By Norm Frauenheim-
The James DeGale-Badou Jack fight Saturday night is a good bout and perhaps the first step in an attempt to hit the reset button after a sobering 2016.
It’s no secret that there wasn’t much to celebrate in the bygone year. It’s hard to know if the business has hit bottom and can finally embark on a long recovery.
But at least that old calendar can be tossed and replaced with one that includes inevitable hopes for a renewal.
DeGale-Jack at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center in a Showtime-televised 168-pound fight represents a beginning in a January that includes a terrific rematch of featherweight Carl Frampton’s decision over Leo Santa Cruz on the 28th.
A chance at gaining some momentum is there. The question is whether that’s enough to bring back some of the fans who raced for the exits in something of an exodus during the 20 months after Floyd Mayweather’s disappointing decision over Manny Pacquiao in May 2015.
It’s impossible to overstate the damage done by Mayweather-Pacquiao. Other than time, it’s not clear what can repair it. Just follow the money, always a reliable guide.
Forbes released a list on Tuesday, a projection of boxing’s top moneymakers in 2017. From one to 10, they are:
Canelo Alvarez, Andre Ward, Gennady Golovkin, Sergey Kovalev, Pacquiao, Wladimir Klitschko tied at sixth with Anthony Joshua, Keith Thurman, Deontay Wilder, Terence Crawford and Vasyl Lomachenko.
Alvarez is at the top because he reigns as the game’s biggest draw based in part on a reported pay-per-view audience of 300,000 for his knockout of Liam Smith in September at Cowboys Stadium. There’s also promoter Oscar De La Hoya’s promise that Canelo will finally fight Golovkin next September.
For now, Canelo-GGG is seen as the bout that will put boxing back at one million on the PPV scale. The number means more than money. It represents relevancy.
In the larger sports market, boxing has been sliding toward irrelevancy at a perilous rate. Again, follow the money.
In Forbes’ last ranking of the world’s top 100 athletes for earnings from June 2015 to June 2016, three boxers were included – Mayweather at No. 16 with $44 million, Pacquiao at No. 63 with $24 million and Canelo at No. 92 with $21.5 million.
The retired Mayweather, No. 1 in three of Forbes’ last four lists, is there, mostly for the $32 million he collected for his last fight, a victory over Andre Berto in September 2015.
Pacquiao got $20 million for his rematch victory over Timothy Bradley in April 2016. Canelo cracked the top 100 for his purses against Miguel Cotto in November 2015 and Amir Khan in May 2016.
Here’s the question: Will any boxer be among the next 100 on the 2017 list Forbes is expected to release in June?
Doubtful. A blockbuster would have to happen during the next six months.
Joshua-Klitschko on April 29 at London’s Wembley Stadium? Maybe. The emerging Joshua figures to beat an aging Klitschko, but he might be a year away from entering the Forbes’ rankings.
A possible Canelo-Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. fight in early May? It would be a moneymaker, especially among Mexican and Mexican-American fans. But it is way past due and would fall short of being Forbes’ worthy.
The best chance at restoring the relevancy defined by money appears to be in the June 2018 list, which would account for the promised GGG-Canelo showdown.
But even that hinges on bringing fans back into an increasingly empty tent. From this corner, the public appetite for a good fight is still keen.
But boxing has failed to provide it, hence all of the silly talk about Mayweather versus Conor McGregor, the mixed-martial arts megaphone who was at No. 85 on Forbes’ last list with $22 million.
If Mayweather-McGregor ever really happens, I’ll begin to believe some of those boxing obits. Mayweather-versus-McGregor would be a damning confirmation that boxing can no longer provide fights that the market place wants and will always want.
For now, the key is to show that the business can still deliver. That brings us back to the beginning, back to DeGale-Jack Saturday night in what could be the first fight in a much bigger one.
