Dec 11 Should not be ppv now!

[dekker88]

not a single one of those fights will compare to pac / the cheat...and yet that was free.

i don't particularly mind paying but that's just bizarre.

[Goz]

Doesn't change the fact the Sky is decreasingly value for money. Would 4/5 x domestic pushovers/scraps + a decent world title fight have been PPV 10 years ago?

[junior pepa seed]

its a hard sale stateside too with it going up against UFC 124 Gsp v Kos

I wont buy it i pay 80 quid a month on sky so will watch UFC free on ESPN and download the fights in the morning

[Goz]

I'm going to go out of my way to watch illegally. Really not about the money (my missus is out tomorrow so I'm not going out, £15 not much in the grand scheme of what one might spend on a weekend) but the principle.

[dondada]

Before these fights were pulled it was a great PPV now it's still a good one.

It wasn't and it isn't.

It's the type of fare that should be routinely served up for subscribers.

[ourkid1984]

Before these fights were pulled it was a great PPV now it's still a good one.

It wasn't and it isn't.

It's the type of fare that should be routinely served up for subscribers.

I was trying to state what people were saying before Germany was off the bill, so taking the majority of people's thoughts were that it was a great PPV, with the fights in Germany off now it surely only gets demoted to good.

My opinion is that it's good compared to other recent PPV's and if you're a big fan of boxing it's worth paying for and many other casual fans will stil pay for the Las Vegas hype.

Surely PPV's are mainly paid for by people who are only really 'big fight' fans and the name will attract them to paying for it rather than the amount of fights. To me there's still going to be a lot of value in paying for PPV with 2 seperate cards and the promise from Sky for once that they will show a large percentage of them and for more casual fans well there's the idea of watching a big name like Khan.

[dondada]

Surely PPV's are mainly paid for by people who are only really 'big fight' fans and the name will attract them to paying for it rather than the amount of fights. To me there's still going to be a lot of value in paying for PPV with 2 seperate cards and the promise from Sky for once that they will show a large percentage of them and for more casual fans well there's the idea of watching a big name like Khan.

If this is right: 'Surely PPV's are mainly paid for by people who are only really 'big fight' fans' then there's a big chance they might be disappointed with the offering. Because, on paper, it's wank - the British bit anyway. They aren't 'big fights' by any stretch of the imagination, are they? The main event is a decent domestic scrap; the only way the rest of it will be decent in terms of 'competition' is if the Brits really under-perform - have a look at the betting odds for how competitive the matches are perceived to be.

But actually, I don't agree with the initial premise anyway. Boxing fans who are already paying through the nose for their regular subscriptions make up a big proportion of those who take up PPVs. i.e. they're already paying a whack and now if they want to watch a not particularly inspiring card from Liverpool, they have to empty their pockets again.

The Khan fight is a different argument.

Hey, it's all about opinions though ourkid. If a TV company gets enough people paying £15 for this type of fare, what next? Thin end of the wedge and all that...

[Captain Hook]

Before these fights were pulled it was a great PPV now it's still a good one.

It wasn't and it isn't.

It's the type of fare that should be routinely served up for subscribers.

x2 mate, I might just watch MOTD and forget the boxing.

Sick of getting ripped off.

[stujones]

mmm - I guess whether this is represents value for money before or now depends on your views on UK PPV's per se.

If you think there should be no PPV's then off course it is and always was a bad bill. However - I think there are worst PPV's that have been classed as "good value PPV's".

Take for instance - one being mentioned as a good PPV (I disagree) frequently by forum members the Lewis vs Botha PPV.

A world championship "showcase" and 3 to four nice undercard fights. I think Khan vs Maidana is a craking fight and that makes it as good as some of our old "favourite" PPV's.

It still contains a craking domestic match up, and one of two high profile "showcases" (Brook and Cleverly).

Ricky and the Prizefighters - what was that Hatton vs Malignaggi... okay decent(ish) world title fight on paper, but even on paper you struggled to Malignaggi much chance and then a Prizefighter tournament.... That was piss poor IMO.

I have to say had all the fights gone ahead it would have represented one of the best PPV's in a long time. 2 proper world title fights involving British fighters and one of these matches had been hotly anticipated - then as a bonus we have a half decent bill in Liverpool.

I still actually think it was better value than the Magnificant 7. No world title fight, yes hyped as 7 50:50 contests... .but were they? Look the thread that said "I had all 7 correct" - so did most! I would say the only fights from the Mag 7 bill that was tough to call were the Maccarinelli fight and possibly the Cleverly fight. The rest were easy picks. Konecny and Macklin's win were boarderline mismatches on paper and they turned out that way.

At least Khan vs Maidana is on this bill and thats an absolute cracker.

I still think it moves to being among the worst PPV categories.... but I actually disagree with the notion that the Mag 7 was something special.

