, which is 2nd longest of all time. The only loss he suffered in the last 11 years of his career was his final fight against Sugar Ray Leonard, which was a split decision that is highly disputed. Even as his skills began to decline with age, he still fought in the greatest, most exciting fight of all time against Thomas Hearns in 1985. He also fought in an era I grew up in, with the 4 Kings, and defeated two of them clearly (Hearns and Duran), potentially defeating the other (Sugar Ray), depending on how you saw that fight.  Marvelous was also held back by what I talked about earlier, where  opponents wouldn't take fights with him because he was a southpaw. He was a top-ranked middleweight for years before he finally got a shot at the title. Once he got it though, he never looked back and went on a historic run of 12 undisputed middleweight title defenses. Plus he was just a baaaaad man, and that always wins points with me.

#1) Manny Pacquiao

Of course I looked up how other people rank the best southpaw fighters online before writing this and many of these choices are pretty universal and obvious, but what surprised me was how few people had Manny Pacquiao as #1. Bert Sugar was the only person I could find who agreed me. I've seen him as low as 4 on some lists and on Reddit posts not even get mentioned. To me, it's not even really close. This is backed up by statistics, the quality of opponents he fought, and the eye test.

First, let's talk statistics. He is the only boxer in history to win titles in 8 different weight divisions. 8! If you were to win titles in 4 different weight divisions, you would likely be an all-time great and you would have half of what Pac Man accomplished. He started his career at 108 pounds and eventually won a title at Super Welterweight, which is 147-154 pounds. That is pretty insane. He is also the only boxer to hold world titles in 4 different decades, he was the oldest welterweight champion at age 40, and the first boxer in history to win the lineal championship in 5 different weight divisions.

Of course, none of this matters if he fought a bunch of bums. But no, he fought and defeated bona fide hall of famers.  Marco Antonio Barrera, Juan Manuel Marquez, Erik Morales, Oscar de la Hoya, Ricky Hatton, Miguel Cotto, Shane Mosley, Antonio Margarito, and Timothy Bradley. Who has a resume like that? Supposedly the best ever, TBE, Floyd Mayweather Jr. ducked Manny Pacquiao for years. When Floyd finally fought Manny in 2015, Pac Man was definitely past his prime but I still don't think Mayweather won that fight. 

Yes, there were some losses too. Besides the Mayweather fight, there was a decision loss to Erik Morales and Timothy Bradley. Both of which, Pacquiao would avenge. Most notably though, it was a vicious knockout by Juan Manuel Marquez that would be the only potential stain on his resume. It was at the very end of the round, Manny walked right into it, and it was the 4th time he fought Marquez, scoring a draw and close decision victories before. I can't imagine any boxers now fighting someone 4 times, let alone a hall of famer like Marquez. To me, a loss like that doesn't weigh as much when you are constantly fighting killers.

Then there is the eye test. Pac Man had some of the best hand speed and quick bursts we've seen. He was aggressive and exciting, kamikaze like in his younger days, but his punches were also extremely accurate and his defense, footwork and fight IQ generally kept him safe in the ring. I truly can't understand why he doesn't get more credit. To me, he is the unquestioned best southpaw ever, the best boxer of the 2000's decade, and one of the greatest of all time.

At Least 1 of These Guys

It's hard to put current fighters in historical context while their careers are still active. They may go on to achieve greater success or maybe they fall off a cliff. But I think it is safe to say that at least one of these guys on this list below (in no particular order) will make their way into the Top 5 best southpaws of all time or at least the Top 10.

Oleksandr Usyk

Vasyli Lomachenko

Terrence Crawford

Gervonta Davis

Shakur Stephenson

Josh Taylor

Errol Spence

Amanda Serrano

I love boxing. I love the Olympics. So why don't I love Olympic Boxing?

Ever since I was a kid, I have loved the Olympics, particularly the summer games. Love all the different sports and almost the entire world competes with the highest of stakes. In the old days, and even when I started watching, Olympic Boxing was one of the highlights, and many of the great boxers of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s came up through the games. People like, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, De La Hoya, Pernell Whitaker, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Roy Jones Jr. became Olympic stars and household names before they ever turned pro. 

But then things changed. Boxing's popularity in general began to dwindle and there were fewer exciting boxers to watch in the games, especially boxers from the USA (more on both of these things in a later blog post). There were undoubtedly still talented men (and now women!) competing but not at the same level and it's left me with the sad conclusion that, as much as I hate to say it, Olympic Boxing is just not all that great. Why?

Format

Fights in the Olympics consist of three, 3-minute rounds. That is not a lot of time, which means several things. We see far fewer finishes by knockout or TKO, almost none outside of the super heavyweight, heavyweight and light heavyweight weight classes and even then, they are pretty infrequent. 

We see fewer power punches in general because the scoring system does not differentiate between power punches and non-power punches. If it lands, it counts the same so there is less incentive to even bother, especially if you don't already have disruptive power, which most of these boxers don't. Why risk putting yourself out there and taking a chance when there is less reward for it?

Fewer body punches are thrown too because they are harder to score (the head snapping back is more obvious to all judges) and you don't have the time to try and wear your opponent down with body shots or try to open up the head by attacking the body first. 

