GGG PPV Debut A Huge Disappointment

[Impractical Poster]

This fight should never been on PPV. I suspect it was an attempt by HBO to get fans to start thinking of GGG as a PPV attraction whose fights won't be free anymore, but this PPV itself was never going to be a big seller. GGG hasn't been built up particularly well as his opponents have largely been fringe contenders, and Lemieux himself was a minor beltholder who had 1 relevant win over another fringe contender, which was not even televised in the US. Aside from an additional paper title being involved this wasn't any bigger of a fight than GGG/Geale.

People forget that, without an established superstar like Oscar/Floyd/Manny involved, PPVs generally do not sell well.

Do you believe GGG to be a better PPV product than Mayweather? Not what the numbers say, but your own opinion.

I agree that the officers in charge are trying to get fans used to GGG being a PPV attraction. But, I really don't have too much of an issue with it. I understood what David was coming into the bout. However, any card with Gonzo and G on it against a top 1-5 guy in the division is worth $50 for me.

It will take a big dance partner for G to do big numbers. But, then he should do decent numbers there on in as long as he is facing decent opposition. For me, he puts out a much better product for my money than the P4P PPV king ever did.

[Purse Bid Shakedown]

Decent take, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Even if we allow that Mayweather was "more established" then than Golovkin is now, there is a question about who was hyped more. I'd say Gennady holds that edge. Pretty sure Mayweather didn't have half the pub up to the Gatti fight that Golovkin has enjoyed and I know he didn't have an endorsement deal and commercial with apple.

The other extremely important aspect not being mentioned by those who want to compare Golovkin's PPV failure to Mayweather's debut is perhaps one of the most telling.

HBO is in 2.5 times more homes now than when Floyd and Arturo fought.

Golovkin had PPV

ess to 122 million homes, Mayweather about 50 million.

Floyd did well over 2 times the business with only two fifths the audience.

I agree that Golovkin should do better his next outing...pretty hard to do worse. But, as long as he continues to fight second tier guys, he will never have the breakout numbers they are hoping him to get.

HBO has about 30m subscribers, not 122m. But that's beside the point since anyone with basic cable can order HBO PPV, and the number of cable subscribers has been dropping steadily. Where did you pull all these garbage numbers from?

The numbers are accurate. And I used only HBO's numbers as an illustration, but I am certain there is a similar correlation between those numbers and total cable subscribers.

Worldwide, HBO has at least over 120 million subscribers

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/15/84214 ... 5-earnings

Back in 2005, the number was much smaller.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/fo ... _showtime/

Are you actually trying to refute the contention that Golovkin was accessible to a much bigger audience than Floyd was?

1. HBO PPV is not distributed worldwide, only American sales count
2. Again the number of HBO subscribers doesn't matter. Anybody with cable can order HBO PPV.

Why would you bring up HBO worldwide subscriber number when its totally meaningless here?

[jamesmcdonnell]

This fight should never been on PPV. I suspect it was an attempt by HBO to get fans to start thinking of GGG as a PPV attraction whose fights won't be free anymore, but this PPV itself was never going to be a big seller. GGG hasn't been built up particularly well as his opponents have largely been fringe contenders, and Lemieux himself was a minor beltholder who had 1 relevant win over another fringe contender, which was not even televised in the US. Aside from an additional paper title being involved this wasn't any bigger of a fight than GGG/Geale.

People forget that, without an established superstar like Oscar/Floyd/Manny involved, PPVs generally do not sell well.

Do you believe GGG to be a better PPV product than Mayweather? Not what the numbers say, but your own opinion.

I agree that the officers in charge are trying to get fans used to GGG being a PPV attraction. But, I really don't have too much of an issue with it. I understood what David was coming into the bout. However, any card with Gonzo and G on it against a top 1-5 guy in the division is worth $50 for me.

It will take a big dance partner for G to do big numbers. But, then he should do decent numbers there on in as long as he is facing decent opposition. For me, he puts out a much better product for my money than the P4P PPV king ever did.

I agree. I'd have gladly paid for that PPV - I didn't need to as it was free via my subscription to a boxing channel in the UK - but it was definitely worth 20 quid to see both those guys in action, their fights pissed all over any Floyd PPV I can EVER remember seeing in terms of the actual action in the ring. I got excited many times about Floyd fights, but that excitement dissipated as soon as the fight was a few rounds old, when I realised nothing approaching a real fight was going to occur.

[jujigatame]

This fight should never been on PPV. I suspect it was an attempt by HBO to get fans to start thinking of GGG as a PPV attraction whose fights won't be free anymore, but this PPV itself was never going to be a big seller. GGG hasn't been built up particularly well as his opponents have largely been fringe contenders, and Lemieux himself was a minor beltholder who had 1 relevant win over another fringe contender, which was not even televised in the US. Aside from an additional paper title being involved this wasn't any bigger of a fight than GGG/Geale.

