O
n Feb. 2, two heavyweight
titans met up for what
some described as the
most anticipated boxing match in 20
years. My personal excitement for
this fight was driven by an interest
in boxing that began with following
the Andy Ruiz-Anthony Joshua
fight this past summer. Boxing had
grown on me after the initial shock
of watching a shorter, heavier fighter
like Ruiz hang with the physical
specimen Joshua and knock him
down to the canvas. After watching
numerous videos breaking down
their fight, I realized that boxing is
much more than two brutes giving
and receiving bloody blows to each
other’s faces. The sport is nearly
artistic, and the best fighters use
rhythm in their movements, swaying
side-to-side while bouncing on their
toes. The combination of punches
are a free-form, creative expression
of the individual throwing them,
and the varying styles can produce
spectacular back-and-forth battles.
Boxing quickly became without
a doubt the most fascinating sport in
my eyes, and I spent time watching
old Muhammad Ali footage, the
man who coined the phrase, “float
like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” The
idea of dedicating a life completely
to one purpose and sharpening one’s
physical, mental and spiritual form
to achieve it is something appealing
— particularly to a young, future-
driven college student like myself.
The ultimate beauty of the sport,
however, is the antithesis of this
complex and involved preparation:
The primitive act of sending the man
standing across from you down to
the canvas. The merging of the sport
as it is today, with its modern-day
top fighters representing our time
and culture, with an archaic practice
and craft is what makes boxing
entertaining but not brutal or savage.
A rematch between Ruiz and
Joshua occurred a few months
later, during which Joshua was able
to, through tactical but somewhat
passive boxing, reclaim his belts and
avenge his loss. This reestablished
him as one of three big names in
heavyweight boxing — the other two
being Tyson Fury, a British boxer of
Irish heritage known for his savage
trash talk and awkward but brilliant
style of fighting, and Deontay Wilder,
a raw fighter out of Alabama who has
what many consider to be the most
powerful punch in all of boxing.
After a roller coaster of a fight in
December 2018, during which Fury
got up following a brutal right-hand,
left-hook combo from Wilder in the
12th round, the final result was a
controversial draw. A rematch was
announced this February and I could
hardly wait, watching interviews
and training footage months before
in preparation.
As the fight approached, I couldn’t
help but experience a slight feeling
of loss in not having anyone to talk
about my excitement with. The
boxing fandom is a niche crowd,
and finding someone well-versed in
the sport is not likely to happen on
campus unless one goes to a bar on
fight night or spars on the heavy bag
at their local gym.
I knew there was no shortage of
sports enthusiasts at the University
of Michigan, as evidenced by the
historic turnouts at football games
despite adverse weather and the sold-
out student section at U-M basketball
games. With combat sports on the rise
as Ultimate Fighting Championship
and Mixed Martial Arts popularity
surges, I was surprised that it was so
difficult to find people that gravitated
toward boxing. In my mind boxing
is more technical than sports like
football or basketball, as there are
more restrictive rules that make the
competition less of a free-for-all and
place more emphasis on tact.
As I contemplated how alone I
was in my passion for boxing in my
social circle, I thought of how the
boxing industry exposes itself to the
outside and sporting worlds. As a
sports fan myself, prior to hearing
about Joshua-Ruiz by happenstance,
I had lived my life with no clue about
any happenings in the fight world.
If one flips to ESPN and watches
SportsCenter, football, basketball,
baseball, hockey, tennis and even golf
are often discussed among pundits
and in news stories. Comparatively
speaking, one is much less likely to
hear about boxing in a general forum
of sports commentators, especially
outside of a select few names. The
pay-per-view model is ultimately to
blame for this, as fights like Fury-
Wilder cost between $60 and $100 to
watch, a price only a committed fan
would be willing to pay.
After sparking some curiosity
in my friends, we decided to watch
Fury-Wilder II in a bar on campus.
Upon arriving at Buffalo Wild Wings,
the only place we figured would
definitely be carrying the fight, we
were met with a sign on the front
door reading “We are not showing
Fury-Wilder,” and thus were forced
to drive to their Boardwalk Drive
location off-campus. Even as a fan,
this was a difficult thing to commit
to for the entire Saturday night.
Pay-per-view is causing a large
demographic of college students
to miss out on what this incredible
sport has to offer. Of course, the
top boxers benefit from the current
system.
Floyd
Mayweather
is
perhaps the ultimate manifestation
of the benefits of raking in views.
He became the highest-paid athlete
of the 2010s by making $915 million
from his fights, including the 2017
match against Conor McGregor,
which had a reported 4.3 million
buys. Ultimately, greediness on
the part of these athletes has
historically caused the biggest fights
to happen much later than they
should. Mayweather’s “fight of the
century” against Manny Pacquiao
happened when he was 38 years
old and Pacquiao was 36 years old,
both of them over the hill in their
careers. However, the recent flurry
of heavyweight fights between top
contenders indicates a positive trend
on this front.
Getting more eyes on the sport
is not a matter of getting people
to open up to it, but rather putting
it more clearly in front of them.
