mickey1975 wrote:Which is the more intriguing fight, Edward?
Joshua-Takam or Groves-Eubank jr.?
Which fight do more people want to watch?
That is literally the only question you need to ask about PPV. From a business point of view Hearn may have a point; building Groves and Eubank on free to air ITV to build up their PPV fight may have been better than charging for lower-level fights for both.
mickey1975 wrote:Which is the more intriguing fight, Edward?
Joshua-Takam or Groves-Eubank jr.?
Which fight do more people want to watch?
That is literally the only question you need to ask about PPV. From a business point of view Hearn may have a point; building Groves and Eubank on free to air ITV to build up their PPV fight may have been better than charging for lower-level fights for both.
Most of my circle would prefer Groves/Eubank tbh, in fact all, I'd say.
mickey1975 wrote:Which is the more intriguing fight, Edward?
Joshua-Takam or Groves-Eubank jr.?
Which fight do more people want to watch?
That is literally the only question you need to ask about PPV. From a business point of view Hearn may have a point; building Groves and Eubank on free to air ITV to build up their PPV fight may have been better than charging for lower-level fights for both.
Most of my circle would prefer Groves/Eubank tbh, in fact all, I'd say.
The point wasn't about a small group of your mates. The question was rhetorical in case you didn't understand.
dirk2686 wrote:
Which fight do more people want to watch?
That is literally the only question you need to ask about PPV. From a business point of view Hearn may have a point; building Groves and Eubank on free to air ITV to build up their PPV fight may have been better than charging for lower-level fights for both.
Most of my circle would prefer Groves/Eubank tbh, in fact all, I'd say.
The point wasn't about a small group of your mates. The question was rhetorical in case you didn't understand.
Yes, I understood, thanks. I think it applies to the public, too.
