The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; The Ring Commission Hearings

[Tease]

HOWARD COSELL, ABC Sports [voice-over]: I have never wavered, generally speaking, in my belief in the men who fight for a living. I respect them, and in many cases, admire them. [on camera] But that doesn't change the sickness of boxing as it is today.

[Titles]

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. The question of what to do about professional boxing became a federal question today as a congressional committee opened hearings on the alternatives, ranging from its complete banishment to strict federal regulation of its conduct. Congressman James Florio, Democrat of New Jersey, called the hearings, saying boxing is an issue Congress can no longer ignore. It was a recent tragedy and near-tragedy that brought the issue to a boil now -- the death of Korean boxer Duk Koo Kim, and the pulverizing of Randall Cobb in a mismatch with heavyweight champion Larry Holmes. These events caused the current uproar, the editor of the American Medical Association journal saying boxing was obscene and should be abolished; conservative columnist James Kilpatrick and others saying the same in even stronger words, with a panel of AMA experts suggesting stringent medical restrictions if the sport does continue; and sports broadcaster Howard Cosell calling for a complete revamping of the sport. Cosell and the AMA people reiterated their suggestions to the Florio committee today. They were joined in testifying by former heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson and state athletic commissioners and professional boxing referees. We have extended excerpts from that testimony tonight in keeping with the point made by Kilpatrick and others: everyone, including those who couldn't care less about boxing per se, have a stake in what society sanctions and applauds as sport. Today's first witness was Howard Cosell of ABC Sports.

HOWARD COSELL: I speak as one -- and this too is a matter of public notice -- who has had some considerable hand in the development of national attention upon boxing in this country. I say that, not with any ego, not with any purpose of ego, but as a simple statement of registered fact. I became interested in boxing -- I address this particularly to you, Congressman Ritter, because the man who sparked my interest in boxing sits behind me now, and his name is Floyd Patterson. And as Floyd knows, back in the young '50s, I would visit frequently a place called the Gramercy Gym, a flea-bag joint conducted by an eccentric boxing manager named Gus D'Amato, with a wild, vicious dog waiting to greet anybody who would dare to climb the two flights of stairs to that gym. I was interested in Floyd Patterson because he grew up in my borough, Brooklyn. He used to sit in a little hole in the subway, secluding himself, an emotionally underdeveloped and in some ways disturbed young man who would later, though living in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, go to a school the became nationally famous for special children, the Wiltwick School, then located in Esopus, New York, now differently located. Floyd Patterson to me was a gentleman who had extremely fine skills with his feet and his hands. He won the gold, one of five Americans who did, at Helsinki, and I considered him -- in line with the kind of reasoning you have just put forth in your opening statement, Congressman Ritter -- I considered him a sociological study of what can come from boxing to a young man. And I believe deeply in it.

And as I stated on network television this past Saturday, I have never wavered, generally speaking, in my belief in the men who fight for a living. I respect them, and in many cases, admire them. Floyd was and is one of those. I feel no differently about Muhammed Ali, about Ray Leonard, about Joe Frazier, about Ken Norton, about George Foreman -- all of whom I have had very deep and abiding relationships with. But that doesn't change the sickness of boxing as it is today. I believe that as long as we continue with the sport of boxing it will have every rotten egg that I have already talked about. Why? Because we have 50 different states with different economic and political motives, and it doesn't answer that fact, in my opinion, Congressman Ritter, to say that, yes, Floyd Patterson has made for himself a great life out of boxing.And so did Larry. I'm well aware of that. Go to Larry's restaurant; one of his sandwiches is named after me. So I know about Larry Holmes. But the point is, sir, that the only way you can get a system -- Mr. Florio correctly referred to a non-system -- in my opinion, is through federal regulation and control. It's not my purpose to advocate here and now the banning of boxing. That's too easy. It can only, however, reach a system with the very protections that you want ultimately for the fighters with federal regulation and control.

Rep. Dennis ECKART, (D) Ohio: To what extent has the influence of cable television and broadcast television such as represented by ABC have, in effect, in the tail wagging the dog? More fights, more promotions, more mismatches?