Giving context to the fights with
an introduction to the fighters
and their story arcs would make
boxing much more entertaining
to a casual fan, and could provide
a catalyst to rope viewers in. After
that, all it requires is one good fight
to pique someone’s interest and get
them hooked. This will happen
when boxers are put on par with
other athletes in their exposure in
the media to the general sporting
public. Broadcasting companies
will only be incentivized to give
them this coverage when they can
show these matches themselves on
their networks. The pay-per-view
model should be eliminated entirely,
even if it may result in slightly less
revenue for boxers and promoters.
Even subscription-based services,
which are currently on the rise,
should not be the primary model
for big fights. Outsiders to the sport
will not have any incentive to spend
money to watch.
A
s the United States is swept
off its feet by the spread of the
coronavirus, many questions have
gone unanswered. A great deal of stress
has accumulated over when society will
go back to normal, and it seems that
the topic of the coronavirus lurks in
the background of every conversation
I have: It’s completely unavoidable.
There is nothing else to talk about, as
COVID-19 has brought the world as
we know it to a halt. We must remain
in our homes and twiddle our thumbs,
hoping for a positive headline on CNN
or an inflection in the anchor’s voice
that might denote a fleeting sense that
hope exists. Businesses fear that they’ll
shutter while hospitals are understaffed
and underprepared. Students vacate
universities, parents stay home from
work and people in their 60s and beyond
worry for their livelihood. This pandemic
has grabbed us by the shirt collar and
asked for our lunch money. How will we
respond?
Many speculate that the disruption to
the economy caused by the disease will
induce harsh, depression-level economic
conditions regarding job loss and deficit
increase.
We’re
living
through
an
unprecedented era; never has time stood
still quite as it does now. The economy
and the general livelihood of people is in
decline. Gas prices fall as more employers
send their workers home with promises
of partial payment plans and families
putter around their homes stress eating
and doing puzzles, waiting for the day
when we wake up from the nightmare
that we’re living in. Businesses are just
as uncertain as citizens as to how long
this situation will last, and the stress of it
largely lies on the timeline of the disease’s
restrictions on society. How long will
people be out of work, and how are we
going to make it through all of this?
With all of the economic and personal
travel restrictions being implemented
around the country, life has shut down
in America. The question emerging is
imperative to answer: What degree of the
spreading of the disease should we allow
when the livelihood of people and the
economy are at stake? The public needs
to know more about the disease, that
much is certain, but at what point do we
reopen the world? If we’re waiting for the
total number of new cases to reach zero
or for the growth rate to plateau then we
could be in for the long haul. This shelter-
in-place situation in your home — with
seemingly every industry and aspect of
your everyday life at the mercy of the
coronavirus — can’t go on forever. At
some point, the conversation needs to be
about what degree of the disease existing
can be tolerated so as to not ruin people’s
lives and the economic condition of the
world.
I am not a pessimist; I don’t believe
this to be an apocalypse. I think the
world was deeply unready for something
of this magnitude. The coronavirus
is a test of the world’s ability to react
and take proactive measures against
a viral outbreak that many countries
flunked, as the U.S. and Europe didn’t
close their borders soon enough to
stop the spread of the disease. I believe
that things will return to normal soon,
that the disease will plateau and that
our lives will resume. These times
are unprecedented, so what I’m really
curious to see is what society will look
like after this is said and done. Will
100,000 people gather for a football
game again without batting an eye?
With something as drastic as this, with
everyone witnessing the closing of
society and experiencing the isolation
it has caused, who knows if we will
ever get this out of the back of our
minds.
Many lessons can be learned from
this pandemic. First, a government
must take swift and decisive action
to protect the health of its citizens.
Countries waited too long to ban
international travel, and that allowed
the disease to spread like wildfire, as
travelers brought it back home and
exposed it to new areas completely.
Second, threats involving the health
and livelihood of citizens should
always be taken seriously. I fear
that arrogance may have compelled
the current U.S. administration to
underestimate
the
magnitude
or
impact of this disease early on. Third,
the medical field needs to be able to
mobilize faster against an outbreak.
Hospitals that are filling up with
patients are understaffed and low on
equipment, so there needs to be some
sort of rapid development in medical
infrastructure and production in order
to keep up with disease. Such funding
could come from a federal relief
package. Whether that be converting
factories to produce necessary goods
and PPE or building new hospitals,
these
developments
ought
to
be
subsidized or otherwise incentivized
by the government. The coronavirus
will undoubtedly leave its mark on the
population but what is important is
how we handle the situation. We need
to balance people’s livelihoods, the
economy and public health in just the
right way in order to avoid ruin, and it’s
time to start having that conversation.
4 — Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
SHAD JEFFREY II | COLUMN
Balancing COVID-19, livelihood and the economy
Bringing boxing to college
ARJUN LAMA | COLUMN
Shad Jeffrey II can be reached at
shadj@umich.edu.
Arjun Lama can be reached at
arjunl@umich.edu.
ANNA GETZINGER | GETZINGA@UMICH.EDU
Read more at MichiganDaily.com