People forget that, without an established superstar like Oscar/Floyd/Manny involved, PPVs generally do not sell well.

Do you believe GGG to be a better PPV product than Mayweather? Not what the numbers say, but your own opinion.

I agree that the officers in charge are trying to get fans used to GGG being a PPV attraction. But, I really don't have too much of an issue with it. I understood what David was coming into the bout. However, any card with Gonzo and G on it against a top 1-5 guy in the division is worth $50 for me.

It will take a big dance partner for G to do big numbers. But, then he should do decent numbers there on in as long as he is facing decent opposition. For me, he puts out a much better product for my money than the P4P PPV king ever did.

Personally, I'd put GGG, Canelo, and Mayweather on the same level in terms of PPV attraction. I will buy their PPVs only if they have a quality opponent and a decent undercard. Otherwise I'll save my money, considering there is seemingly at least 1 (generally more like 3) worthwhile boxing/MMA cards on free TV each weekend now.

The last 3 boxing PPVs I purchased were Canelo/Lara, Mayweather/Canelo, and Mayweather/Mosely. I generally find that UFC PPVs provide a much better value for dollar, but if you're not an MMA fan then I understand giving boxing PPVs a little more leeway.

[koolkc107]

The numbers are accurate. And I used only HBO's numbers as an illustration, but I am certain there is a similar correlation between those numbers and total cable subscribers.

Worldwide, HBO has at least over 120 million subscribers

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/15/84214 ... 5-earnings

Back in 2005, the number was much smaller.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/fo ... _showtime/

Are you actually trying to refute the contention that Golovkin was accessible to a much bigger audience than Floyd was?

1. HBO PPV is not distributed worldwide, only American sales count
2. Again the number of HBO subscribers doesn't matter. Anybody with cable can order HBO PPV.

Why would you bring up HBO worldwide subscriber number when its totally meaningless here?

First of all, the number of HBO subscribers is not meaningless. What gave you the idea that only American sales count? You can subscribe to HBO even if you don't own a tv, and you can stream via internet ALL OF HBO's content if you are willing to pay for it. And you can do that from anywhere.

But more importantly, I will ask you again since you seem to be avoiding giving a straight answer.

True or false: The audience available to Golovkin via cable, satellite, internet, and whatever the hell else including two tin cans connected by string IS MANY TIMES LARGER than the audience that was available to Mayweather. Yet Mayweather had two and a half times the sales in his PPV debut without nearly as much hype as Golovkin.

Work on refuting that...and no, just your opinion won't cut it. Shows some links.

[Impractical Poster]

Personally, I'd put GGG, Canelo, and Mayweather on the same level in terms of PPV attraction. I will buy their PPVs only if they have a quality opponent and a decent undercard. Otherwise I'll save my money, considering there is seemingly at least 1 (generally more like 3) worthwhile boxing/MMA cards on free TV each weekend now.

The last 3 boxing PPVs I purchased were Canelo/Lara, Mayweather/Canelo, and Mayweather/Mosely. I generally find that UFC PPVs provide a much better value for dollar, but if you're not an MMA fan then I understand giving boxing PPVs a little more leeway.

I'm right there with you regarding the quality of UFC PPVs over boxing's. The lack of boxing PPV in recent years affords my wallet the purchase of the off boxing one like GGG. I knew I was going to get some quality entertainment from some high level operators.

[Impractical Poster]

This fight should never been on PPV. I suspect it was an attempt by HBO to get fans to start thinking of GGG as a PPV attraction whose fights won't be free anymore, but this PPV itself was never going to be a big seller. GGG hasn't been built up particularly well as his opponents have largely been fringe contenders, and Lemieux himself was a minor beltholder who had 1 relevant win over another fringe contender, which was not even televised in the US. Aside from an additional paper title being involved this wasn't any bigger of a fight than GGG/Geale.

People forget that, without an established superstar like Oscar/Floyd/Manny involved, PPVs generally do not sell well.

Do you believe GGG to be a better PPV product than Mayweather? Not what the numbers say, but your own opinion.

I agree that the officers in charge are trying to get fans used to GGG being a PPV attraction. But, I really don't have too much of an issue with it. I understood what David was coming into the bout. However, any card with Gonzo and G on it against a top 1-5 guy in the division is worth $50 for me.

It will take a big dance partner for G to do big numbers. But, then he should do decent numbers there on in as long as he is facing decent opposition. For me, he puts out a much better product for my money than the P4P PPV king ever did.

I agree. I'd have gladly paid for that PPV - I didn't need to as it was free via my subscription to a boxing channel in the UK - but it was definitely worth 20 quid to see both those guys in action, their fights pissed all over any Floyd PPV I can EVER remember seeing in terms of the actual action in the ring. I got excited many times about Floyd fights, but that excitement dissipated as soon as the fight was a few rounds old, when I realised nothing approaching a real fight was going to occur.

Sounds like a nice subscription.

[jamesmcdonnell]

It sure is.