To care, or not t-... ah whatever...
It's only boxing.
I was watching a fight with a friend recently where I made a comment that something or other was dumb or bad in the sport of boxing today and then stopped myself short, apologising because I didn't want to bore him with well-worn complaints that go back decades. His response was sympathetic but included an observation along the lines of "complaining about boxing feels like an old man trait". Dear reader, I'm still in my 20s but if the shoe fits, wear it.
One of my more cantankerous complaints is that in post-modern societies many people who can and should know better readily spread or accept falsehoods, intentionally or otherwise. Either because they believe there's no such thing as truth or because the truth, if it exists, is so elusive as to be practically unknowable.
In Lucas Ketelle's BoxingScene article a few days ago, I read that "Claressa Shields is now a three-division undisputed champion and the only boxer ever to achieve the accomplishment, male or female". Last month ESPN made social media posts claiming that in 2024 Gabriela Fundora became 'boxing's youngest-ever undisputed champion at just 22 years old'. Now, to be fair to them, they give their source as DAZN, who did specify it was "in women's boxing history". And even ESPN's 2024 report by Mike Coppinger and Nick Parkinson said Fundora "became the youngest undisputed champion ever in the four-belt era".
But who cares that Bob Fitzsimmons was middleweight, light-heavyweight, and heavyweight champion of the world at various points between 1891 and 1905? Who cares that Henry Armstrong was simultaneously reigning as world's featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight champion in 1938? Who cares that Floyd Patterson became undisputed heavyweight champion of the world before his 22nd birthday? Who cares that Muhammad Ali was younger than Gabriela Fundora when Sonny Liston didn't meet the bell for the 7th round? According to the standards set by the two biggest sources of boxing news in the world today, nobody really should.
Al McCoy could be a made-up name for all anyone knows.
I'm not conspiratorial enough to say that this is done intentionally to bolster women's boxing (any power brokers who earnestly wished to do so would experiment with fewer divisions and fewer belts in those easier-to-negotiate ranks). It's more likely that there is no regard for the truth because there are not enough people who believe the truth matters. Artificial intelligence will only make existing problems worse as these models, incapable of imagining the very concept of truth, lazily repeat popularly repeated claims. And you cannot complain about how things are these days without sounding like an old man.
I am but an old soul who believes paid professionals involved in boxing should be doing better. My concerns would be alleviated if people could at least care about quality control. Frank Warren recently announced that there will be a press conference next week announcing Queensberry's upcoming DAZN line-up. It reminded me of Monday's 20-second Fantastic Four teaser announcing that the Official Teaser would be coming out on Tuesday (all to keep your attention for a movie that's not out until late July). For days I've been hearing about how Canelo-Crawford is a done deal (for September), even confirmed in Ring Magazine, until a few hours ago when Ring Magazine unconfirmed the fight.
It's all very 'this could've been an email'. Last month, Eric Raskin wrote that "everything between “this fight is in the works” and “this fight is signed” elicits a yawn" and it's hard not to concur. An earlier Ring Magazine report claimed that Wladimir Klitschko is "all but completely committed to returning to the ring for a high-profile fight at some point in 2025". Can this report be trusted? After all, it is by the same writer who told me that an agreement was in place for Canelo-Crawford. I reached out to Klitschko Ventures and received the response that "Right now, Wladimir Klitschko does not wish to give individual comments or interviews". Maybe some things are unknowable.
Does boxing matter? And if it does, which aspects matter? The history, legacy and tapestry of fights and fighters? Or the protracted sitcom-esque trope of 'will they/won't they' negotiations and announcements? Should 'the Bible of Boxing' be a reliable source of information? Can professionals in boxing really feign surprise if consumers stop paying attention after a certain point? I don't expect you, dear reader, to have answers to these questions. The most important question is whether the individuals running the sport care enough to think about any of them. I suspect you have an opinion.