Another PBC Loser

world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by world ranked »

jockpunk wrote:Largely because one would assume that they are going to expect the networks to pay for these fights at some point. Without putting on quality fights, are the ratings going to be good enough for the networks to pay? Maybe for the the CBS afternoon cards when there is nothing else on TV, but not the prime time sat night slots.

I think HBO is showing much better fights. Some are mismatches, but at least you are seeing legit stars.
Kovalev and GGG fights are ok because there stars fighting bums. Its the exact same stuff.
When was the last 50/50 HBO main event?
jockpunk
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 524
Joined: 28 Oct 2005, 16:20

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by jockpunk »

world ranked wrote:
jockpunk wrote:Largely because one would assume that they are going to expect the networks to pay for these fights at some point. Without putting on quality fights, are the ratings going to be good enough for the networks to pay? Maybe for the the CBS afternoon cards when there is nothing else on TV, but not the prime time sat night slots.

I think HBO is showing much better fights. Some are mismatches, but at least you are seeing legit stars.
Kovalev and GGG fights are ok because there stars fighting bums. Its the exact same stuff.
When was the last 50/50 HBO main event?
If HBO had any other choice with those two, then I would have a problem. Before the french dude (who was mandatory) kovalevs last 2 fights were against hopkins and pascal. Both relatively competitive fights on paper and the best reasonable guys available. HBO has done what it can to get good fights for ggg, it has just been impossible. Fortunately they are doing the lemeuix fight albeit on ppv.

The difference is that it is extremely difficult politics wise for HBO to make kovalev-stevenson or ggg-cotto. It should be extremely easy to make thurman-garcia, thurman-khan, ect. They just choose not to make them in favor of mismatches.

To answer your question, true 50/50 fights are extremely difficult to find, especially at the top level. Check the boxing odds every week and you will rarely see fights that are 50/50. But bradley-vargas, canelo kirkland, mathysse provod were all fairly well matched, intriguing fights just for example.
world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by world ranked »

jockpunk wrote:
world ranked wrote:
jockpunk wrote:Largely because one would assume that they are going to expect the networks to pay for these fights at some point. Without putting on quality fights, are the ratings going to be good enough for the networks to pay? Maybe for the the CBS afternoon cards when there is nothing else on TV, but not the prime time sat night slots.

I think HBO is showing much better fights. Some are mismatches, but at least you are seeing legit stars.
Kovalev and GGG fights are ok because there stars fighting bums. Its the exact same stuff.
When was the last 50/50 HBO main event?
If HBO had any other choice with those two, then I would have a problem. Before the french dude (who was mandatory) kovalevs last 2 fights were against hopkins and pascal. Both relatively competitive fights on paper and the best reasonable guys available. HBO has done what it can to get good fights for ggg, it has just been impossible. Fortunately they are doing the lemeuix fight albeit on ppv.

The difference is that it is extremely difficult politics wise for HBO to make kovalev-stevenson or ggg-cotto. It should be extremely easy to make thurman-garcia, thurman-khan, ect. They just choose not to make them in favor of mismatches.

To answer your question, true 50/50 fights are extremely difficult to find, especially at the top level. Check the boxing odds every week and you will rarely see fights that are 50/50. But bradley-vargas, canelo kirkland, mathysse provod were all fairly well matched, intriguing fights just for example.
intriguing fights? Everyone put on intriguing fights but PBC in the little time are putting on 50/50 fights. Are they better than any other promoters? no but not worst than anyone either.
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by crusader »

Jim Lampley? Objective source there.

Only Porter v Broner?

Thurman v Guerrero
Berto v Lopez
Stevenson v Bika
Garcia v Peterson
Lee v Quillin
Dirrell v Jack
Figueroa v Burns
Dirrell v DeGale
Khan v Algieri
Spence v LoGreco
Barthelemy v DeMarco
Vasquez v Omotoso
Thurman v Collazo
Frampton v Gonzalez

Upcoming:

Payano v Warren
Tarver v Cunningham
Bute v DiLuisa
Santa Cruz v Mares

Before anyone cherrypicks Thurman v Collazo as a mismatch, it turned out to be a decent workout for Keith. Collazo may be past it but he will never be a soft touch.

