Eddie Hearn just said on Sky Sports News...

[Tarkus]

I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

I go further and say that there is a moment when stacked card is just too stacked. Is anyone really going to watch seven 12 round fights live? I dont think anyone is that hardcore. I would like to see them all if there where on different dates. As it is, I have to prioritize and only will watch half, the championship fights and Joshua/Johnson. Even that is long as they will all probably go to distance. WTF

[saad muhammad]

I've got a ticket for this show and I'll be watching all seven of these 12rounders why.........because I'm a boxing fan and if they go the distance I will be delighted and I've got my money's worth.I suggest you stick to prizefighter they don't go anymore than 3 rounds!!!

[Tarkus]

I've got a ticket for this show and I'll be watching all seven of these 12rounders why.........because I'm a boxing fan and if they go the distance I will be delighted and I've got my money's worth.I suggest you stick to prizefighter they don't go anymore than 3 rounds!!!

You are not a boxing fan you are an idiot.

[Boxerbeetle]

I'd be more than happy to watch seven 12 rounders if they were all worth watching. But the thing that killed both Hearn & FW's 'stacked cards' last November was that basically none of the fights caught fire; Saunders v Eubank Jr was the only really exciting fight across either card.

Saying that, I can't actually see many of the May 30th card going 12 rounds other than Selby v Gradovich - and I'd say there's a decent chance Gavin, Mitchell & Johnson will all get blown away relatively early on.

[saad muhammad]

That's right I'm not a boxing fan because lm going to watch wait for it ....boxing

[Tarkus]

That's right I'm not a boxing fan because lm going to watch wait for it ....boxing

You equate not wanting to watch seven 12 rounders in one go to someone who only watches 3 rounder tournaments. Its too late for you too try use logic now. Stick to idiotic posturing.

And yes you are not a boxing fan if you only buy tickets for a "stacked card".

[Lenny]

And yes you are not a boxing fan if you only buy tickets for a "stacked card".

It's up there. Sure it's no altitude in Manchester but it's up there

[DMA1987]

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

The next few months aren't barren. And honestly, I'd rather watch them all on the same card.

if you're happy paying an extra £16.95 for standard sky sports fare which has simply been repackaged, then thats your look out

I'd rather not pay 16.95, but I would rather see a quality card top to bottom, than a card with just one 'superfight' - I know which card has the biggest chance of letting you down.

Plus getting these title fights out of the way altogether brings their next fights around quicker.

[ste1983]

I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

Spot on post

The cards a really good card not disputing this but in reality we've already paid for it as we continued to pay our monthly subscriptions through awful cards like Newcastle, Brum, Leeds this year.