Who Is Purchasing Crawford/Postol PPV

[scallum2015]

I honestly cannot believe PPV even exists anymore. Get a brain, get a stream.

Ppv is gonna end soon because of Streaming. It is illogical to pay $60 for a ppv when you can stream for free but to each his own :)

[afcmarshall]

I'm not but only because I'm not in the US and is on allegedly here in the uk

You would buy this otherwise?

I probably would, I end up buying most ppv over here and this is a good fight two undefeated fighters in there prime and probably one and two at there weight if you compare this to ppv I've brought over here (Bellew/Cleverley springs to mind ) it would be a no brainer. Thurman/Porter was a great fight that you got for free so if I was American the way I would look at it is that I've watched two good fights in a few weeks and only had to pay ppv once.

[world ranked]

Buying over Canelo-Liam Smith that's for sure if that's on ppv here in the states

[SenorPipino]

I didn't even realize this fight was on PPV until I saw a commercial for it Friday night during the Spanish language boxing telecasts.

It's hard to believe that it could draw 100,000 but the beauty of PPV is that if it doesn't interest you, then you don't have to pay for it.

A lot of fights wouldn't have a television slot available, so PPV is a godsend for some of these bouts getting made.

Crawford-Postol is "must-miss" entertainment for casual fans (either free or on PPV) but the real boxing fans recognize it as a quality bout worth paying for as long as the price isn't exorbitant.

[Impractical Poster]

I didn't even realize this fight was on PPV until I saw a commercial for it Friday night during the Spanish language boxing telecasts.

It's hard to believe that it could draw 100,000 but the beauty of PPV is that if it doesn't interest you, then you don't have to pay for it.

A lot of fights wouldn't have a television slot available, so PPV is a godsend for some of these bouts getting made.

Crawford-Postol is "must-miss" entertainment for casual fans (either free or on PPV) but the real boxing fans recognize it as a quality bout worth paying for as long as the price isn't exorbitant.

$50

Terence Crawford vs. Viktor Postol
Gilberto Ramirez vs. Dominik Britsch
Oscar Valdez vs. Matias Adrian Rueda
Jose Benavidez vs. Francisco Santana

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I honestly cannot believe PPV even exists anymore. Get a brain, get a stream.

Ppv is gonna end soon because of Streaming. It is illogical to pay $60 for a ppv when you can stream for free but to each his own :)

There has been illegal cable boxes since the late 80's.

[rivado]

so then we must rank these upcoming or potential PPVS.

Floyd vs. TBA

Canelo vs. Smith

Crawford vs. Postal

Pac vs. TBA


Looking better already

[StrapMeUp]

Terrible undercard. I'm a Crawford fan and I like a good pure boxer but this fight has the potential to be a stinker.
I watched Crawford live in orlando stink up Cotto-rod undercard vs some eastern euro, I have a feeling Crawford is going to box with Postol. I hope i'm wrong, I hope both fighters lay it on the line seeing how it's on PPV. I like Postol and I backed him to outbox Matthysse when no one thought he could.

As a Crawford fan I wish he'd show some more charisma, he's incredibly talented but stale personality. This combined with no one knowing wth is going to happen next with either fighter I seriously doubt this PPV is going to capture the imagination of the casual fans. HARDcore boxing fans and some ppl from Nebraska are the only ppl that are going to be interested in this PPV. Also 140 is pretty dull right now winner is the king of the division so that is nice.

I'm sorry but as a boxing fan I demand more. We need more Super 6 type tournaments for the fans.

Can you imagine a Super 6 tournament at Welter Weight?

Broner v
Crawford
Spence v
Brook
Garcia v
Thurman
Wild Card Porter type fighter

If boxing did more positive things like this 1000% guarantee more interest/buys from casual fans.

[SenorPipino]

Terrible undercard. I'm a Crawford fan and I like a good pure boxer but this fight has the potential to be a stinker.
I watched Crawford live in orlando stink up Cotto-rod undercard vs some eastern euro, I have a feeling Crawford is going to box with Postol. I hope i'm wrong, I hope both fighters lay it on the line seeing how it's on PPV. I like Postol and I backed him to outbox Matthysse when no one thought he could.

As a Crawford fan I wish he'd show some more charisma, he's incredibly talented but stale personality. This combined with no one knowing wth is going to happen next with either fighter I seriously doubt this PPV is going to capture the imagination of the casual fans. HARDcore boxing fans and some ppl from Nebraska are the only ppl that are going to be interested in this PPV. Also 140 is pretty dull right now winner is the king of the division so that is nice.

I'm sorry but as a boxing fan I demand more. We need more Super 6 type tournaments for the fans.

Can you imagine a Super 6 tournament at Welter Weight?

Broner v
Crawford
Spence v
Brook
Garcia v
Thurman
Wild Card Porter type fighter

If boxing did more positive things like this 1000% guarantee more interest/buys from casual fans.

