BoxRec

You don't need a subscription to order a PPV.

ill be in Machester on a stag same night as this , would hope the pubs get it on

desperados wrote:

jameswilson wrote:
So basically only fights involving the no1 fighter in each division should be of interest to anyone?

No but its surely the least expected when asked for more money, ppv, on top of what you pay. Try and keep up, my point was simple to intepret yet you still got it all wrong.

I actually got the point perfectly well and happen to think you're talking bollocks. Not all PPV fights are between the top fighters in each division and the need for PPV stems more from interest in the fight and the amount of money you need to generate to get the fight made. Eddie Hearn has said himself that he wouldn't have been able to make this fight in the UK without PPV. Enough of the public will be willing to pay PPV for it to be worthwhile because it's that good a fight. So it's PPV. Deal with it or don't watch it.

Ezzard wrote:Great fight. Best the division can make.

Just wish I could buy the fight and not subscribe to SKY.

You can, box office is available in a range of formats now. I'll be getting it through virgin media.

Good fight, looking forward to it

jameswilson wrote:I actually got the point perfectly well and happen to think you're talking bollocks.

So you decided to make an idiot of yourself on purpose by pretending not to understand the point? That's something a woman would do, you should grab those 'bollocks' im talking to replace your vag with.

jameswilson wrote:Not all PPV fights are between the top fighters in each division and the need for PPV stems more from interest in the fight and the amount of money you need to generate to get the fight made. Eddie Hearn has said himself that he wouldn't have been able to make this fight in the UK without PPV.

nothing to do with how much green paper Hearn wants to have in his own wallet then. It's a huge show which i believe to have sold out the o2 in London and will be broadcast worldwide. But sure, without Sky chargin a rather small pool of people 15 bucks for it, it's not economically possible. Believe that and you'll believe anything.

Enough of the public will be willing to pay PPV for it to be worthwhile because it's that good a fight. So it's PPV. Deal with it or don't watch it.

Aw damn, thats some crap options for me, here was me thinking this was a forum topic opened to discuss the PPV set-up of this fight. Maybe a mod should delete my account now you've withdrawn my option for discussion and limited me to only 'dealin with it' (did you say that like beyonce while clickin 'yo fingaz'?) or not watching the fight.

It was clear what I meant in my original reply to you. People in the thread have even commented to you that it was clear what I meant.

Nice meltdown from you tho. People who missed Eastenders this week will have got their fix for that kinda stuff from you now.

jameswilson wrote:It was clear what I meant in my original reply to you. People in the thread have even commented to you that it was clear what I meant.

Nice meltdown from you tho. People who missed Eastenders this week will have got their fix for that kinda stuff from you now.

Love it!!

As it happens I have been able to pick up tickets so not an issue for me.

But if we accept PPV had to return at some point as s necessary evil of the sport, then I find it stunning that the OP would say this fight doesn't deserve that status. Perversley, froch v ward and kess v ward were, and would be, less value for money due to wards style. One v two, or one v three, is a flawed argument.

Fighters and styles make fights. Not rankings, and latterly not belts either.

Best thing to do is all bundle round a mates and all chip in 2quid at least it cuts costs and make a proper evening of it.

Anyone know if the fight will be in HD?

To answer my own question after a little research -

Sky subscribers get sky box office in HD but it looks like Virgin subscribers, even though they pay the same fee, only get the SBO event in standard definition. This is due to Sky not allowing Virgin access to the channel in HD.

So if you are a Virgin subscriber like myself, who isn't going to the fight, you'll pay the same as everyone else but have no HD access. As if £14.95 wasn't bad enough!

ScottDetonator wrote:To answer my own question after a little research -

Sky subscribers get sky box office in HD but it looks like Virgin subscribers, even though they pay the same fee, only get the SBO event in standard definition. This is due to Sky not allowing Virgin access to the channel in HD.

So if you are a Virgin subscriber like myself, who isn't going to the fight, you'll pay the same as everyone else but have no HD access. As if £14.95 wasn't bad enough!

Could be worse. BT and Talk Talk customers won't have acces to the fight at all!

I used to be a Virgin Media customer and lack of SKY Sports Box Office in HD used to hack me off.

chad wrote:

ScottDetonator wrote:To answer my own question after a little research -

Sky subscribers get sky box office in HD but it looks like Virgin subscribers, even though they pay the same fee, only get the SBO event in standard definition. This is due to Sky not allowing Virgin access to the channel in HD.

So if you are a Virgin subscriber like myself, who isn't going to the fight, you'll pay the same as everyone else but have no HD access. As if £14.95 wasn't bad enough!

Could be worse. BT and Talk Talk customers won't have acces to the fight at all!

I used to be a Virgin Media customer and lack of SKY Sports Box Office in HD used to hack me off.

Is that really your tipping point? I'm with virgin media and while i do like HD, i'm not that fussed about it. Half the time i end up watching the standard channels anyway out of habit!