Worst British PPVs

[oliverfennell]

Was Haye-Harrison the worst PPV broadcast ever screened in Britain? I'd say so, and not only because of the main event. I can even forgive that, because "event" fights always sell well. It's because the undercard was trash (no disrespect to the fighters involved, but no way was it of a standard befitting a world heavyweight championship promotion), and because of that undercard, Sky showed just ONE fight. There's no excuse for that, since SBO is not subject to time constraints.

There have been plenty of other mismatched main events put on PPV, but they at least had reasonable or decent undercards, or even failing that, at least they showed a decent number of the fights.

Other bad ones (though not as bad as Saturday's):

Tyson-Francis - a huge mismatch with a snorer of a chief support (Calzaghe-Starie), although at least you can say that was a big name in a WBO title fight.

Khan-Salita - Khan wipes out virtual unknown in seconds after an OK but nothing-special undercard.

Khan-Prescott - that this ended in a famous upset doesn't detract from the fact the PPV main event was for s WBO Intercontinental title and had Khan in against a guy that most of us had never heard of beforehand.

Any more?

[n1ebf]

i can't add to your list I just don't get why people would pay for that garbage (in record numbers ) on Saturday. I would have watched it in the pub for the undercard, for example seeing as Hall is from my town, and then left feeling smug before the main event...only in truth I wouldn't really have left the pub early just to make a point........as it is, some tit of a mate who doesn't even LIKE boxing all that much and loves telling me how the UFC fighters would hammer boxers etc... actually buys it so a few of us end up watching round his....
This is why it was such a heinous rip off.....cos the likes of me, and some people on here would not have gone into the MEN arena if they were giving out tickets for a quid on the door, yet some people who don't really know the sport or are new fans have just been utterly robbed blind.
It's borderline criminal, my mate wanted to phone the police and say he'd just been mugged by 2 big black men who'd taken 14.95 off him. I told him he'd be waiting in a long queue.

[earsjohn]

i can't add to your list I just don't get why people would pay for that garbage (in record numbers ) on Saturday. I would have watched it in the pub for the undercard, for example seeing as Hall is from my town, and then left feeling smug before the main event...only in truth I wouldn't really have left the pub early just to make a point........as it is, some tit of a mate who doesn't even LIKE boxing all that much and loves telling me how the UFC fighters would hammer boxers etc... actually buys it so a few of us end up watching round his....
This is why it was such a heinous rip off.....cos the likes of me, and some people on here would not have gone into the MEN arena if they were giving out tickets for a quid on the door, yet some people who don't really know the sport or are new fans have just been utterly robbed blind.
It's borderline criminal, my mate wanted to phone the police and say he'd just been mugged by 2 big black men who'd taken 14.95 off him. I told him he'd be waiting in a long queue.

Where's the robbery though? It's not as if everyone was sold something different to what was actually provided. Sky made no promises or claims regarding broadcast of the undercard while the main event was exactly in line with expectations (maybe not in line with some of the claims being made by Audley, but those who really expected an outcome other than what happened deserve to feel cheated!)

In order to buy a PPV, you must be 18 and therefore responsible for decisions you make. No one forced anybody to buy the card.

[oliverfennell]

Don't dispute any of that, but it was still one of, if not the, worst.

I think it's undeniable that the quality of PPVs is going down (Magnificent 7 being an exception). It used to be that we'd get, say, 4-6 solid UK fights followed by 2 or 3 solid US fights and topped by Naz or Lewis. Now we get two fights.

As you say, Sky didn't advertise anything they didn't supply, but still... they started the broadcast at 8pm. Is there any good reason why they couldn't have shown at least four contests?

[forcefraser]

Is there any good reason why they couldn't have shown at least four contests?

Because there were not 4 contents on the card that were worth showing?

Pish poor all round. Luckily £15 is no big deal for me, but this time I went for the German option (Free on ARD). It is not the same though, as bad as they can be, I missed the banter of the analysts etc.

Two fights on a PPV is terrible. Thing is, we got the Manny fight anhd a half decent undercard for free. Makes no sense.

[oliverfennell]

Because there were not 4 contents on the card that were worth showing?

Yes, regardless of what was and wasn't televised, it was a very poor undercard all told. But since that WAS the undercard, they still could have shown more of it. Why not show Hall, as that was a title fight? Licina-Cora may have been of little relevance to the British audience, but it was a world eliminator and at least highlights could have been shown. And since all three title fights finished inside schedule, it wouldn't have been a stretch to have shown the Wilson and Gerber knockouts on delay, since they were both over inside a round.

[Chambers2]

I paid £15 for Hopkins Vs Hakkar, not a British fight, but it's the worst PPV I've bought

[stujones]

Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl.

Tyson vs McBride - big upset but shocking bill.

Vitali vs Sanders - although a much better fight than Haye vs Audley.

[oliverfennell]

Kevin Bennett vs Graham Earl.

Tyson vs McBride - big upset but shocking bill.

Vitali vs Sanders - although a much better fight than Haye vs Audley.

Good calls.

Forgot about Bennett-Earl being on PPV. Tyson-McBride, yes, poor, and Tyson didn't try either, but I suppose it had historic significance. Can't remember the undercard, which I suppose proves your point. Vitali-Sanders scrapes a pass from me because it was a good fight, but again, can't remember the undercard.

[stujones]

The thing that annoyed me most about the Bennett vs Earl bill is, if memory serves me correct, the Maloneys were promising to show the whole card for the price. They ended up just showing Oakey getting robbed by Haymer and the Tyson vs McBride fight. Really annoyed me as I'd paid for Tyson vs McBride before.

It was quite shabby, remember those videos Eugine was putting up on his site advertising that you could watch it on the net for something like 3 quid... or 8 quid Setanta... then about 2 days before the fight "umm... sorry, the online thing is a no go now".