I guess you can't teach charisma and personality.

You either have that "It Factor" or you don't.

You can always see through a guy that invents a personality to draw attention.

Pacquiao displayed little personal charisma. Very dull. But he was one of the biggest moneymakers in boxing history.
He drew fans and attention strictly through his ring prowess.

Maybe Crawford (a hefty 5-1 favorite over Postol) will follow in Pac's shoes.

[Tanzio]

I will be watching it, one way or the other, depending on where I am at that day. I am a big fan of both boxers. IMO, 5-1 is too wide for Hitman Jr. v someone as skilled as Postol.

[Freedom2013]

Gvozdyk along with Postol on the PPV card would have me tempted to buy it.

But sadly I need to work that night. I'll see the results as they happen on twitter on my phone.

[victor-romeo]

I too have to work but having Gvozdyk on the card I will probably take part of the night off to watch this fight I hope. Gvozdyk is one of the fighters I just started to follow about 6 months ago. I would like to see if he can move up in competition after this fight. I am guessing that he is about 3-5 fights away from being ready for someone like Kovalev. By then though Kovalev might not be at his prime.

[Lackeos]

I think this fight deserves to be bought, to reward the matchmaking, but it's like an $8 value. I'm sure they'll be charging more than that, so... sorry. I think all sports ppv's generally overcharge, and some of the fans are overly willing to pay for overpriced shows. If we could get ppv's that were more in the $10, $15, and $20 range, and order them more frequently, then I think that would be a more reasonable system.

[victor-romeo]

I think this fight deserves to be bought, to reward the matchmaking, but it's like an $8 value. I'm sure they'll be charging more than that, so... sorry. I think all sports ppv's generally overcharge, and some of the fans are overly willing to pay for overpriced shows. If we could get ppv's that were more in the $10, $15, and $20 range, and order them more frequently, then I think that would be a more reasonable system.

I agree with your point entirely. Besides wanting to see the fight though I do want to support the sport and match making this is probably like 20% of the reason why I would buy the fight mostly though I want to see the fight.
But the fight is not worth $50 it is worth to me in monetary value not over $20 .
I do think the future of the sport will be live streams that will be much cheaper or at least hoping this is the case.

[Enlightened-One]

Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.

[Counter-puncher]

Enlightened-One, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

[Impractical Poster]

Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.

I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.

Hate to be one of these types of guys as well, but the horizon isn't looking good for the sport. When rumors of a top MMA fighter bringing a retired boxer out of retirement being the top grossing fight to be made within the sport, there is something wrong.

[Enlightened-One]

Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.

I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.

Hate to be one of these types of guys as well, but the horizon isn't looking good for the sport. When rumors of a top MMA fighter bringing a retired boxer out of retirement being the top grossing fight to be made within the sport, there is something wrong.

HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.

I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

[Impractical Poster]

Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.

I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.

Hate to be one of these types of guys as well, but the horizon isn't looking good for the sport. When rumors of a top MMA fighter bringing a retired boxer out of retirement being the top grossing fight to be made within the sport, there is something wrong.

HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.

I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.

[Enlightened-One]

HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.

I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.

My comments about the UFC pay-per-view model are purely based on the overall underlying trend rather than one-off exceptions to the general rule.

Like I said before, it’s inevitable that there are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all niche sports… and I guess it’ll take a while for the UFC to build new brand names to replace the Ronda Rousey’s, the Brock Lesnar’s and possibly the Conor McGregor’s of the MMA world.

The same applies to boxing, with the departure of the likes of Mayweather, Pacquiao and Cotto, because apart from Canelo… there aren’t any new superstars with crossover appeal that can transcend the sport to the mainstream, whilst also having the potential to become household names.

[Impractical Poster]

HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.

I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.

There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.

Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.

My comments about the UFC pay-per-view model are purely based on the overall underlying trend rather than one-off exceptions to the general rule.

Like I said before, it’s inevitable that there are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all niche sports… and I guess it’ll take a while for the UFC to build new brand names to replace the Ronda Rousey’s, the Brock Lesnar’s and possibly the Conor McGregor’s of the MMA world.

The same applies to boxing, with the departure of the likes of Mayweather, Pacquiao and Cotto, because apart from Canelo… there aren’t any new superstars with crossover appeal that can transcend the sport to the mainstream, whilst also having the potential to become household names.

There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.

http://www.tapology.com/search/mma-even ... ys-buyrate

[Enlightened-One]

There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.

http://www.tapology.com/search/mma-even ... ys-buyrate

I’m not really an MMA “expert”, but I did post my source that I used for my claim (did you check it?), which indicates a general decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between 2009 & 2015, but if you’re convinced that the trend is now showing an increase in popularity… then I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter and concede your point.

EDIT: I’ve just copied and pasted the UFC PPV data supplied by your own Tapology source into an Excel spread sheet and then inserted a linear trendline.

Guess what? Your own data actually confirmed my original claim that there has been a steady decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2015.

