Last week featured several high-profile boxing matches, but most failed to meet fans’ expectations despite the big names involved. This raises the question: could overpaid purses and surreal atmospheres be damaging boxing?
Many who purchased pay-per-view access for Friday’s Times Square event and Saturday’s Riyadh card felt shortchanged, witnessing dull and uninspired fights where boxers seemed disinterested in entertaining.
The sequence of disappointments began with Teofimo Lopez and Arnold Barboza Jr., who engaged in a prolonged chess match. Lopez secured the win by slightly accelerating in the final rounds. This wasn’t entirely shocking, given Lopez’s past struggles against outfighters and Barboza’s reputation for unspectacular bouts.
Things worsened as Devin Haney employed an ultra-cautious strategy to defeat a lackluster Jose Ramirez, boring the audience. Then, Ryan Garcia and Rolando Romero spent most of their twelve rounds causing more harm with their stares than their punches, save for an initial knockdown.
The dismal picture was completed the next day by Canelo Alvarez and William Scull, who set an unenviable record for the fewest punches thrown in a twelve-round match (just 445) since the introduction of the Compubox statistical system.
Unsurprisingly, fierce debates erupted online and elsewhere about the causes of these dreadful performances. The general dismay was so significant that some even theorized a fundamental change in modern boxers, predicting an increase in tactical and monotonous fights.
This article doesn’t aim to provide a definitive answer or pinpoint the exact causes of this “disaster.” My engineering background has taught me that “correlation is not causation,” and I recognize that identifying common elements in recent lackluster matches doesn’t prove a causal link.
However, it’s worth highlighting two factors that may have contributed to the poor quality of these events: the overpaid purses awarded to boxers by Saudi government official Turki Alalshikh and the surreal atmospheres of the Friday and Saturday events, which starkly contrasted with the typical energy of world championship boxing fights.
Starting with the purses: Turki Alalshikh isn’t a typical promoter. Unlike others like Eddie Hearn, Bob Arum, Al Haymon, or Oscar De La Hoya, who must ensure revenues exceed expenses, Alalshikh’s events are funded by Saudi Arabia’s national budget. This allows for lavish spending to achieve broader goals, such as enhancing the Kingdom’s image in the West.
While this vast financial capacity can be a valuable resource, enabling highly anticipated boxing matches, overpaying a boxer far beyond their market value can backfire, affecting their in-ring performance.
Consider William Scull, a relatively unknown Cuban boxer who became the IBF world champion under controversial circumstances, thanks to a highly favorable judges’ decision after an unremarkable performance against Russia’s Vladimir Shishkin. In a “normal” context, Scull wouldn’t have been considered as Alvarez’s opponent; in fact, Alvarez had previously relinquished his IBF title to avoid facing him.
According to published estimates, Scull received at least $3 million for a match that few were interested in watching. He seemed to prepare more for a game of tag than a boxing match, collecting his generous paycheck with minimal risk. He left the ring unscathed and smiling after spending twelve rounds evading and feigning jabs that mostly missed the mark.
A similar rationale applies to some challengers at the Times Square event: why would Jose Ramirez and Arnold Barboza exhaust themselves and risk when their compensation allows them to enjoy a comfortable life without needing to earn further prestigious opportunities?
The other factor worth considering is the atmosphere. Both the Times Square event (with fewer than 300 seats, allocated by invitation) and the Riyadh event were described by attendees as muted and surreal, a stark contrast to the usual fervor of world championship boxing crowds.
We have recent precedents that suggest audience behavior can significantly impact boxers’ performances. During the COVID-19 pandemic, matches were held in empty, silent arenas, attended only by the fighters’ teams.
Those with good memories will recall numerous “strange” or highly unexpected performances during that period. For instance, Vasyl Lomachenko seemed to forget to throw punches for seven rounds against Teofimo Lopez; Oleksandr Usyk struggled to engage in his fight and to contain the one-dimensional Dereck Chisora; and Miguel Berchelt appeared unrecognizable as he was overwhelmed by Oscar Valdez, seemingly forgetting all his previous ring prowess.
These instances suggest that a silent or absent audience can negatively impact a boxer’s attitude. It’s plausible that, in the presence of a roaring, demanding crowd ready to boo inaction and erupt at every furious exchange, the athletes we saw last week might have taken more risks.
What conclusions can we draw from these reflections? In my view, recent events have taught us that boxing is a “people’s sport” that reaches its highest levels when fueled by the crowd’s energy in addition to the athletes’ courage. Therefore, it’s advisable to organize major events in settings where a multitude of interested spectators can provide an appropriate backdrop to the ring’s artistry.
Additionally, we’ve learned that awarding a boxer a purse disproportionate to their market value isn’t beneficial. Of course, there are exceptions: sometimes the “market” unfairly undervalues an athlete due to factors like nationality, media shyness, or fighting style.
It’s not uncommon for exceptional talents like Dmitrii Bivol and Artur Beterbiev to generate modest revenue despite their high-quality performances. In such cases, someone deciding to offer seven-figure sums to reward these boxers’ efforts is a blessing.
However, when public disinterest stems from unappealing matchups, inflating fighters’ earnings can backfire, diminishing their hunger for glory and victory, as their fighting spirit is dulled by an overstuffed wallet.