BoxRec

jtourettes wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 10:42 How does AJ beating povetkin make the winner of Whyte Parker the clear number 3?

Povitkin losing bumps him out of the #3 spot. Winner of Whyte/ Parker will have the resume to be #3. 1&2 undecided until they fight.
In fact, I would go so far as to say the winner of Parker/Whyte would have a better resume than Wilder.

MarkMcBurney wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 11:56

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 11:33

tony1234 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 11:31

Plenty on StubHub etc

Don't you think selling 20k tickets for this is impressive?

Depends how many end up in the hands of touts, doesn't it?

All boxed shows that sell well will have tickets available from touts. The fact that they’ve sold 19k tickets regardless of how many went to touts is impressive.

I'm genuinely struggling to get excited about this card.

I think this might be evidence that Eddie is perhaps spinning too many plates at the moment and he's making do rather than making waves.

An intriguing main event but nothing really more. The outcome won't shake or impact upon the top of the tree. Two contenders fighting to lay claim to possibly being the fourth best heavyweight on the planet, and that is ppv? Sad times, particularly when you consider how poor the undercard is.

I'm not unecessarily hating on Eddie, as I think he has been great for the game. I just think this card as ppv is an unfortunate mistake.

KiwiRider wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 15:10

jtourettes wrote: ↑25 Jul 2018, 10:42 How does AJ beating povetkin make the winner of Whyte Parker the clear number 3?

Povitkin losing bumps him out of the #3 spot. Winner of Whyte/ Parker will have the resume to be #3. 1&2 undecided until they fight.
In fact, I would go so far as to say the winner of Parker/Whyte would have a better resume than Wilder.

Pft, I'd currently still pick him over Whyte and Parker.

I feel a hometown decision coming up here. Parker is better than Whyte in almost every department but he better dominate him like Usyk did last week or KO him otherwise I feel he'll be a certainty to lose on the cards. Whyte by an undeserved SD.

Parker's not great but still head & shoulders above Whyte & the level of Dillian's recent competition as he's been very carefully matched up since that AJ loss.

Still stunned that this is on PPV & that Hearn's justification is because he's such a shit promoter its the only way he can give Whyte a decent payday.

Weigh in results:

Joseph Parker 17st 4lbs.

Dillian Whyte 18st 6lbs 9oz

That's almost a career high for Whyte. I hope he has been working on his stamina...
If he is going to try and blast Parker out early, that might work, but most people think this will go at least into the championship rounds.

Whyte is nearly a stone heavier than he was only two fights ago.

Like a Boss wrote: ↑27 Jul 2018, 20:40 Whyte is nearly a stone heavier than he was only two fights ago.

Yep, I can't say I'm comfortable about it. This is his 2nd toughest fight against the most mobile opponent of his career. While he looked "OK" at the weigh in, he should have looked in the shape of his life for this one.

The bookies have swung in Parker's direction since the weigh-in. All that extra weight against a man who's never been stopped...

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 03:16 The bookies have swung in Parker's direction since the weigh-in. All that extra weight against a man who's never been stopped...

Just had a look on paddypower the same as yesterday morning.

Whyte 11/10 Parker 4/5

I fancy Parker more with the extra weight Whyte is carrying.

But Parker needs a KO as I'm convinced he will get screwed if it goes to cards.

Naandrew wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 05:05

Grilling Machine wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 03:16 The bookies have swung in Parker's direction since the weigh-in. All that extra weight against a man who's never been stopped...

But Parker needs a KO as I'm convinced he will get screwed if it goes to cards.

Can't be discounted as a possibility unfortunately. Hopefully the fighters take the result out of the judges' hands.

Glad this is on the radio. I have some work to do anyway, so will sit down at my computer tonight with a nice bottle of port and listen while I work.

Going Parker.i think whyte coming on to him.will help him .also Parker ain't got no where to go if he loses

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 05:36 Glad this is on the radio. I have some work to do anyway, so will sit down at my computer tonight with a nice bottle of port and listen while I work.

I'll be out on the balcony with the radio on - too hot for port though, a nice cold beer for me.

moogie101 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 15:18Still stunned that this is on PPV & that Hearn's justification is because he's such a poo promoter its the only way he can give Whyte a decent payday.

Do you care to revise your opinion?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 19:11

moogie101 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 15:18Still stunned that this is on PPV & that Hearn's justification is because he's such a poo promoter its the only way he can give Whyte a decent payday.

Do you care to revise your opinion?

Not at all, the fact that it ended up being a decent night of fights doesn't change the fact that it was not a ppv level card.

Two tramps fighting over a bottle of cider might have the best scrap ever seen, but that doesn't make it ppv worthy

moogie101 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2018, 10:01

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 19:11

moogie101 wrote: ↑26 Jul 2018, 15:18Still stunned that this is on PPV & that Hearn's justification is because he's such a poo promoter its the only way he can give Whyte a decent payday.

Do you care to revise your opinion?

Not at all, the fact that it ended up being a decent night of fights doesn't change the fact that it was not a ppv level card.

Two tramps fighting over a bottle of cider might have the best scrap ever seen, but that doesn't make it ppv worthy

"Entertainment" is the barometer I use to determine whether a boxing event is worth the PPV fee or not.

The main reason why I watch TV in the first place is to be entertained.

To each their own, I guess.

moogie101 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2018, 10:01

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 19:11Do you care to revise your opinion?

Two tramps fighting over a bottle of cider might have the best scrap ever seen

When Two Tramps Go to War

All in the promotion, see.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑29 Jul 2018, 10:06

moogie101 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2018, 10:01

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑28 Jul 2018, 19:11
Do you care to revise your opinion?

Not at all, the fact that it ended up being a decent night of fights doesn't change the fact that it was not a ppv level card.

