Most of the proponents of prizefighting (in opposition to the sweet-science or efficient boxing) are certainly damaging this combat sport, for they just prioritize rating and profit margins by attracting and entertaining the casual, less knowledgeable audience...
Prizefighting is an old concept that best describes the disparate matches in early XX century or before. Back then, weight classes were deficiently defined, ranking system were practically inexisting, fighters had limited access to, or could barely afford, poor training facilities and archaic methodlogies available, and on top of resulting ill preparation, they fought 15 or more rounds against a more experienced, telented/gifted opponents supported by some manaager and/or promoter who was only trying to put a toughman show. No wonder KOs were so abundand back then.
And not to my surprise, old-timers like Lederman and Hampley put all their efforts in reviving this archaic term... And that is fine, except when they begin criticizing even elite boxers for being defensive or having not KO'ed someone lately. They classified as definsive fighter boxers like RJJ, Dela Hoya, etc., in a quasi derogative manner. Subsequently, this term evolved into the "boring" category with exponents like Ward, Rigondeaux, etc.