What boxing needs, in the humble opinion of an under educated fan, who probably doesn’t know enough to actually have a valid opinion:
- An end to the alphabet soup mess.
There are way too many sanctioning organizations. We have the WBA, the WBC, the IBF, and the WBO, and those are the ones I know of. Each can recognize a separate boxer as the champion in their weight class. This leads to confusion for the more casual fans. - Less Pay-per-view.
Unlikely to happen since the boxers, at least the two on the title-card, get a percentage of the buy-in. However, it makes it expensive to watch the big fights. It is bad enough if you want to watch most of the bigger fights, you have to have Showtime and HBO, especially HBO which seems to be home to the bigger matches. So you have basic cable to get ESPN 2, then two premium channels and then you have to buy a bunch of PPV fights. In 2005 you would have to buy 20 pay-per-view matches to catch them all. I don’t know if too many fans bother watching the Spanish networks to catch the fights there since the commentary wouldn’t be understandable, but perhaps the really big fans do. Anyhow, cost is an issue and they need to bring the price back down so the fans can watch again. More network coverage would probably help as well. I don’t know if the networks just don’t want to show it, or if they can’t get any of the more worthwhile matches since ESPN/Showtime/HBO/PPV get them. - More constancy across the sports/boxing commissions in various states.
To that end McCain is pushing for a Federal Boxing Commission. Something I personally don’t support, the last thing we need is the Federal Government to get involved and mess everything up. A better solution, which I seem to remember reading about somewhere once, is to have each state send a representative from their commission, to a national (not controlled by the Federal Government) commission. This commission would insure that every state is using the same rules, and more importantly, licances fighters and officials (both referees and judges) by the same criteria. Hopefully this will result in more neutral officials (one only needs to see some of Emanuel Agustus‘ fights to see how slanted officials can be for the hometown boy). This would also probably result in an and to the three knockdown rule which some states use, but others do not, as the rules would need to be even across all states under this proposal. - A weighted ranking system.
Boxer A has a record of 20-0 (18) and B has a record of 18-1(12). Which is the better boxer? Impossible to tell just from that. One would think A is the better boxer, but it all depends on who his opponents were. If boxer A had lots of easy opponents, and B took on some really challenging opponents, than B is the better boxer. The record isn’t a reliable way of knowing which is the better boxer, or how well they match up. A person in the know may think that the A vs B fight will be a slaughter for fighter A with B walking all over them, but that isn’t what the record alone show. We need a consistent weighted ranking system that everyone can agree on. Yes, give us the fighter’s record, but also give us a weighted rank so we know how well they actually match up. Let us add boxer C to the mix here with a record of 18-0 (15), who has a lower rank than B but higher than A. So from first place to last place it is B, C, A. A will raise in rank more by beating B than beating C. C gains little from beating A, but some from beating B. B gains little from beating C and even less beating A. They always gain something, even if it is a lower rated opponent. If you gave nothing to B for beating A, B may never take the fight. We need a way to still encourage them to give a chance to the boxing journeymen.
I am sure there are far more things boxing needs to get back to its prime, but these would be a good start.
Edit: I knew about The Ring Magazine Ratings for boxers. But I don’t think their ratings quite fit the weighted system above. However, BoxRec seems to have just the system I was talking about, if not more complex.