[boxing_rocks]

Arum says he lost $100k:

http://www.espn.com/blog/dan-rafael/pos ... postol-ppv

[Impractical Poster]

There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.

http://www.tapology.com/search/mma-even ... ys-buyrate

I’m not really an MMA “expert”, but I did post my source that I used for my claim (did you check it?), which indicates a general decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between 2009 & 2015, but if you’re convinced that the trend is now showing an increase in popularity… then I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter and concede your point.

EDIT: I’ve just copied and pasted the UFC PPV data supplied by your own Tapology source into an Excel spread sheet and then inserted a linear trendline.

Guess what? Your own data actually confirmed my original claim that there has been a steady decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2015.

Alright man. If you want to get into this to prove your point that UFC PPVs are tanking and the model is going away, this is a piss poor example. It started inclining mid 2015 again, and you totally neglected to add the past year. The PPV model is not hurting. The sport of boxing is hurting. The recent spike in UFC PPV numbers is a tell tale sign of where the sport is headed. At no time in it's history has it had a year like this one. You use a specific 5.5 year time period to justify your stance. In other words, a trough. And even then, the decline in those 5.5 years was extremely mild. I didn't take the time and draw up a spreadsheet, I just looked at the numbers throughout their history and saw that as a whole, until quite recently it had been pretty steady. But if you want to say that UFC PPVs are on a decline, by all means. I just came on to give you the facts.

[Enlightened-One]

Alright man. If you want to get into this to prove your point that UFC PPVs are tanking and the model is going away...

I never said that. I merely performed a trend analysis of the PPV stats from your source and submitted the Excel results.

...this is a piss poor example.

It’s your data, which you previously supported.

It started inclining mid 2015 again…

I didn’t say otherwise.

… and you totally neglected to add the past year.

My original claim, which you repeatedly challenged, relates to the steady decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate between 2009 and 2015. I even supplied information that supported this theory… and so did you!

I am under no obligation to review information that is unrelated to my original theory, since I'm only interested in defending my own claims.

The PPV model is not hurting.

If that’s your opinion, then fine. I don’t know what “hurting” means in your context, so I’ll side-step this point.

The sport of boxing is hurting.

Yes, but boxing’s popularity (historically-speaking) has always been a seemingly constant cycle of peaks and troughs, a point you previously agreed with.

The recent spike in UFC PPV numbers is a tell tale sign of where the sport is headed. At no time in it's history has it had a year like this one.

So far, the UFC has enjoyed a very good 2016, but my original claim relates to the underlying PPV buy-rate trend between 2009 and 2015. I never commented on anything else.

I refuse to get distracted by dishonest debating tactics, such as the “Straw Man” fallacy that you're attempting to employ. So I'll only defend and submit comments related to my original stance.

You use a specific 5.5 year time period to justify your stance.

I justified it by supplying my own data and then you kindly (but inadvertently) supported my stance by giving me even more data to endorse my theory.

In other words, a trough.

I commented on a six year trough, whereas you’re commenting on a 12 month peak... or to use your own words... "a spike", which is too short a period to boldly proclaim as a long-term trend.

And even then, the decline in those 5.5 years was extremely mild.

It wasn’t that mild, because there were an awful lot of MMA websites discussing the matter. I didn’t do a J.K. Rowling and creatively formulate a fictional scenario.

Google will confirm this... and so will the easily accessible interview transcripts and videos of Dana White commenting on this phenomenon.

Let me remind you though, you repeatedly denied (and was pretty adamant) that there hasn’t been a decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate, but now you're doing an 180 degree turn and conceding this point?

I didn't take the time and draw up a spreadsheet...

You formulated an opinion without analysing the trend that those numbers illustrated. Whereas I took 15 seconds out of my life to review the stats and formulate an opinion based on a statistical analysis that Excel calculated for me.

Surely an educated opinion that required effort carries more value than pure guess-work or gut instinct?

I just looked at the numbers throughout their history and saw that as a whole, until quite recently it had been pretty steady

I only claimed what is written in this thread and I have not made any derogatory remarks about the UFC.

The numbers prove that there was an undeniable decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate from the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2015. Dana White even commented on this phenomenon, but if you "prefer" to believe the numbers to be “steady” and impressive, then that’s fine by me.

But if you want to say that UFC PPVs are on a decline, by all means. I just came on to give you the facts.

You can’t really take the moral high ground, when you’ve already admitted to failing to analyse the numbers that you previously claimed contradicted my argument, when in fact they actually endorsed it?

For the record, I have a deep-seated appreciated for all combat sports, because I have engaged in boxing and judo for more than a decade, but I openly admit to not being an expert on the UFC.

That being said, anyone with moderate analytical skills will surely appreciate the undeniable facts that there was a steady decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate between 2009 and 2015… and to claim otherwise, is quite simply dishonest, especially considering your own data actually endorses this claim.