Mr. COSELL: I think it's clear that if the three networks agreed that they would not carry fights, boxing would dry up of its own volition. We might return to a club fight status.But if the three networks did that, they'd be in violation; they'd be in conspiracy and violation of antitrust. You see, we're not in the same position, as I pointed out earlier, as the print medium. Whichever way we turn we're hamstrung and constrained. I'm not saying it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is. And therefore, we can't just automatically stop boxing. I think all the networks overpay dreadfully for fights not nearly worth the money. Personally, I think somebody made a mistake in the very beginning of television. I will never understand why my medium can't go in the way the writers do. Let us each televise every event and not pay for rights. Let's go in as reporters. Let's stop using people who are part of the vested boxing establishment.

Rep. RICHARDSON: Do you create a czar of boxing similar to one -- Bowie Kuhn in baseball and Pete Rozelle in football? Do you give this commission more power? I'm a little bit suspect of just naming a commission that has no power. I'm suspect in the sense that we've done this before, and I would state for the record that when the Congress proposed the commission, I believe about 10 years ago, it was the networks that were strongest against it. So it seems to me that if we're going to have a commission that we should be very specific about how much power we give it, both across interstate lines, international lines, and, secondly, within the media.And what I would like to hear from you specifically is, how far do we go?

Mr. COSELL: The only areas that I would entrust authority to -- because, clearly, all sports should not be government-regulated. Clearly, sports should take their place in free enterprise competitively in the society. Yet, ironically sport always seeks special-purpose legislation. The only areas where a federal sports commission would have authority, as far as I'm concerned, would be in matters of franchise removals, and as -- you're only here four weeks, but -- Congressman Rodino of Congressman Florio's state conducted hearings on two bills relative to franchise removals, which is an overriding problem for the great urban areas of this country. And only through a federal sports commission can a city not be brought to its knees to retain its franchise. And that's one area where I would use the federal sports commission. That was my testimony before the Senate Commerce subcommittee chaired by Marlow Cook back in '72. The other area is in boxing, and, yes, the chairman of a federal sports commission would be a boxing czar.

Rep. JAMES FLORIO, (D) New Jersey: Next we are pleased to have with us a former heavyweight champion of the United States, Mr. Floyd Patterson, who is here today in his capacity as a member of the New York State Athletic Commission. Mr. Patterson, welcome to the committee.

FLOYD PATTERSON, former heavyweight champion: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to say that I would not like to see boxing abolished. I think if you cleaned up some of the people outside the ring, like the promoters, matchmakers, people that bring these type bouts together, I think you'll have better fights. Now, also I understand there's an ad hoc committee being formed in New York trying to get a national commission. Of course I feel that people that are already in boxing and know the sport, and they would be better suited, in my opinion, to run it -- rather than get, you know, people who aren't familiar with boxing. Now, most people -- most fighters become fighters, as many of you may know, simply because they don't have a trade or an education. And most of them -- the majority of them -- live in the ghettos. And living in the ghettos there is narcotics, alcohol and crime, and there's boxing.I know firsthand because I come from the ghettos. Boxing is a way out. And I think it would be pitiful to even think in terms of abolishing boxing because you'd take away the one thing that can get a person out of the ghettos. I would like to have something -- whether it be a federal or national commission where all states would have to abide by one rule, and any other country, like, if you take, for instance, the WBA and the WBC, they're from different countries. They come to this country -- this is the only country where they can make money at. So you can't go to another country and make the kind of money you can make in this country, so they're sort of obliged to come to this country, so they would have to go by our rules and our regulations. But right now we have certain rules in New York state where if the WBA, the WBC don't like, they can go to Jersey, or go to California or someplace, or Las Vegas. And this way the rules aren't as strict, and they'll be able to get things their way. But if they knew that all states throughout the whole country had one rule, they would still come here because the money is here.

Rep. ECKART: Excuse me, so therefore, notwithstanding the fact that you stand foursquare behind these changes and that you feel they protect not only the boxer but potentially the industry as well, because of serious economic considerations you're constrained from going forward in as broad a way as you would like with these protections?

Mr. PATTERSON: Well, I hate to admit to it, but yes.

Rep. ECKART: It's a rather sad commentary, not about you or the commission, because I think you are working in the direction that's appropriate, but perhaps about others in the industry who clearly have a little less concern in the people that they claim to be promoting. Mr. Patterson, was Kim'" death avoidable?

