BoxRec

It might add a bit but i don't think it will be anything significant especially if you were to offset that against the regular boxing fan who won't bother purchasing it and the fans who had their fingers burnt for Haye v Harrison.

Boxers think they are ppv before they have even built a really solid fanbase now rather than just a fickle general publc following. Most people bought into the W_rren hype but when he left him and went abroad, W_rren unleashed a new superstar for the public

Glyn Leach wrote:Notice that the PPV was being given the biggun on Sky Sports News this morning, couple of adverts. Does this mean they've decided against turning it in to a regular non PPV show I wonder? They were discussing that, from what I hear. If they're going ahead with it as a PPV I'm assuming they must have a decent undercard fight to bolster the weak (by the PPV standards of the rest of the world) main event.

Do you really consider Amir Khan v Paul McCloskey a weak PPV compared to what is typically served up on HBO? It might not be to everyones taste, but Khan is one of the two most recognisable active British boxers, holds a genuine world title and is on a decent run that includes a FOTY candidate last time out. He is fighting an undefeated European champion, also from these shores.

Are you really saying that is worse than, say, the Argentinian Marcos Maidana facing the thoroughly faded Mexican legend, Erik Morales being a PPV event for US customers? I find that fight as poor a match up as last years Roy Jones Jnr v Bernard Hopkins farce, which was also a PPV show. The cost of US PPVs is also vastly in excess of ours and they typically have one a month. Us poor souls in the UK have yet to have a single one since 11th December.

I'm not trying to stick up for Sky and I believe that PPV should be reserved for the true super fights, but there are two main barriers to that - the superfights simply don't happen (Floyd v Pac) and us punters continue to stump up for the "lesser quality" PPVs. If Sky/the Promoters were hit in the only place it hurts, they would be forced to reconsider their policy on PPVs. There is a precedent for this - Sky tried to introduce PPV in football and it was an abject failure so the scheme was withdrawn. If fight fans refused to pay for one or two of the upcoming PPV cards, then Skys hand would be forced.

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Notice that the PPV was being given the biggun on Sky Sports News this morning, couple of adverts. Does this mean they've decided against turning it in to a regular non PPV show I wonder? They were discussing that, from what I hear. If they're going ahead with it as a PPV I'm assuming they must have a decent undercard fight to bolster the weak (by the PPV standards of the rest of the world) main event.

Do you really consider Amir Khan v Paul McCloskey a weak PPV compared to what is typically served up on HBO? It might not be to everyones taste, but Khan is one of the two most recognisable active British boxers, holds a genuine world title and is on a decent run that includes a FOTY candidate last time out. He is fighting an undefeated European champion, also from these shores.

Are you really saying that is worse than, say, the Argentinian Marcos Maidana facing the thoroughly faded Mexican legend, Erik Morales being a PPV event for US customers? I find that fight as poor a match up as last years Roy Jones Jnr v Bernard Hopkins farce, which was also a PPV show. The cost of US PPVs is also vastly in excess of ours and they typically have one a month. Us poor souls in the UK have yet to have a single one since 11th December.

I'm not trying to stick up for Sky and I believe that PPV should be reserved for the true super fights, but there are two main barriers to that - the superfights simply don't happen (Floyd v Pac) and us punters continue to stump up for the "lesser quality" PPVs. If Sky/the Promoters were hit in the only place it hurts, they would be forced to reconsider their policy on PPVs. There is a precedent for this - Sky tried to introduce PPV in football and it was an abject failure so the scheme was withdrawn. If fight fans refused to pay for one or two of the upcoming PPV cards, then Skys hand would be forced.

Do the U.S fans have to pay a £40+ subscription to HBO/Showtime(like we do to Sky)? And then get stung by the ppvs?

Holyfield-Williams was PPV, so don't think we are the most ripped off yet.

Dan Raphael reckons this fight is 95% not to happen.

Scottrf wrote:Holyfield-Williams was PPV, so don't think we are the most ripped off yet.

sticking Berto - Ortiz on would help.

Dioufy wrote:Dan Raphael reckons this fight is 95% not to happen.

Make 100% not happening now

smoothmoves wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Notice that the PPV was being given the biggun on Sky Sports News this morning, couple of adverts. Does this mean they've decided against turning it in to a regular non PPV show I wonder? They were discussing that, from what I hear. If they're going ahead with it as a PPV I'm assuming they must have a decent undercard fight to bolster the weak (by the PPV standards of the rest of the world) main event.

Do you really consider Amir Khan v Paul McCloskey a weak PPV compared to what is typically served up on HBO? It might not be to everyones taste, but Khan is one of the two most recognisable active British boxers, holds a genuine world title and is on a decent run that includes a FOTY candidate last time out. He is fighting an undefeated European champion, also from these shores.

Are you really saying that is worse than, say, the Argentinian Marcos Maidana facing the thoroughly faded Mexican legend, Erik Morales being a PPV event for US customers? I find that fight as poor a match up as last years Roy Jones Jnr v Bernard Hopkins farce, which was also a PPV show. The cost of US PPVs is also vastly in excess of ours and they typically have one a month. Us poor souls in the UK have yet to have a single one since 11th December.

I'm not trying to stick up for Sky and I believe that PPV should be reserved for the true super fights, but there are two main barriers to that - the superfights simply don't happen (Floyd v Pac) and us punters continue to stump up for the "lesser quality" PPVs. If Sky/the Promoters were hit in the only place it hurts, they would be forced to reconsider their policy on PPVs. There is a precedent for this - Sky tried to introduce PPV in football and it was an abject failure so the scheme was withdrawn. If fight fans refused to pay for one or two of the upcoming PPV cards, then Skys hand would be forced.

Do the U.S fans have to pay a £40+ subscription to HBO/Showtime(like we do to Sky)? And then get stung by the ppvs?

Yes. We have to pay a subscription price monthly for HBO and Showtime. Then pay extra as much as $50 for the pay per view.

Is this fight definitely on? Saw this on fury's twitter:
still hopeful rahman signs but looking a bit unlikely now - the rock chickening out
7 minutes ago

Rahman has pulled out.

kali meehan was apparently offered to replace rahman and accepted, but was then notified that fury is now off the card.

anyone know more about this?

The Law wrote:Rahman has pulled out.

His trainer pulled him out, said he wasn't fit enough with only 2 weeks notice.

So much for those that said he was in shape?