BoxRec

im looking forward to this card, but if i was a sky customer id be pretty pssed off. im off to a mates house to watch it, dont mind going halfers.

Ricky_ wrote:His PPV is "the strongest card Britain has seen in over a decade".


Headlined by Frankie Ga....

Just out of interest, name a stronger card.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:His PPV is "the strongest card Britain has seen in over a decade".


Headlined by Frankie Ga....

Just out of interest, name a stronger card.

Anything not headlining Frankie Gavin as "world title" cannon fodder. Worse than Haye v Audley.

Ricky_ wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ricky_ wrote:His PPV is "the strongest card Britain has seen in over a decade".


Headlined by Frankie Ga....

Just out of interest, name a stronger card.

Anything not headlining Frankie Gavin as "world title" cannon fodder. Worse than Haye v Audley.

Care to name the card?

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Care to name the card?

It's the best domestic card since the Magnificent Seven for me, but the fact that the headliner is such a mismatch is a bit poor IMO, I think a PPV card needs a big headline act and Brook v Gavin isn't it. That said, I'm going so don't care whether it's PPV for my own purposes.

Presumably you've seen Mayweather - Pacquiao. Perhaps you marvelled at the brutal intensity of a 12 round "event" in which the boxers landed about 150 punches between them. Personally, I'd much rather see a fight, especially if both guys are trying to use their attributes to win rather than avoid losing. Or maybe it was the undercard of Mayweather - Pacquiao that thrilled you.[/quote]
I watched the fight and enjoyed it, two quality fighters going at it trying to work each other out and get the upper hand. If you think that two fighters standing in front of each other and blocking punches with their faces because they lack the ability to do anything else is the only thing that constitutes a 'fight', then you really don't know anything about boxing.[/quote]

Fortunately, that's not what I think. Not all world class boxers are as negative as Mayweather and Pacquiao were that night. Maybe you've seen what Ali and Frazier did to each other. Or Chris Eubank and Michael Watson. How about Alexis Arguello and Aaron Pryor. None of these guys lacked ability and they gave people who watched their fights good value for money. In fact, the list of excellent fighters who gave their all each and every time they fought is very long, but Mayweather isn't on it. If you genuinely enjoyed what happened between Mayweather and Pacquiao then you are one of those who doesn't feel ripped off. A lot of other people who shelled out are not so happy.

Been made to feel a bit old but searching shows that are more than 10 years old. I think this says more about the quality of bills than this card - which is very good, but placing it on ppv doesn't make up for the lack of quality for the rest of the year

david1963 wrote:Presumably you've seen Mayweather - Pacquiao. Perhaps you marvelled at the brutal intensity of a 12 round "event" in which the boxers landed about 150 punches between them. Personally, I'd much rather see a fight, especially if both guys are trying to use their attributes to win rather than avoid losing. Or maybe it was the undercard of Mayweather - Pacquiao that thrilled you.

I watched the fight and enjoyed it, two quality fighters going at it trying to work each other out and get the upper hand. If you think that two fighters standing in front of each other and blocking punches with their faces because they lack the ability to do anything else is the only thing that constitutes a 'fight', then you really don't know anything about boxing.

Fortunately, that's not what I think. Not all world class boxers are as negative as Mayweather and Pacquiao were that night. Maybe you've seen what Ali and Frazier did to each other. Or Chris Eubank and Michael Watson. How about Alexis Arguello and Aaron Pryor. None of these guys lacked ability and they gave people who watched their fights good value for money. In fact, the list of excellent fighters who gave their all each and every time they fought is very long, but Mayweather isn't on it. If you genuinely enjoyed what happened between Mayweather and Pacquiao then you are one of those who doesn't feel ripped off. A lot of other people who shelled out are not so happy.

What's negative?

I love to watch practitioners of the sweet science execute their craft. I love the chess match you see going on in the ring when two fighters who respect each other face off. You mention great fights of years gone by. But a lot of these fighters damaged their health fighting a certain way. People constantly attack mayweather and accuse him off running, being negative, drawing fans away from boxing etc. Yet he's the highest grossing ppv star of all time. More people pay to see this guy fight than anyone else.

I personally get annoyed when people accuse boxers of being 'negative'. What do you want them to do? Stand there and take punches for our pleasure. This is boxing man, not a friday night brawl.

MarkMcBurney wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Care to name the card?

It's the best domestic card since the Magnificent Seven for me, but the fact that the headliner is such a mismatch is a bit poor IMO, I think a PPV card needs a big headline act and Brook v Gavin isn't it. That said, I'm going so don't care whether it's PPV for my own purposes.

What was the headliner of the Magnificent 7? There have been better PPVs since the Magnificent 7. Froch v Kessler II and Froch v Groves II were better for me. The last PPV was very poor. This one is OK but lacks a real top 5 v top 5 fight, but is headlined by 3 World title fights. People keep clinging to the Frankie Gavin is headlining line. No that may be the last fight, but the 3 WT fights are co-headliners and 2 of them are tough competitive scraps for our guys, fighting at home against World champions. And beneath that there are some really good domestic fights in Ryder v Blackwell etc. Could it be better? Yeah I think so. Is it a poor PPV. No, not in my opinion. Way better than the Magnificent 7 and Groves v DeGale 1 in my opinion.

jameswilson wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Care to name the card?