PBC has put a lot of interesting stuff out there on network tv. Even some of the mismatches have been worth a watch to see up and comers or boxers on the rebound.

Boxing fans can be a herd of whining bitches.
Several respectable match-ups there but some don't belong in my opinion:

-Stevenson-Bika?? Really? Bika hadn't won a fight in nearly two years, was coming off a clear loss to Anthony Dirrell, had never campaigned at 175, and has lost every major fight he's been in. Hardly a good fight in my opinion and Stevenson ended up dominating a bout that was fairly uneventful other than Bika's trips to the canvas.

-No idea what Spence-Lo Greco is doing there, as LG took the fight on two days notice and was obviously never in the same class, unless you really overrated his 100-88 loss to Porter and his wins over mediocre opposition. Turned out to be uncompetitive as should have been obvious before the fight. Are you mistaking LG for a better fighter?

-Fights like Khan-Algieri and Frampton-Gonzalez seemed to be mismatches on paper but turned out to be decent. I think matchmaking should be judged before the matter though, as people can't look into a crystal ball and see how the fights would turn out. Algieri was coming off the 6 KD loss against Pacquiao and his lack of power made him what I think Khan's team saw as a safe option, though Khan has a habit of having more trouble with those types than expected. Collazo, who of course was badly outclassed by Khan, seemed like a safe option for Thurman too, and despite the brief moment of success which he didn't follow-up on he was getting soundly beaten and in my view lost all but one round.

-Bute vs Di Luisa? What is good about this? It's Bute vs someone who on paper should be over-matched, has feasted on mediocre opposition, was stopped by a feather-fisted SMW, and seems to clearly be chosen for Bute to handily defeat.

I like that PBC has resulted in abundance of fairly high level shows being televised and overall the matches have been decent--some good, some poor, and others in between--but given that Haymon is associated with so many good fighters and seems to have tremendous influence on them, it's disappointing to me that he hasn't chosen to match them more aggressively against one another. Certainly there are plenty of mismatches involving other parties and networks, but as someone mentioned HBO and K2 can't just throw together a top fight like GGG-Cotto in the same way that Haymon could get Garcia and Thurman to fight or Beterbiev and Stevenson to square off....instead we get Garcia vs shopworn, inactive Paulie and Stevenson vs Karpency.
Last edited by crusader on 03 Aug 2015, 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by caldo2025 »

world ranked wrote: intriguing fights? Everyone put on intriguing fights but PBC in the little time are putting on 50/50 fights. Are they better than any other promoters? no but not worst than anyone either.
The problem with PBC putting on this junk is magnified because Haymon now represents 70% of the best boxers on the planet. So now that he's got the majority share of the talent, his obvious plan is to hold it hostage from the fans. Peterson/Garcia and Porter/Broner are good fights that i'll give you but those are just two fights of hours of boxing they've pushed at us so far. I'm not comfortable with Haymon holding onto this high of a percentage of boxers that I want to see fight. I find it hard to envision the boardroom when Haymon and his crew were spit balling some upcoming cards and they ball stopped rolling at Garcia vs. Malignaggi. How they thought that fight cracked the case is beyond me. That fight should have NEVER been made and I can't believe I wasted space on my DVR for it.
Tanzio
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 12264
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 09:17

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by Tanzio »

caldo2025 wrote:
world ranked wrote: intriguing fights? Everyone put on intriguing fights but PBC in the little time are putting on 50/50 fights. Are they better than any other promoters? no but not worst than anyone either.
The problem with PBC putting on this junk is magnified because Haymon now represents 70% of the best boxers on the planet. So now that he's got the majority share of the talent, his obvious plan is to hold it hostage from the fans. Peterson/Garcia and Porter/Broner are good fights that i'll give you but those are just two fights of hours of boxing they've pushed at us so far. I'm not comfortable with Haymon holding onto this high of a percentage of boxers that I want to see fight. I find it hard to envision the boardroom when Haymon and his crew were spit balling some upcoming cards and they ball stopped rolling at Garcia vs. Malignaggi. How they thought that fight cracked the case is beyond me. That fight should have NEVER been made and I can't believe I wasted space on my DVR for it.
While it is important that we recognize the increase in fights available to the masses, it IS equally important to boycott and / or severely criticize stinking wastes of time and space like Danny v Paulie.