In fact, if you don't come out and win Round 1, it is very, very hard to win the match in general. You would obviously have to win Rounds 2 and 3 clearly and that changes the complexion and strategy of the fight. 

Rounds are scored now with the “10-point must” system they use in pro-boxing but I don't believe judges can score a round a draw unless there is a point deduction. They must give the fighter they perceived to win 10 points and the other fighter gets 7-9 points, depending on something extreme, like a legitimate knockdown (which are rare). So it's not uncommon at all to have 3 toss-up kind of rounds, making it harder to perceive a winner.

Speaking of deductions, deductions matter a LOT in Olympic Boxing because again, there are only 3 rounds. So if I get a point taken away, I could potentially lose a fight where I won 2 of the 3 rounds on several judges scorecards.

In short, 3 rounds is just not enough to make an exciting boxing match without really, really exciting boxers. This brings me to the next issue.

Tournament Style

16 boxers participate in each weight class so if you get to the gold medal match, that means you would fight 4 times in less than a couple of weeks. There is even a preliminary round for people not seeded in the Top 16 so you could even fight 5x if things went your way. This is one reason why they do the aforementioned, 3-round fights. It would be a lot tougher to take more rounds of punishment and fight multiple times between the opening and closing ceremonies.

This further leads to a lack of power and exciting fights as there is an incentive for just doing the bare minimum to get by to the next round. Most of the fighters treat them as sparring matches and because there is less time to gameplan for specific opponents, you are not going to see a lot of strategy play out.

There Are No 2nd Chances

Let's say you train like crazy for no money, have to depend on sponsorships of which there aren't many in the US, win of all the qualifying tournaments to make the Olympic team of which there ARE many, and then just narrowly lose a judges' decision in your first fight against someone you knew very little about and couldn't really prepare for. That's it. You have to wait 4 years before you can get back to the Olympics and achieve your dream of winning a gold medal. That's rough. On it's own, it doesn't necessarily lead to a less exciting fight - in fact you could argue that it could make it more exciting since it's do or die - but it causes another issue in that it can deter talented boxers from even trying to make the team, which leads me to the next point.

America Don't Care

Since Andre Ward won gold in 2004, many of America's best and brightest fighters have not competed in the Olympics. Especially when you consider how many fighters come from poverty, it is a tall order to put so much effort into something that may not pay off at all when you could start making some money right away as a pro. It is a true that a great Olympic career can be parlayed into much more money when you as pro - Sugar Ray Leonard was the biggest example of this - but it's a longshot for sure, especially these days. We're kind of stuck in one of those never-ending cycles. There is less excitement about Olympic boxing in America because we are less competitive and we are less competitive in it because there is less excitement (and sponsorship money).

What about the other countries? It depends a lot on the specific countries. Cuba has been an Olympic powerhouse because their fighters cannot turn pro and the state invests a lot of money in their amateur boxing program. A lot of the former Soviet Union countries like Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have a lot of national pride in their boxing and while those fighters can turn pro, it is harder for them to make any significant money early on. Some of them even turn pro and then still fight in the Olympics, like Bakhodir Jalov fighting again in Paris 2024 after also winning the gold in 2020. This is another reason a young American boxing prospect may not want to try for the Olympics. Who wants to go up against a scary, 30-year old heavyweight who has competed in 2 Olympic games before and at the pro level? While it would make for a great movie, it is not a smart way to manage anyone's boxing career.

Many Americans, and I would guess most people in general, want to watch a sport that our country is good at and we also want to watch an exciting sport and very rarely does Olympic boxing fall into that category, leading me to my final point.

Styles Make Fighters

Because of the format I mentioned earlier and probably because of the success of countries other than the US, Cuba and Great Britain, a modified international style of boxing has developed. It is a style made for winning the Olympics and other international competitions. It doesn't need to be exciting, it doesn't need to knock anybody out (or even down), it doesn't need to put fans in the seats, it doesn't need to win anyone over except for a judges scorecard based almost entirely on points. All of this factors into every aspect of one's boxing, even their stance where you see far more southpaw fighting in international amateur competitions than in the pros. It does not make for a better product in my opinion, and seemingly in the opinion of the American audience as a whole because interest in the sport seems to dwindle every 4 years. With the Paris 2024 games going on right now, it is nice to see that boxing is more televised than it was in Tokyo, and more weight classes have been added to the men's division, but of the 20 or so fights I've seen so far, only a couple have stood out. As we get into the gold medal match, hopefully that ratio will improve a little.

Don't get me wrong though, fighting for one's country in the Olympics is a noble pursuit and anybody who does it is heroic in my book. Nothing can take away from their hard work, dedication and the many sacrifices they have made to get to this place. True for all of these Olympic athletes, even the race walkers. I wish boxing was more fun to watch and there were more American fighters that we could all get behind and cheer for. Sadly, I don't think that is the way the wind is blowing and there is a very real chance that boxing may not be in the 2028 games in Los Angeles. Hopefully, the IOC can find a new, suitable international governing body by then and if they need any help or ideas to make things better, they know where to find me.