BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing News in their recent puff piece justified Joshua as a PPV attraction because of his "massive' 300K viewing figures for Gary Cornish.

300K. Massive figures.

Remember when Frank Bruno used to decap a man with 10,000,000 watching? Benn, Eubank, Naz, all regularly pulling 7 to 8 figures. Could you ever imagine that a day would come when 300,000 would be considered huge figures for a boxer, and a justification to charge a fee to watch him fight?

Very good post. It really does make you wonder where the money goes. Are tv companies paying considerably less these days for boxing output than say 20 years ago ? There were 7 digit pay days back then for all the names mentioned above but ppv was very rare.

The worst thing about Joshua vs Cornish is that it was a total mismatch from day one. Any fight can end in a round but that fight was an inevitable one rounder, due to the sheer gulf in ability between the two participants.

I actually hope 1 of 2 things happens here

1. AJ takes him out inside a minute so more people realise what a conman Hearns is and stop buying this garbage

Or

2 . Whyte knocks AJ out quick to really shite in Eddies Sunday morning cornflakes

Remember Amir Khan's 54 second PPV debut? I really thought that was the end of this racket. How wrong I was. The short memories of boxing fans.

I'm considering buying it, and I don't always. I didn't pay for Klit vs Fury, as there was no good undercard.

That tends to be my yardstick these days. Obviously, any knobhead can see that the main event isn't PPV worthy. But it's still a vaguely interesting fight at this stage of Joshua's career.

We got Kevin Mitchell, Gay Lover Bellew, Eubank And Son all on the undercard. And though none of these are going to be fight of the year candidates, I'd probably watch at least those matches if I ordered the show.

And doesn't it start about 5pm? So we got another long night of boxing.

I aint decided yet, and might decide on Saturday. But as an actual show, it's okay-ish, without being great.

stujones wrote:No it is not - yes, I will be buying it - so you can call me hypocritical but for me - I treat these PPV's as most of the general public treat their night out on the town.

But this is buy far the worst SKY PPV in history if you ask me.

The Crolla vs Perez 2 bill (including Abraham vs Murray) was far better value.

There are some decent fights but a lot of the opponents against the UK fighters are unheralded. Just how good are Mitchell's and Warrington's opponents I am not sure?

Bellew vs Masternak is a close fight to call, but largely because how far Bellew has gone back as a Cruiserweight if you ask me. Masternak is hardly a world beater, which is how Bellew has been hyped.

I think Eubank Jnr is a level above O Sullivan (sorry O Sullivan fans).

In fact, the fight I am most intrigued about on this bill is Branco vs Malignaggi - I hope Sky show this.

Worse than Haye vs Audley?

Froch Groves 2 - 100%.
Bellew v Clev - No - built on a rivalry, no substance.
Brook v Gavin - Shouldn't be but give benefit of doubt for a really good night of boxing.
AJ V Whyte - Not even funny, pure disgrace that a British title fight between 2 lads who haven't proved themselves as pros can be PPV.

People whine on about Eddie Hearn, but the PPV status of cards will largely be Sky's doing.

He's obviously been told by Sky to deliver a set number of PPV events per year as part of Matchroom's contract. If he can't make e.g. Khan v Brook, Quigg v Frampton etc in 2015 then he's little option but to put together what he can and then its over to the viewing public to decide.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Poor Eddie" - its just that he gets a lot of direct flack for Sky's greed.

I voted with my feet and cancelled my Sky Sports subscription months ago. Haven't missed it a day since.

I don't think Sky/Matchroom are contracted to have so many PPV's per year. I think they'll do as many as they can get away with.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing News in their recent puff piece justified Joshua as a PPV attraction because of his "massive' 300K viewing figures for Gary Cornish.

300K. Massive figures.

Remember when Frank Bruno used to decap a man with 10,000,000 watching? Benn, Eubank, Naz, all regularly pulling 7 to 8 figures. Could you ever imagine that a day would come when 300,000 would be considered huge figures for a boxer, and a justification to charge a fee to watch him fight?

What is 300k x 16.95 ?
There's your answer.
What is 10m x fornicate all ?
There's your answer.

Parson Cross wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing News in their recent puff piece justified Joshua as a PPV attraction because of his "massive' 300K viewing figures for Gary Cornish.

300K. Massive figures.