Mr. PATTERSON: I saw the fight. No. I saw the fight, and in watching it -- in fact, I saw it a couple of times. I asked, what was it, ABC to run the film, and which they did for me because I waed to be sure. And watching it, just the round before he was killed, he was very, very strong. So something like that we have to accept. But I do say -- and Willie Clausen, that could have been avoided. Willie Clausen was a fighter who died about two or three years ago; you may remember the case. There was a big hullabaloo about that also. I felt in that particular fight, if certain rules were in effect, the referee could have stopped the fight, gave the standing eight count and saw then that he was incoherent; or the doctor could have stopped the fight. Back then the doctor could not stop the fight; he could only suggest it between rounds to the referee. So, based on Willie Clausen is what really forced me to try to implement different laws as far as, you know, giving the doctor more input, letting the standing eight count be in effect for professional fighters, although I was against it before the Williy Clausen thing, but then after seeing that I said, "Well, if the doctor had a chance to give the eight count, he would have been able to see then that Willie Clausen was incoherent."

Rep. ECKART: What you are saying then is that obviously inherent in the sport, as in crossing the street, there is some exposure to injury. What you are talking about is preserving the science, the talent of boxing as it relates to the skill, but avoiding some of the untold physical consequences and trauma of participating. Does that -- will that change the nature of the sport from the so-called perpetual match between the puncher and the fighter -- the person who relies on raw power to do what the sport requires, and someone who has a reserve of talent and finesse and speed? Are we looking potentially to change the very nature of the sport? That's the bottom line of my question.

Mr. PATTERSON: No. No. The science must always be there. When I'm fighting someone I do not think in terms of hurting him or getting hurt myself, although I know the possibility is always there. I think in terms of making him miss. See, the whole object is to make him miss and not get hit. See, that's the whole logic of it. But I don't say, well, if I hit him I'm going to hurt him, or if he hits me he's going to hurt me. The object is to hake him miss and hit him. If I can make him miss enough and hit him enough times, I'll win the bout.

Dr. RUSSEL PATTERSON, the American Medical Association: Clearly there are boxers like Mr. Patterson who specialized in not getting hurt. We know of other fighters who absorb a lot of punishment in order to deliver a lot of punishment, and they may be more at risk than others. This is something that needs to be investigated, and speaking as a professor in a medical school, I think we can get numbers and identify how large this issue is. As far as preventing deaths in the ring, it may be that there's no easy way to do that or reduce the risk to zero. But a lot can be done, and a lot has been done in some states like Nevada and New York and in New Jersey. It wasn't too long ago in one of the major rings in this -- in New York that there was no evacuation plan for an injured fighter. There was no ambulance there; nobody had a real idea of what to do with an injured fighter. I think they almost dialed 911 to see what would happen and who'd come to their aid. This isn't necessary. You can have life supports at the ringside.You can have a doctor trained to use it, and just because somebody's a doctor doesn't mean he knows how to resuscitate a comatose boxer. You can have a trained doctor who can use it.You can have an ambulance standing by. You can be sure that there's a hospital with a neurosurgeon who could treat the injured boxer when he arrived. You can allow this doctor at the ringside to stop the fight, which is being initiated in New York State. You can also have a training course for the ringside physician. You can have a training course for the referee, who is closest to the fighters of all, and show them what to look for to detect signs of brain injury in the boxer. And there's a lot of things you can do about equipment -- the number of ropes, the size of the ring, the padding under the mat and other things that we've heard about. Maybe even we can develop some sort of a helmet that would give the visibility that's required.

And I think that boxers can be examined, and periodic CAT scans done of their brain, maybe once a year or something like that, looking for injuries. It costs a little bit of money, but that's the cost of doing business, and certainly, as we've heard from Mr. Cosell, boxing is big money and big business. It wouldn't amount to very much. Tracking the fighters is going to be very hard because they do change names, do move from one state to another. Then they go to Barcelona or Spain or somewhere and get beat, and God knows what they do sparring. You almost think like race horses boxers ought to be tagged or tattooed in some way so that they could be identified and not switched around. This can only be accomplished, though, through some sort of a national commission. And that is one of the things that our committee on brain injury in boxing recommended, and we certainly heartily endorse that. There's no other way, really, to do it. It would, I think, require that in order to stage a professional fight the state must have a boxing commission in concordance with the federal legislation.

Rep. ECKART: I'm not a doctor, and I don't pretend to have the depth of understanding. Can you equate for me the impact of a blow to a boxer's head with the force of impact in another sport of a blow to the head with different kinds of protection?