Two tramps fighting over a bottle of cider might have the best scrap ever seen, but that doesn't make it ppv worthy

"Entertainment" is the barometer I use to determine whether a boxing event is worth the PPV fee or not.

The main reason why I watch TV in the first place is to be entertained.

To each their own, I guess.

The problem with going down that road logically is that a promoter can start charging PPV for an area title fight, for example. I think it's important to remember the justification for PPV fights has always been around the fighters' purses and sanctioning fees. Ergo it should follow that PPV shouldn't exist except for those truly premium fights - last Saturday's card clearly doesn't fall into that category.
People also tend to forget that in the case of Sky the subscription model is already in place, so PPV on top has always been dangerously close to taking the piss.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 03:30The problem with going down that road logically is that a promoter can start charging PPV for an area title fight, for example.

Like him or loathe him, Eddie Hearn has established a solid reputation for promoting entertaining fight cards that nearly always contain bouts that are exciting and action-packed.

And Mainstream casuals aren’t particularly knowledgeable aficionados of the sport of boxing. They pay to be entertained.

I also feel that Matchroom and Sky are incredibly effective at marketing, because they seem capable of generating demand where there is none. As a case in point, the Whyte-Parker bout, which was announced about seven weeks prior to the scheduled fight date, at a time when nobody was really calling for (or even expecting) these two guys to share the ring.

I do believe that there are some fundamental pre-requisites that need to be in place in order to convince Sky’s customer base to hand over their hard-earned cash in order to watch a Matchroom PPV event, which renders the likelihood of Eddie Hearn trying to charge for an area title fight as being virtually impossible.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 03:30I think it's important to remember the justification for PPV fights has always been around the fighters' purses and sanctioning fees. Ergo it should follow that PPV shouldn't exist except for those truly premium fights - last Saturday's card clearly doesn't fall into that category.

The justification for the use of PPV’s is to optimise the amount of revenue that can be generated.

If the fighters were willing to compete for “pennies”, the TV networks would still charge a PPV fee to cover an event if there was sufficient demand from their paying audience to see it.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 03:30People also tend to forget that in the case of Sky the subscription model is already in place, so PPV on top has always been dangerously close to taking the piss.

Agreed, but if Matchroom and Sky are capable of charging for a PPV, with their paying customers satisfied that they’ve got their monies worth and were willing to continue paying to watch these events in the future, then the situation isn’t going to change.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 05:00 The justification for the use of PPV’s is to optimise the amount of revenue that can be generated.

If the fighters were willing to compete for “pennies”, the TV networks would still charge a PPV fee to cover an event if there was sufficient demand from their paying audience to see it.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 03:30People also tend to forget that in the case of Sky the subscription model is already in place, so PPV on top has always been dangerously close to taking the piss.

Agreed, but if Matchroom and Sky are capable of charging for a PPV, with their paying customers satisfied that they’ve got their monies worth and were willing to continue paying to watch these events in the future, then the situation isn’t going to change.

I'm not suggesting it will change and you're missing my point in regards to the PPV justification - you and I may know it's simply a bid to optimise revenue but Eddie and others have frequently attempted to justify it publicly by claiming it would be impossible to make those fights otherwise. The reality if that it's clearly part of a medium- to long-term strategy by Eddie and Sky to build a climate whereby fans view PPV for big fights as the norm rather than the exception, and the marketing push is critical as part of ensuring that perception change. Judged through a business lens, there are elements you have to respect. Judged through the lens of a fan, it's very poor indeed.
And by the way, the reference to medium-term is deliberate, as I think the subscription model that the likes of DAZN are seeking to champion will start to subvert the Sky-type model over time - Netflix has set the precedent.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 06:15

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 05:00 The justification for the use of PPV’s is to optimise the amount of revenue that can be generated.

If the fighters were willing to compete for “pennies”, the TV networks would still charge a PPV fee to cover an event if there was sufficient demand from their paying audience to see it.

Deserter wrote: ↑30 Jul 2018, 03:30People also tend to forget that in the case of Sky the subscription model is already in place, so PPV on top has always been dangerously close to taking the piss.

Agreed, but if Matchroom and Sky are capable of charging for a PPV, with their paying customers satisfied that they’ve got their monies worth and were willing to continue paying to watch these events in the future, then the situation isn’t going to change.

I'm not suggesting it will change and you're missing my point in regards to the PPV justification - you and I may know it's simply a bid to optimise revenue but Eddie and others have frequently attempted to justify it publicly by claiming it would be impossible to make those fights otherwise. The reality if that it's clearly part of a medium- to long-term strategy by Eddie and Sky to build a climate whereby fans view PPV for big fights as the norm rather than the exception, and the marketing push is critical as part of ensuring that perception change. Judged through a business lens, there are elements you have to respect. Judged through the lens of a fan, it's very poor indeed.
And by the way, the reference to medium-term is deliberate, as I think the subscription model that the likes of DAZN are seeking to champion will start to subvert the Sky-type model over time - Netflix has set the precedent.

It sounds as though our opinions are similar.

Whilst I personally despise having to pay for PPV’s, in my humble opinion, the Whyte-Parker fight card was one of the most entertaining events I’ve seen in recent years.

As a self-professed hard-core boxing fan, if I anticipate a few bouts that are included in a PPV event are going to be very competitive and possibly exciting, then I’ll probably feel compelled to pay the fee to watch it.

This was the reason why I was willing to handover my hard-earned cash to watch the Whyte-Parker PPV, because I knew I was going to be entertained. And it didn't disappoint.

I didn’t want to pay £19.95, but I ended up doing so, because I didn’t want to miss out.

If you don't think a Ppv is worth two pence, don't buy it... it's that simple

You either buy it or you stream it or go pub

Can't make out all the moaning