It's the best domestic card since the Magnificent Seven for me, but the fact that the headliner is such a mismatch is a bit poor IMO, I think a PPV card needs a big headline act and Brook v Gavin isn't it. That said, I'm going so don't care whether it's PPV for my own purposes.

What was the headliner of the Magnificent 7? There have been better PPVs since the Magnificent 7. Froch v Kessler II and Froch v Groves II were better for me. The last PPV was very poor. This one is OK but lacks a real top 5 v top 5 fight, but is headlined by 3 World title fights. People keep clinging to the Frankie Gavin is headlining line. No that may be the last fight, but the 3 WT fights are co-headliners and 2 of them are tough competitive scraps for our guys, fighting at home against World champions. And beneath that there are some really good domestic fights in Ryder v Blackwell etc. Could it be better? Yeah I think so. Is it a poor PPV. No, not in my opinion. Way better than the Magnificent 7 and Groves v DeGale 1 in my opinion.

Groves v Degale was only a PPV headliner because Cleverly v Braemer fell through.

jameswilson wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Care to name the card?

It's the best domestic card since the Magnificent Seven for me, but the fact that the headliner is such a mismatch is a bit poor IMO, I think a PPV card needs a big headline act and Brook v Gavin isn't it. That said, I'm going so don't care whether it's PPV for my own purposes.

What was the headliner of the Magnificent 7? There have been better PPVs since the Magnificent 7. Froch v Kessler II and Froch v Groves II were better for me. The last PPV was very poor. This one is OK but lacks a real top 5 v top 5 fight, but is headlined by 3 World title fights. People keep clinging to the Frankie Gavin is headlining line. No that may be the last fight, but the 3 WT fights are co-headliners and 2 of them are tough competitive scraps for our guys, fighting at home against World champions. And beneath that there are some really good domestic fights in Ryder v Blackwell etc. Could it be better? Yeah I think so. Is it a poor PPV. No, not in my opinion. Way better than the Magnificent 7 and Groves v DeGale 1 in my opinion.

That's all true, but there's virtually no goodwill left for Hearn. His cards are either ridiculously one-sided showcases for his stable, or they're PPV. Boxing fans are frankly sick of him & his exclusive Sky deal, so better get used to all the complaints cos I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon

Boxerbeetle wrote:
That's all true, but there's virtually no goodwill left for Hearn. His cards are either ridiculously one-sided showcases for his stable, or they're PPV. Boxing fans are frankly sick of him & his exclusive Sky deal, so better get used to all the complaints cos I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon

Whilst I definitely concede that his cards so far this year (along with the PPV at the end of last year) have been poor I think there's a lot more to come. Lets not forget he wanted DeGale v Dirrell to be on the PPV but got outbid, and now he's come out of that smelling of roses with DeGale earning 1.5million dollars and the belt.

Surely you'd concede that the Manchester bill is looking good and DeGale winning and Joshua now looking to be stepped up into fights with Whyte and Price before the years up it's gonna get a lot better than the first 6 months of this year.

jameswilson wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
That's all true, but there's virtually no goodwill left for Hearn. His cards are either ridiculously one-sided showcases for his stable, or they're PPV. Boxing fans are frankly sick of him & his exclusive Sky deal, so better get used to all the complaints cos I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon

Whilst I definitely concede that his cards so far this year (along with the PPV at the end of last year) have been poor I think there's a lot more to come. Lets not forget he wanted DeGale v Dirrell to be on the PPV but got outbid, and now he's come out of that smelling of roses with DeGale earning 1.5million dollars and the belt.

Surely you'd concede that the Manchester bill is looking good and DeGale winning and Joshua now looking to be stepped up into fights with Whyte and Price before the years up it's gonna get a lot better than the first 6 months of this year.

I know we tend to disagree a lot on Eddie but the you're spot on with most of this, throw in the McDonnell fight and Burns's performance as well...been a great few weeks for Eddie despite the poor domestic Sky Sports cards. The Manchester Bill, if it ends up on Sky, will be one of the best Sky Sports cards in a VERY long time. Credit where it's due.

I'll admit my cynic's hat is on and I'm expecting to see at least 1 pull out for July but if that goes off as scheduled well done Eddie.

Boxing Prospect wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
That's all true, but there's virtually no goodwill left for Hearn. His cards are either ridiculously one-sided showcases for his stable, or they're PPV. Boxing fans are frankly sick of him & his exclusive Sky deal, so better get used to all the complaints cos I don't think they're going to stop anytime soon

Whilst I definitely concede that his cards so far this year (along with the PPV at the end of last year) have been poor I think there's a lot more to come. Lets not forget he wanted DeGale v Dirrell to be on the PPV but got outbid, and now he's come out of that smelling of roses with DeGale earning 1.5million dollars and the belt.