Laying waste to the PBC in general serves no purpose except to weaken the argument against the actual garbage.

We may be heading in a positive direction with Haymon. He has created infighting and grabbed a significant market share. If he can strengthen his position we are likely to see a UFC scenario of sorts which would bode well for the future, relative to the recent past.
world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by world ranked »

caldo2025 wrote:
world ranked wrote: intriguing fights? Everyone put on intriguing fights but PBC in the little time are putting on 50/50 fights. Are they better than any other promoters? no but not worst than anyone either.
The problem with PBC putting on this junk is magnified because Haymon now represents 70% of the best boxers on the planet. So now that he's got the majority share of the talent, his obvious plan is to hold it hostage from the fans. Peterson/Garcia and Porter/Broner are good fights that i'll give you but those are just two fights of hours of boxing they've pushed at us so far. I'm not comfortable with Haymon holding onto this high of a percentage of boxers that I want to see fight. I find it hard to envision the boardroom when Haymon and his crew were spit balling some upcoming cards and they ball stopped rolling at Garcia vs. Malignaggi. How they thought that fight cracked the case is beyond me. That fight should have NEVER been made and I can't believe I wasted space on my DVR for it.
If Garcia moving up to 147 he shouldnt just be put in their with a bum or top 5 being he's not proven at the weight. I'm not sure what the problem is. The hate for PBC is fine but the hate for every promotion should be the board. Shiite is shiite and shouldn't matter the backstory or who doing it.
For every shiite fight they had they had good fights too. Just like any other promoter.
digzee
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1582
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 13:49

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by digzee »

world ranked wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
world ranked wrote: intriguing fights? Everyone put on intriguing fights but PBC in the little time are putting on 50/50 fights. Are they better than any other promoters? no but not worst than anyone either.
The problem with PBC putting on this junk is magnified because Haymon now represents 70% of the best boxers on the planet. So now that he's got the majority share of the talent, his obvious plan is to hold it hostage from the fans. Peterson/Garcia and Porter/Broner are good fights that i'll give you but those are just two fights of hours of boxing they've pushed at us so far. I'm not comfortable with Haymon holding onto this high of a percentage of boxers that I want to see fight. I find it hard to envision the boardroom when Haymon and his crew were spit balling some upcoming cards and they ball stopped rolling at Garcia vs. Malignaggi. How they thought that fight cracked the case is beyond me. That fight should have NEVER been made and I can't believe I wasted space on my DVR for it.
If Garcia moving up to 147 he shouldnt just be put in their with a bum or top 5 being he's not proven at the weight. I'm not sure what the problem is. The hate for PBC is fine but the hate for every promotion should be the board. Shiite is shiite and shouldn't matter the backstory or who doing it.
For every shiite fight they had they had good fights too. Just like any other promoter.
How can you defend the Paulie fight! Danny had already fought at WW vs LM albeit at 143, he should have fought someone like Alexander/Bundu, Paulie is not even a gatekeeper anymore.
world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by world ranked »

digzee wrote:
world ranked wrote:
caldo2025 wrote:
The problem with PBC putting on this junk is magnified because Haymon now represents 70% of the best boxers on the planet. So now that he's got the majority share of the talent, his obvious plan is to hold it hostage from the fans. Peterson/Garcia and Porter/Broner are good fights that i'll give you but those are just two fights of hours of boxing they've pushed at us so far. I'm not comfortable with Haymon holding onto this high of a percentage of boxers that I want to see fight. I find it hard to envision the boardroom when Haymon and his crew were spit balling some upcoming cards and they ball stopped rolling at Garcia vs. Malignaggi. How they thought that fight cracked the case is beyond me. That fight should have NEVER been made and I can't believe I wasted space on my DVR for it.
If Garcia moving up to 147 he shouldnt just be put in their with a bum or top 5 being he's not proven at the weight. I'm not sure what the problem is. The hate for PBC is fine but the hate for every promotion should be the board. Shiite is shiite and shouldn't matter the backstory or who doing it.
For every shiite fight they had they had good fights too. Just like any other promoter.
How can you defend the Paulie fight! Danny had already fought at WW vs LM albeit at 143, he should have fought someone like Alexander/Bundu, Paulie is not even a gatekeeper anymore.
To me Paulie was on Alexander/Bundu level. The only reason you would say he's not is that Porter ran through him, but ran through Alexander as well.
digzee
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1582
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 13:49