Remember when Frank Bruno used to decap a man with 10,000,000 watching? Benn, Eubank, Naz, all regularly pulling 7 to 8 figures. Could you ever imagine that a day would come when 300,000 would be considered huge figures for a boxer, and a justification to charge a fee to watch him fight?

What is 300k x 16.95 ?
There's your answer.
What is 10m x eff all ?
There's your answer.

10m x eff all = a lifetime guarantee of a starring role in the Xmas panto.

Parson Cross wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing News in their recent puff piece justified Joshua as a PPV attraction because of his "massive' 300K viewing figures for Gary Cornish.

300K. Massive figures.

Remember when Frank Bruno used to decap a man with 10,000,000 watching? Benn, Eubank, Naz, all regularly pulling 7 to 8 figures. Could you ever imagine that a day would come when 300,000 would be considered huge figures for a boxer, and a justification to charge a fee to watch him fight?

What is 300k x 16.95 ?
There's your answer.
What is 10m x eff all ?
There's your answer.

Is it as simple as that?

I assume the money coming in through advertisements is astronomically more when you've got 10million viewers, than when you've got 300k viewers.

Looks like they're showing everything as the PPV is shown as starting at 1700, trouble is any fights before 7pm 'ish are in a death slot with nobody in the hall and people still out and about, plus SKY showing Bournemouth v Man U at 530.

It would have been far better to have had 3 or 4 really competitive fights as was the norm when FW did PPVs rather than 10 fights that don't mean very much

I'm tempted to buy it, park my fat arse on my new sofa, and just eat snacks and drink beer.

I have, however, spent all week doing that with the snooker. I must've put on about a stone a day for the past week or so, so should perhaps give it a rest before Christmas.

Or might go with the first plan.

tony1234 wrote:Looks like they're showing everything as the PPV is shown as starting at 1700, trouble is any fights before 7pm 'ish are in a death slot with nobody in the hall and people still out and about, plus SKY showing Bournemouth v Man U at 530.

It would have been far better to have had 3 or 4 really competitive fights as was the norm when FW did PPVs rather than 10 fights that don't mean very much

I couldn't disagree more - when you pay for a PPV you should get the entire card. Admittedly that would be too much for a lot of people, but it should be available for the hardcore that might want it. And there should be no frigging adverts!

ILikeBeer wrote:

stujones wrote:No it is not - yes, I will be buying it - so you can call me hypocritical but for me - I treat these PPV's as most of the general public treat their night out on the town.

But this is buy far the worst SKY PPV in history if you ask me.

The Crolla vs Perez 2 bill (including Abraham vs Murray) was far better value.

There are some decent fights but a lot of the opponents against the UK fighters are unheralded. Just how good are Mitchell's and Warrington's opponents I am not sure?

Bellew vs Masternak is a close fight to call, but largely because how far Bellew has gone back as a Cruiserweight if you ask me. Masternak is hardly a world beater, which is how Bellew has been hyped.

I think Eubank Jnr is a level above O Sullivan (sorry O Sullivan fans).

In fact, the fight I am most intrigued about on this bill is Branco vs Malignaggi - I hope Sky show this.

Worse than Haye vs Audley?

Oh yeah - that is a good call also.

housesecond wrote:Anyone use the open box thingys and can you get ppv on them? I'm getting a bit fed up of sky and the money I have to pay. Most of it seems to drift into football and I don't even watch that.

I've got 2, one for me and another at the girlfriends. HD Quality and nothing to pay. Mine cost me £40 for the box and £50 for a bloke to sort all the channels on the box. Got all the sky sports channels, all the 3pm footy matches and all ppv events too.

Don't miss sky at all.

Parson Cross wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Boxing News in their recent puff piece justified Joshua as a PPV attraction because of his "massive' 300K viewing figures for Gary Cornish.

300K. Massive figures.

Remember when Frank Bruno used to decap a man with 10,000,000 watching? Benn, Eubank, Naz, all regularly pulling 7 to 8 figures. Could you ever imagine that a day would come when 300,000 would be considered huge figures for a boxer, and a justification to charge a fee to watch him fight?

What is 300k x 16.95 ?
There's your answer.
What is 10m x eff all ?
There's your answer.

Your inability to understand how television works transcends ignorance.

Applying your logic, terrestrial or network television can't afford to exit.

I wish there was a font large enough on Boxrec to announce and be amused at your fathomless ignorance.

I wish PPV had never come to the UK. It's theft. :x Did it all start with the wrestling in the 90s? What was the first PPV boxing event in the UK?

