So how do you(legally) get it without espn+.
I'm asking because I am not an espn+ subscriber and would like to know.
Doesn't mean I will buy one but I want to know how to legally get it.
Go to ESPN and buy it. They direct you. I was already subscribed and they gave me a year and a ppv for I think $75. Or I could have just bought the ppv for $60.
Interesting.
Go to espn and buy it.
That sounds an awful lot the "old system" to me.
If anybody can go to the espn website and buy the ppv how does that reduce the number of ppv buys?
Last edited by Perseus on 29 Jan 2020, 21:51, edited 1 time in total.
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 21:27
Go to ESPN and buy it. They direct you. I was already subscribed and they gave me a year and a ppv for I think $75. Or I could have just bought the ppv for $60.
Interesting.
Go to espn and buy it.
That sounds an awful lot the "old system" to me.
Onetimeonly wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 21:53
I didn't say it reduced anything, I just thought you'd want to know you were misinformed.
Thanks for that.
I'm just not understanding why the article says the old system would have produced more buys.
Anybody with internet access can go to the espn website.
I just answered that and your post was gone. Americans are lazy as hell, the same reason dazn can't get subscribers with canelo to equal his ppv buys. Clicking a button is easier than going online, downloading an app, etc.. that's my best guess. I used to order all of them, but since they switched I've streamed quite a few since I'd be watching on my computer anyway.
Steveh583 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 17:38
No. You only have to look at the fighters purses. It's biggest star had to come to boxing to get his biggest payday.
That’s because the fighters are getting robbed blind, it’s still very very popular. Personally it’s not my cup of tea seeing guys jumping on people who are clearly out cold but there is a big market, when I ask people why they like it they say the best fight the best consistently and there are 50/50 fights on the undercards, that absolutely cannot be said about boxing 99% of the time.
Steveh583 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 17:38
No. You only have to look at the fighters purses. It's biggest star had to come to boxing to get his biggest payday.
Personally it’s not my cup of tea seeing guys jumping on people who are clearly out cold
if thats your only gripe, then you should watch it more often, as the UFC refs are very quick to step in and stop a fight as soon as they believe a fighter is done. Sure you can find instances of fighters getting hit when they are clearly out cold, Masvidal vs Askren being a recent example, and that fight was stopped in 7 seconds of the 1st round! No fault of the ref, he stepped in as soon as he could, its just things can and do happen so quickly in an MMA fight, but very rarely do i ever feel the ref is at fault. I find UFC stoppages to be much less controversial than boxing stoppages, period.
Personally I am more interested in boxing but I feel that as far as the casual person, at least here in the USA, UFC has far surpassed boxing in terms of viewership, interest, and name recognition
the only reason I would watch mma is to see mctapper getting choked .
the guy is a complete and utter scumbag who despite his neanderthal behaviour is revered by his chavvy fan base who crave this kind of ultra aggressive macho persona.
I like MMA but it doesn't have the depth and history of boxing. The casual fans seem to like MMA more, they can be fun to watch and shorter fights so I guess that appeals to people.
Controversial wrote: ↑30 Jan 2020, 05:13
I like MMA but it doesn't have the depth and history of boxing. The casual fans seem to like MMA more, they can be fun to watch and shorter fights so I guess that appeals to people.
Personally I prefer MMA, mainly because I trained in several martial arts as a kid & started watching the UFC from the start thanks to bootleg tapes back in the nineties.
I don't think it's surpassed boxing though, especially not in regards to the big fights & in regards to the UFC's biggest star he had to crossover into boxing to get a payday far in excess of what he could ever earn in the octagon but its just a matter of time as younger fans seem to prefer MMA over boxing.
I'm not a massive fan of MMA but it definitely seems to have more competitive top level match ups than boxing. The only fight I'm looking forward to at the moment is Fury-Wilder 2.
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 21:02
I mean, I haven't done any studies of coverage or sales etc or anything like that on it, but on a day to day basis I hear far more people talking about MMA than boxing
Boxing seems quite unique as a sport in that boxers are not required to partake in competitions. Boxers are not obliged to face anyone, the belts mean little these days, a fighter can pretty much do as they please, it is a big part of the reason we rarely get the fights we want, when we want.
ALI wrote: ↑30 Jan 2020, 12:23
Boxing seems quite unique as a sport in that boxers are not required to partake in competitions. Boxers are not obliged to face anyone, the belts mean little these days, a fighter can pretty much do as they please, it is a big part of the reason we rarely get the fights we want, when we want.
No other sport i can think of is like that.
got to correct your post a tad !
as champions are obliged to face certain mandatory fights if they wish to retain the belt .
Also clearly every pro fighter is required to actually fight otherwise no income ...
have to agree with you that we dont get what we want when we want it
TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑29 Jan 2020, 18:02
I would rather watch a UFC event than a boxing event at this point. You're guaranteed a pretty competitive main event most of the time. Blaydes vs JDS was a very good exciting fight last weekend, fine performance from Blaydes. Then I tuned into Danny garcia going a dull 12 rounds vs Redkach. We have Fury and Wilder next month and you know Fury is going to fight negatively and try to nick a decision. I'll be watching Felder vs Hooker if it's on at the same time as Fury Wilder myself.
Sadly, I concur
The majority of high profile boxing matches, are full as bollocks.
dr_devious wrote: ↑30 Jan 2020, 08:45
I'm not a massive fan of MMA but it definitely seems to have more competitive top level match ups than boxing. The only fight I'm looking forward to at the moment is Fury-Wilder 2.
Which could well turn out to be a snooze fest with fury picking and poking for 12 rounds.
dr_devious wrote: ↑30 Jan 2020, 08:45
I'm not a massive fan of MMA but it definitely seems to have more competitive top level match ups than boxing. The only fight I'm looking forward to at the moment is Fury-Wilder 2.
Which could well turn out to be a snooze fest with fury picking and poking for 12 rounds.
I know but I really like Fury's persona and antics and he's a Brit too so I'm a big fan. There's always the looming danger of a Wilder haymaker too which will keep it tense throughout.
ALI wrote: ↑30 Jan 2020, 12:23
Boxing seems quite unique as a sport in that boxers are not required to partake in competitions. Boxers are not obliged to face anyone, the belts mean little these days, a fighter can pretty much do as they please, it is a big part of the reason we rarely get the fights we want, when we want.
No other sport i can think of is like that.
got to correct your post a tad !
as champions are obliged to face certain mandatory fights if they wish to retain the belt .
Also clearly every pro fighter is required to actually fight otherwise no income ...
have to agree with you that we dont get what we want when we want it
Yes of course, and i was reffering to the alphabets being watered down, used and abused by all. They are tools, used in varying ways by boxers, promoters and the abc's themselves to gain profits. Boxers defend them as often as they chuck them these days. Winning and maintaining a world title means much less today than in bygone era's.
As to earning money, they must fight to do so, but can still pick and choose their fights throughout their careers. Both the fighter and the promoter weigh up risk vs reward for every fight. Glory is a lesser part of it now. In other sports risk vs reward is often not a factor. In boxing it is a constant, pretty much so anyway.
Which could well turn out to be a snooze fest with fury picking and poking for 12 rounds.
I know but I really like Fury's persona and antics and he's a Brit too so I'm a big fan. There's always the looming danger of a Wilder haymaker too which will keep it tense throughout.
I like Fury, but the build up for this fight its all a bit predictable. I could barely watch their press conference the other day, total boll*cks it was.
As to the fight, the only really intreaguing factor is can Wilder catch him.