[stujones]

How about Holyfield vs Botha!

[avidlemon]

What a load of whinging drivel. People knew there was a potential for it to be crap, but that's your Donald duck to be honest. Ok sky didn't show the card, but in it's place was pure gold in Bruno, hatton, benn, Lewis, and some great analysis.
Like someone else said, we are all adults etc, and boxing will die even more on it's arse if the general public don't continue to support boxing. I accept the fight in general won't have helped loads, but sky stepped it up in terms of their presentation etc. Plus the groves fight weren't bad.
Ffs guys we ain't goona see a manny-esque performance every time we watch

[oliverfennell]

What a load of whinging drivel. People knew there was a potential for it to be crap, but that's your Donald duck to be honest. Ok sky didn't show the card, but in it's place was pure gold in Bruno, hatton, benn, Lewis, and some great analysis.
Like someone else said, we are all adults etc, and boxing will die even more on it's arse if the general public don't continue to support boxing. I accept the fight in general won't have helped loads, but sky stepped it up in terms of their presentation etc. Plus the groves fight weren't bad.
Ffs guys we ain't goona see a manny-esque performance every time we watch

All true, and yes, Sky's presentation and packaging was awesome. I have never complained about the "event" being PPV. I'm not even retrospectively saying it shouldn't have been PPV. But just because it's always the individual's choice whether or not to pay doesn't mean the same customer forfeits the right to criticise in doing so.

PPV is a mainstay of the sport now, I'm sure we all accept that. Some are good and some are bad. My question was not should it have been PPV, but was it the worst PPV?

[avidlemon]

Inthink it was a great ppv, because it was the first time since 1993 that the British public had had the opportunity to watch two britishers dispute the heavyweight title. The argument that the fight made it a ppv fail is irrelevant IMO. What MADE it for me was the occasion, the stars turning up etc. Best value ppv I bought I reckon, just for the sheets magnitude of the event

[oliverfennell]

Inthink it was a great ppv, because it was the first time since 1993 that the British public had had the opportunity to watch two britishers dispute the heavyweight title. The argument that the fight made it a ppv fail is irrelevant IMO. What MADE it for me was the occasion, the stars turning up etc. Best value ppv I bought I reckon, just for the sheets magnitude of the event

For those same reasons, that's why I never objected to the fight being made, nor to it being put on PPV. But once it was on PPV, surely we could have expected more than ONE undercard fight?

For comparison, look at Lewis-Botha. A similarly one-sided main event, but the undercard was absolutely stacked.

Even as recently as Haye-Ruiz, which was also widely derided as a poor bill. we got four full televised fights.

[thepocketrocket]

Inthink it was a great ppv, because it was the first time since 1993 that the British public had had the opportunity to watch two britishers dispute the heavyweight title. The argument that the fight made it a ppv fail is irrelevant IMO. What MADE it for me was the occasion, the stars turning up etc. Best value ppv I bought I reckon, just for the sheets magnitude of the event

If you want to see the stars go and see Patrick Moore or buy Heat magazine...the rest of us will want to see a competetive boxing match and a good undercard...not Haye against the 6th best Heavy in Britain !!!!!!!!

[SAPFO]

Greedy boxers/promoters is the answer. Haye did not want to share too much of the pot with any other well knowns. If only the BBoC or similar authorative body would refuse to sanction a card if they though it was not PPV worthy. Not gonna happen though is it.

[boxerrob2005]

Tyson vs Golota
Judah vs Quiroz
Witter vs Conway

That could be one of the worst pay per views in my opinion.

[Chris W 1982]

I paid £15 for Hopkins Vs Hakkar, not a British fight, but it's the worst PPV I've bought

That was on Setanta wasn't it?

I remember Hopkins and Larry Merchant having an entertaing debate afterwards.

[Chambers2]

I paid £15 for Hopkins Vs Hakkar, not a British fight, but it's the worst PPV I've bought

That was on Setanta wasn't it?

I can't remember tbh, I think it was backed up by a dire Rahman Vs Tua wrestle-fest

[dbf]

The magnificent seven should never have been a pay per view. Good card but not ppv worthy. PPV should only be reserved for mega fights. I'd happily pay ppv for froch Abraham if it had two good support bouts.

I watched haye Harrison at the weekend, and thought I was going to get the PAC man fight too but because I didn't have sky sports where I was watching it I could access that despite paying 15 quid!

[avidlemon]

I stand by what I say. This should always have been ppv regardless of the quality of the card etc.
Heat magazine? I'll have read once you've finished with yours you toby

[Grays_Dan]

Khan-Salita - Khan wipes out virtual unknown in seconds after an OK but nothing-special undercard.

Khan-Prescott - that this ended in a famous upset doesn't detract from the fact the PPV main event was for s WBO Intercontinental title and had Khan in against a guy that most of us had never heard of beforehand.

I thought the Khan- Salita undercard was good due to the Mitchell-Prescott fight.

I was actually at the MEN for Khan-Prescott but wouldnt have been to unhappy paying £15 as it included the Cook-Arthur fight

[whicker]

Tyson V Bruno.

The first ever PPV, I think.

Naseem was on (as was Joe Bugner) earlier in the evening, I think these were the free-to-air ones.

But Frank Bruno, we all love him, but that wasn't a good performance. And unlikle audley, Frank was the defending Champion.

I can't remember if the PPV featured anything else.

[Chambers2]

The magnificent seven should never have been a pay per view. Good card but not ppv worthy. PPV should only be reserved for mega fights.

Without PPV money the Magnificent 7 wouldn't have happened. I liked the format of having half a dozen competitive fights round the British and European scene, IMO it was nice to have a change from the traditional setup of a good main event and decent support