Surely you'd concede that the Manchester bill is looking good and DeGale winning and Joshua now looking to be stepped up into fights with Whyte and Price before the years up it's gonna get a lot better than the first 6 months of this year.

I know we tend to disagree a lot on Eddie but the you're spot on with most of this, throw in the McDonnell fight and Burns's performance as well...been a great few weeks for Eddie despite the poor domestic Sky Sports cards. The Manchester Bill, if it ends up on Sky, will be one of the best Sky Sports cards in a VERY long time. Credit where it's due.

I'll admit my cynic's hat is on and I'm expecting to see at least 1 pull out for July but if that goes off as scheduled well done Eddie.

Yeah I don't dispute the Manchester card looks good, and we lucked out with Eddie losing the DeGale/Dirrell bid. I don't particularly care about boxing promoters so you won't hear me getting involved in Hearn/FW debates. If a card looks good, I'll give credit where it's due, but I still think it's fair to say that boxing fans have become increasingly disillusioned with Hearn's bills of fare. His exclusivity deal with Sky, added to his abysmal Cleverly/Bellew PPV, just amplifies the criticism.

Just seen Paddy Barnes on Twitter slating the decision to make May 30th a PPV. Gotta love honesty like that

that card in moscow on friday was arguably stronger than this, in terms of the quality of people boxing. but it's still a decent enough show, and there will be more bang for your buck than pacquiao v mayweather, which had a terrible undercard and what ended up as a lame main event. if brook v gavin is as one-sided as expected there is still plenty of intrigue in the other fights....

I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

Jedz910 wrote: What's negative?

I love to watch practitioners of the sweet science execute their craft. I love the chess match you see going on in the ring when two fighters who respect each other face off. You mention great fights of years gone by. But a lot of these fighters damaged their health fighting a certain way. People constantly attack mayweather and accuse him off running, being negative, drawing fans away from boxing etc. Yet he's the highest grossing ppv star of all time. More people pay to see this guy fight than anyone else.

I personally get annoyed when people accuse boxers of being 'negative'. What do you want them to do? Stand there and take punches for our pleasure. This is boxing man, not a friday night brawl.

I don't expect a boxer to take punches for the sake of it, but is it too much to ask to throw a few every now and then? And for $200 million or whatever it was Mayweather got paid, I expect the boxer to give absolutely everything in terms of effort. Actually, that's not quite fair because I didn't pay anything to watch that fight. If I had paid my money, I would have wanted a lot more than those two guys gave that night. Sugar Ray Leonard was able to have "chess matches" that were still entertaining. Ditto Sugar Ray Robinson. The list of boxers who could combine the two aspects of boxing is actually quite long. Floyd Mayweather doesn't belong on it.

G0mez wrote:I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving fornicate all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

mike john wrote:it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

mike john wrote:

G0mez wrote:I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

Spot on. The only people demanding 'stacked cards' are Matchroom & Sky; boxing fans would much prefer having these fights spread over a few weeks/months. Obviously taking our Sky Sports subscriptions aren't enough for them & they feel the need to chuck a PPV together every now & them, regardless of quality.

I've seriously had it with Sky, can't wait for my deal to finish so I can scrap the lot.

mike john wrote:

G0mez wrote:I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

The next few months aren't barren. And honestly, I'd rather watch them all on the same card.

i can't understand why people have excepted PPV for bills that used to be for free after all why pay for skysports when you have to pay again for a decent show ,in reality none of the fights are world title fights no one thinks kell is better than floyd it's a good euro level bill but not PPV for me

mike john wrote:

G0mez wrote:I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

True, I acknowledge that analogy.

Sky are operating a tow-tier boxing model.

The routine 'regular' boxing as part of the sky subs, then the marquee stuff rolled into PPV.

It's a dodgy model, as people who only like boxing, are cancelling sky sports. So the company loses £26 a month, to pick up £17 once or twice a year instead.

Sky unlikely have any measurement tool in place, to capture exactly why people cancel. If they did, then this would show up fast.

DMA1987 wrote:

mike john wrote:

G0mez wrote:I think PPV should be reserved for a marquee fight, but can see a compelling argument for a stacked card in light of the dud that was Mayweather vs Pacquiao.

i cant see any compelling argument for this "stacked card" nonsense being ppv at all. the brook, selby and mitchell fights should all headline seperate shows and be shown over however many months on regular sky sports. how is it justified to charge ppv just because they're all being shown on the same night? it just mean the next few months on sky sports, which have already been paid for, will be barren.
its not like these fights couldnt happen without ppv money ( which is often the arguement ) is it?

it'd be like having a pre-paid subscription to boxing monthly, receiving 3 issues in the same month, being charged again for the privilege, then receiving eff all for the next 3 months, the next 3 months you've already paid for. laughable how anyone swallows this tripe

The next few months aren't barren. And honestly, I'd rather watch them all on the same card.

if you're happy paying an extra £16.95 for standard sky sports fare which has simply been repackaged, then thats your look out