[Heiwa]

Personally I will be buying Saturday's ppv, I still think its worth the price despite the loss of the German bill - but only just. The only two Sky ppv's I chose not to buy where the debacle from a couple of weeks ago (I simply can't believe how many muppets fell for the hype!), and the Khan - Prescott bill.

However, I've also reduced my Sky subscription to the 'bare bones' today, saving me £35/month. I'll miss some of the Friday and Saturday night bills, but I feel this is the only way of stopping Sky taking advantage of us boxing fans - if enough people do the same, and let Sky know why. I made my reasons very clear to the cancellations gent at Sky, and he actually seemed quite sympathetic.

[Final round]

Maybe Sky see this format of PPV 'stacked' cards the way forward in the sport ala UFC

[ThereByTheGrace]

I agree Sky is a total joke now but I think the card isnt that bad in all honesty.

Hopefully we'll get a few shocks and it beats heavyweight boxing anyday.

[stujones]

To be honest, I'd rather it was spread out - if they were in competitive fights, worthy of headlining a show (not the Kell Brook knockout job we have on Sat). It would be good to have a big fight to look forward to most Saturday nights over a month than crap headliners for a while and then one blockbuster card that costs extra.

Exactly this. Seems like the days of good domestic scraps as part of your monthly subscription like Moore-Macklin are gone forever - Wazza/Sky will just save them up for the 2/3 monthly PPV.

How long before Prizefighter goes PPV?

They have moved the goalposts so much... back in the day you got Sky because you could see fighters like Tyson/Hamed/Lennox as part of the subscription. Then it was just so you could see the good domestic scraps - now we would be happy with even those back on Sky 1/2/3/4 and not PPV. effing disgrace.

Yes - Take Lewis vs Botha as an example. This bill is still better than that. The main event is much more competitive than Lewis vs Botha.

[dondada]

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/gr8-no ... thy-either

[SweetLikeSugar]

Ian, is that article saying that the whole think should never have been PPV or that it shouldn't be now that Wlad v Chisora is off?

[dondada]

Ian, is that article saying that the whole think should never have been PPV or that it shouldn't be now that Wlad v Chisora is off?

It's saying that the Liverpool card shouldn't have been part of the PPV at all. Ever.

If they wanted to make Wlad/Khan PPV, fine (maybe). But as it turns out, normal subscribers are having to pay for a card which should be part of their normal package.

[SweetLikeSugar]

Ian, is that article saying that the whole think should never have been PPV or that it shouldn't be now that Wlad v Chisora is off?

It's saying that the Liverpool card shouldn't have been part of the PPV at all. Ever.

If they wanted to make Wlad/Khan PPV, fine (maybe). But as it turns out, normal subscribers are having to pay for a card which should be part of their normal package.

Fair enough.

I agree by the way, I just got the impression that it was aimed at the whole night of boxing rather than just the Liverpool card.

[gasman]

Brilliant write-up and exactly my take on it. Despite the usual hype from Sky - none of the fights on the Liverpool card are even money fights, most of them will hardly be competitive - rubbish contests that are passed off as PPV.

I am still in two minds to order it - but a barrier is that when I order this over the phone (because for some reason I cannot do it from my remote) I cannot even Sky+ the Khan fight and I am not sitting up all night to watch it live.

So we are getting a card from Liverpool that should have been on Sky Sport 1 as part of our subscription and Khan at about 5am. I hope the figures are shite and Sky get the message.

[SweetLikeSugar]

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is no such thing as an even money fight.

[McCannW14]

Dont think I will bother now, particularly after the Haye Harrison fiasco.

Squeeze are on at Hammersmith Appollo tonight so I think I will catch that instead.

[dondada]

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is no such thing as an even money fight.

Sorry to be even more pedantic, but that's why it's in inverted commas. I know that, you know that...it's an expression.

(In the article, I mean, not gasman's post...but I'm sure he means the same.)

[SweetLikeSugar]

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is no such thing as an even money fight.

Sorry to be even more pedantic, but that's why it's in inverted commas. I know that, you know that...it's an expression.

(In the article, I mean, not gasman's post...but I'm sure he means the same.)

I said I was sorry

[dondada]

Sorry to be a pedant, but there is no such thing as an even money fight.

Sorry to be even more pedantic, but that's why it's in inverted commas. I know that, you know that...it's an expression.

(In the article, I mean, not gasman's post...but I'm sure he means the same.)

I said I was sorry

No bother pal

[Dioufy]

Come on, lads. Who honestly paid for this tonight? I will not.

[jBacca]

Khan - Maidana
Ortiz - Peterson
Smith - Degale
Bomber - McKenzie

Then you've got Clev, Macklin, Brook, Selkirk.

Better value than any Haye bill that a lot of people paid for.