Sky Sports are extremely greedy. I am somewhere between a boxing fan and a hardcore boxing fan, but the most money Sky have had off me has been a handful of Now TV weekend passes. I wouldn't mind a £5 per month Sky Boxing channel, but that would presumably mean I have to first pay £30 per month for their standard 'adverts-with-sport-breaks' package.

The other thing that gets me about the debatable PPVs is that it's still £16.95. Why not £8.95 for the domestic hype fights?

surfthehurf wrote:.

The other thing that gets me about the debatable PPVs is that it's still £16.95. Why not £8.95 for the domestic hype fights?

If people are willing to take it up the ass, they will keep giving it. If no one paid it would soon be on for free, but people will and that applies to sky as a whole not just boxing.

ILikeBeer wrote:I'm considering buying it, and I don't always. I didn't pay for Klit vs Fury, as there was no good undercard.

That tends to be my yardstick these days. Obviously, any knobhead can see that the main event isn't PPV worthy. But it's still a vaguely interesting fight at this stage of Joshua's career.

We got Kevin Mitchell, Gay Lover Bellew, Eubank And Son all on the undercard. And though none of these are going to be fight of the year candidates, I'd probably watch at least those matches if I ordered the show.

And doesn't it start about 5pm? So we got another long night of boxing.

I aint decided yet, and might decide on Saturday. But as an actual show, it's okay-ish, without being great.

AAARRRGGHHHH!!!!

this is exactly my point. I might buy it because it's OKish.

What the fornicate man? you used to get OKish bills on bog standard Sky, christ you occasionally get OKish bills on Eurosport.
In fact standard Sky sports sometimes provides goodish bills and even occasionally great bills without it being PPV.

The very fact that this isn't anywhere near great is the reason the show shouldn't be PPV

A ppv should have main event that is top level. Bellew vs Cleverly and Joshua vs Whyte are a million miles from being ppv headline material.
Not only is there no world title on the line, neither man has proven himself to be world class yet and I strongly suspect Whyte never ever will. It's not top level and it's a mismatch IMHO

As for saying, "well the undercard is OK even if there are some mismatches on it"
Get fucked. I want a good undercard. I want good fighter featured but I also demand competitive match ups. That really is not too much to ask... is it?
Don't get me wrong, there are a couple fights I wouldn't mind seeing. But a British title, a European title and one of 87 WBA Interim world titles just isn't good enough.

If anyone pays for this they're an arse and they're fornicating boxing!

Its obviously a PPV card. Why? Because people want to see AJ smash that mouthy kid. No matter how much someone moans on a boxing forum about what should and what should not be PPV, its all irreverent. This is the situation where the money talks. Thats the only criteria that applies. Get it in your heads boys.

Am I buying! No. :P

No and I won't be buying it. Would I like to see the show? Yes and I have no plans on Saturday this weekend but I just can't justify paying for this. If this does good numbers it'll open the floodgates to practically every decent domestic fight going on PPV which then makes watching boxing even more expensive.

I'll try to find a free stream for this one.

SteveDow wrote:No and I won't be buying it. Would I like to see the show? Yes and I have no plans on Saturday this weekend but I just can't justify paying for this. If this does good numbers it'll open the floodgates to practically every decent domestic fight going on PPV which then makes watching boxing even more expensive.

I'll try to find a free stream for this one.

Is not that what was said exactly one year ago? Then 6 month ago? It seams to me that floodgates have already been opened.

surfthehurf wrote:I wish PPV had never come to the UK. It's theft. :x Did it all start with the wrestling in the 90s? What was the first PPV boxing event in the UK?

Sky Sports are extremely greedy. I am somewhere between a boxing fan and a hardcore boxing fan, but the most money Sky have had off me has been a handful of Now TV weekend passes. I wouldn't mind a £5 per month Sky Boxing channel, but that would presumably mean I have to first pay £30 per month for their standard 'adverts-with-sport-breaks' package.

The other thing that gets me about the debatable PPVs is that it's still £16.95. Why not £8.95 for the domestic hype fights?

First on in the UK was Bruno v Tyson (the second fight) and at the time it caused outrage. The independent television commission received loads of complaints and a case was launched claiming PPV was illegal. Unfortunately, it didn't win...

As I recall, the WWF PPVs weren't PPV in UK in the 1990s. You'd get them on regular Sky Sports, but were still referred to as the PPVs because that's what they were in America.