Dr. PATTERSON: I think a similar kind of injury occurs in any contact sport. Football is a good example, and we've seen some serious head injuries in football. The famous quarterback from Dallas, Roger Staubach, I think, was bothered by repeated concussion in his last two years of football. Frank Gifford was, remember, knocked cold for 24 hours and left football for a year before -- and then came back to it for a brief period before retiring. The blow is the same whether it's in boxing or in football. It's just in boxing it's small, repetitive blows but maybe spread over many years and almost daily in its occurrence. The injury involves the fact that the head is accelerated by the blow. It spins or twists, and the brain inside, which is a jello-like substance, also spins and twists. And it develops shearing stresses inside the head that will shear off the nerve cells, a few each time, perhaps. And it's this cumulative effect that may lead in some people to the punch-drunk syndrome. But the injuries in all contact sports are more or less the same. Helmets help, but I suppose it's not, I'm sure, going to be the entire solution to the problem.

ROBERT LEE, U.S. Boxing Commission president: As the president of the United States Boxing Association, there are some things that I feel that I'd like to share with everyone that I've shared with my membership. The sport has provided unforgettable thrills for many spectators, produced classic champions such as Joe Louis, Joe Wolcott, Muhammed Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson, and has been the springboard for so many Americans to receive international recognition. That sport, boxing, has been an integral part of the Olympics. But it is now under fire. Boxing, the last test of one-on-one, man-against-man, experienced some difficult times in 1982; however, just as in the past, boxing will survive and become better if only the commissions, and that means the four gentlemen sitting at this table, will stand up and be recognized, permit their voices to be heard, rather than to continually take a back seat and let their areas of expertise be trampled on by those who know far less about the sport. The message from this corner is, "Wake up, commissions, we have a job to do in 1983." And let the world know that we know a goodly bit about the sport we administer. The past year, 1982, has been filled with controversy with all too many people calling for a ban on boxing. Yet how many of these same people call for a ban on high-injury sports such as skiing, football, hang-gliding, auto racing, scuba diving or mountain climbing? In New Jersey, on the first day deer hunting season opened, two hunters were shot to death, yet there was no hue and cry to enact a ban on hunting. Had there been, I believe the National Rifle Association would have let their voices be heard.

Well, the boxing community has no lobby to defend or to support a position except us. One prominent writer has continually written about the makeup of the commissions and how the chief executives place political hacks in the commissions rather than seeking out more experienced persons for the posts. Many others have suggested how we should administer boxing in our respective states and recommended in the press changes that should be made. Some legislators have suggested hearings while some have proposed legislation that will alter the face of boxing and in some cases cause its demise. But if boxing is to survive and become progressive, we must wake up each commission, for there is a job to be done.

Many states are faced with the same problem -- lack of monies to do the job. Each state and even the federal government is battling budgetary problems that means there will be even less funds available to properly administer boxing programs all over the country. Boxing commissions are already considered a low priority item, so when the budgetary axe starts to fall with us there is little or no fat left. We have seen sunset legislation wipe out some commissions and some commissioners who must dig into their pockets to attend conventions, conferences or seminars that are beneficial to their states. Yet nowhere have I seen a writer share with his readers the plight of the commissions. Suffice it to say that if the governing bodies would give us the tools, we could and would do the job very well.

LAWRENCE HAZZARD, professional boxing referee: I feel that the referee is one of the most important individuals involved in any boxing event. For it is he who is closest to what's going on in the ring, and it is he who, on most occasions, has to bear the brunt of any fatality that takes place in the ring. Certainly, with all of the reforms that may come, with all the reforms that have been suggested, if you do not have a properly trained third man in the ring, they are all null and void. The referee is the man who must make the final judgment in any bout. And if he is not trained properly he will not be able to make that judgment.

Rep. FLORIO: Now, I would just ask you as a referee, and perhaps others later would want to comment on it, whether you regard that as part of your function. I mean, if after one minute of the first round you observe that these two people don't belong in the same ring together because the level of skill is just totally mismatched, do you think that's your province to, at that point, stop a fight on that basis?

STEPHEN CROSSON, professional boxing referee: No, it's not within the scope of my responsibility to stop a fight. If it is apparent that it is a mismatch, I'm empowered to stop the bout if one or the other fighters is in danger of being injured or demonstrates that he no longer wants to continue. And that really is the gist of it.

LEHRER: Those hearings will continue over the next few weeks, and those with very stong anti-boxing views will be heard then. And Robert MacNeil and I will be back tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer; thank you and good night.