Will You Buy the Brook vs Chaves PPV?

[Andrew]

The question is will AJ v Whyte be PPV with a stacked undercard 14 days after Fury v Klitschko which don't forget is NOT PPV in Germany and Wlad is a miles bigger name in Germany than Fury is over here.

[Manchester Hitman]

Hearn humilated again...love it.

[Parson Cross]

Think the humiliation is the broadcasters. Eddie does as he's told.

[sweetscience]

I reckon Brook with be off with Haymon after this fight

[tony1234]

The question is will AJ v Whyte be PPV with a stacked undercard 14 days after Fury v Klitschko which don't forget is NOT PPV in Germany and Wlad is a miles bigger name in Germany than Fury is over here.

I can't see another PPV doing much in the run up to Christmas 2 weeks after another, Joshua v A Nobody to the man in the pub, stacked undercards means knockover jobs against fat Latvian bin men to most people now and I'd have a job paying a fiver to see that bill let alone 15 quid or whatever they ask

[gazza8]

the masses have spoken

THIS IS NOT PPV

sly sports 1 now

[freddydoesdallas]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

[Happy Slapper]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

Disagree with this. Kiltschko v Fury is a legit PPV in this country and I am happy to part with my money. I didn't pay for Brook v Gavin (after getting burnt by Bellend v Clev) and I wouldn't have bought Brook v Chaves.

I'll watch Brook v Chaves as it is now on regular Sky Sports, but I'm still disappointed with it as a match-up at this stage of Brook's career. I'd much rather be shelling out PPV money on Brook to see him fight one of Maidana, Thurman, Pacquaio, Khan, Mayweather, Cotto, JMM, Canelo, Porter rematch or Bradley. He needs to be fighting the top boys, and this is still a disappointment.

[pyenest77]

Hearn has been saying since Brook beat Porter he is a PPV fighter so I imagine that it is Sky that has said this is on normal Sky.

[mickey1975]

Hearn has been saying since Brook beat Porter he is a PPV fighter so I imagine that it is Sky that has said this is on normal Sky.

Hearn has basically said in Boxing News yesterday, if you're a PPV fighter, stay here, if you're not, get yourself off to America and box on Haymon shows! He'll put the likes of Coyle and Warrington on normal Sky, they still make a profit through ticket sales/poor opposition.

[pyenest77]

I think he came across as very smug in that interview. He talks like we all lap PPV up & cant wait for the next one.

[freddydoesdallas]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

Disagree with this. Kiltschko v Fury is a legit PPV in this country and I am happy to part with my money. I didn't pay for Brook v Gavin (after getting burnt by Bellend v Clev) and I wouldn't have bought Brook v Chaves.

I'll watch Brook v Chaves as it is now on regular Sky Sports, but I'm still disappointed with it as a match-up at this stage of Brook's career. I'd much rather be shelling out PPV money on Brook to see him fight one of Maidana, Thurman, Pacquaio, Khan, Mayweather, Cotto, JMM, Canelo, Porter rematch or Bradley. He needs to be fighting the top boys, and this is still a disappointment.

I just don't think fury has beaten anyone to suggest it is going to be competitive. If he wasn't British, then we would be dismissing this fight as a walkover for Wlad.

Fury is always part of a show and entertaining as a character but he is not a big headliner. If it has a couple of quality fights to support then I'll buy but fury v wlad with one sided fights is a no from me

[Boxerbeetle]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

Disagree with this. Kiltschko v Fury is a legit PPV in this country and I am happy to part with my money. I didn't pay for Brook v Gavin (after getting burnt by Bellend v Clev) and I wouldn't have bought Brook v Chaves.

I'll watch Brook v Chaves as it is now on regular Sky Sports, but I'm still disappointed with it as a match-up at this stage of Brook's career. I'd much rather be shelling out PPV money on Brook to see him fight one of Maidana, Thurman, Pacquaio, Khan, Mayweather, Cotto, JMM, Canelo, Porter rematch or Bradley. He needs to be fighting the top boys, and this is still a disappointment.

I just don't think fury has beaten anyone to suggest it is going to be competitive. If he wasn't British, then we would be dismissing this fight as a walkover for Wlad.

Fury is always part of a show and entertaining as a character but he is not a big headliner. If it has a couple of quality fights to support then I'll buy but fury v wlad with one sided fights is a no from me

I agree it won't be competitive and think Fury will get absolutely smashed, but I'll still pay to see it.

[Happy Slapper]

I just don't think fury has beaten anyone to suggest it is going to be competitive. If he wasn't British, then we would be dismissing this fight as a walkover for Wlad.

Fury is always part of a show and entertaining as a character but he is not a big headliner. If it has a couple of quality fights to support then I'll buy but fury v wlad with one sided fights is a no from me

Don't disagree with you there, but you must be at least interested to see what happens...

[freddydoesdallas]

I just don't think fury has beaten anyone to suggest it is going to be competitive. If he wasn't British, then we would be dismissing this fight as a walkover for Wlad.

Fury is always part of a show and entertaining as a character but he is not a big headliner. If it has a couple of quality fights to support then I'll buy but fury v wlad with one sided fights is a no from me

Don't disagree with you there, but you must be at least interested to see what happens...

I am but I'm not going to make plans to make sure i watch it. When haye fought wlad, i left a wedding to go and watch it then went back afterwards. If the missus makes plans for this one i won't make an effort to see it. If i stay in i probably will if it has some decent support

[moogie101]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

Fury is a popular & undefeated Heavyweight going up against the best Heavyweight of the best decade, I'm not Fury's biggest fan but this is certainly a big enough fight to justify the PPV price tag. Far more than Brooks/Chaves or AJ/Whyte.

For me PPV should be a big event, a fight you have to see and whilst I don't believe it will be competitive this fight ticks that box for me. Even more so when you compare it as an event against the last couple of Hearn PPVs.

[freddydoesdallas]

Worked out well for sky. They garner a load of attention on the brook fight through the threat of it being ppv and as a result people see another inadequate ppv headline as value.

Brook v Chaves is not ppv

Wlad v Fury is not ppv unless you are happy to pay to watch any British heavyweight lump fight Klitschko

Fury is a popular & undefeated Heavyweight going up against the best Heavyweight of the best decade, I'm not Fury's biggest fan but this is certainly a big enough fight to justify the PPV price tag. Far more than Brooks/Chaves or AJ/Whyte.

For me PPV should be a big event, a fight you have to see and whilst I don't believe it will be competitive this fight ticks that box for me. Even more so when you compare it as an event against the last couple of Hearn PPVs.

I get your first point but your last point sums up my feelings at the minute. Sky used to serve us quality steak as q ppv. Recently, they've been serving us shit and as we've got fed up of the shit and started to complain, they've served us beans on toast and told us we should be happy even though we're getting less for more! Just like the bloody tories!