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by digzee »

Alexander made it to the final bell that's not running through him, Paulie got annihilated it was like a rabbit in headlights also Paulie hasn't won a significant fight in years and had been out of the ring in over a year since he got battered.

I bet we see Collazo recycled out for Garcia next....
uptconnect
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 268
Joined: 18 Mar 2002, 20:00

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by uptconnect »

People will truly complain no matter what.
A couple years ago, you couldn't imagine watching a boxing match of any kind, good matchup or not, on regular television.
We had Friday night fights on ESPN, which operated under a ridiculously small budget, guaranteeing lesser names and mostly unknown matchups that no casual fan ever cared enough about to tune in for. And then we had HBO and Showtime. Premium channels. Premium channels that gave us about the same level of matchups that we're getting from the PBC, otherwise it was typically sold as PPV.
The complaining about boxing was the same back then.

Boxing is the same as it ever was, except for we're getting way more fights on regular television and non premium cable channels.
Plus, by all accounts, boxers under Haymon are making significantly more than they ever used to get per fight, which to me, is a good thing.

We all have our gripes, but boxing is broken and always has been, and will continue to be so.
Accept it or don't. I accept my boxing broken.
Far and away the best sport in the world. Even broken as it is.
:TU:
jockpunk
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 524
Joined: 28 Oct 2005, 16:20

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by jockpunk »

I mentioned it in another thread, but one plus of PBC is that it has caused HBO to up their game significanly. There have been very few, if any of the absolute garbage fights that they showed for a couple years there.

I don't see fighters getting paid more as a good thing for the fans. If they can get paid a good amount to fight a bum, where is the incentive to fight someone good?
benion
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 126
Joined: 01 Jan 2010, 21:19

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by benion »

1.5 million peak viewers for Garcia v Paulie
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by caldo2025 »

benion wrote:1.5 million peak viewers for Garcia v Paulie
That's a lot of disappointed people.
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by caldo2025 »

Just looking at the ratings for the PBC events so far, it's pretty clear what Al Haymon has to do to get viewership up.

Garcia vs Paulie got over $1m viewers.
Thurman vs. Collazo averaged 799k viewers
Garcia vs Peterson peaked at over 3M viewers.


I'm not math major but if one great fight does almost double what two other other awful fights do then maybe, If i'm Haymon, I'll maximize my investors returns and make some better fights.

I'll hold my tongue until I see what the PBC fight schedule looks like in a couple of months. Santa Cruz vs Mares is the only fight on the schedule currently that will do more than 1M viewers. The rest of the bouts on the PBC schedule right now are must miss, not must see.
uptconnect
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 268
Joined: 18 Mar 2002, 20:00

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by uptconnect »

I don't see fighters getting paid more as a good thing for the fans.
As a Man who loves watching athletes (Athletes who have families and lives to support) severely damage themselves for my entertainment, I will always support the fighters in getting paid more- Especially in such a shady business where the fighters have forever been taken advantage of.

Sh*t, by your own logic of good for the fans- It'd be great for the fans if fighters fought bare-knuckled and there was no round limit, too.
But It's not all about what's good for the fans when a sport is based on fighters killing themselves to entertain those fans.
Or it shouldn't be, anyways.
jockpunk
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 524
Joined: 28 Oct 2005, 16:20

Re: Another PBC Loser

Post by jockpunk »

I agree with you completely. It should definitely not be all about the fans. But from a strictly fan point of view, fighters getting paid well to fight garbage fights isn't really benefitting us at all.

As you said, there is more to it than that.
Post Reply