BoxRec

fizzjambo wrote:

ade the grenade wrote:I've never understood why existing customers should have to pay for a PPV in addition to paying for their subscription...

Because when asked to many of them do and it makes everyone involved a serious amount of cash. I'm not being sarcastic, I pretty much think that's all it takes to sum up why PPV's work and will continue.

There is nothing wrong with buying PPV events. Just appreciate that in doing so the likelihood of them continuing increases a little with every buy and, that like any sporting event, it isn't guaranteed to be any good just because we are being asked to fork out an extra £17 for it

palooka wrote:Last night promised a lot and delivered little, it wasn't worth 17 quid extra and I just hope the boxers got a lot of money. When's the next regular Sky Sports boxing on?

Oiky wrote:

palooka wrote:Last night promised a lot and delivered little, it wasn't worth 17 quid extra and I just hope the boxers got a lot of money. When's the next regular Sky Sports boxing on?

march the 5th, eggington-skeete

Counter-puncher wrote:Ppv a failed venture?



Not for Camp Eddie, it isn't.

Finn wrote:I'm going to make a some points about this PPV and in general:
1.The main fight was an anticlimax even for a purist.
2.The undercard was very very poor.
3. The main event on paper WAS PPV worthy
4. A PPV card needs to have another big named fighter or two on the undercard so if the main event falls short viewers still feel they have got their money's worth.
5. Boxing promoters need to start looking at the UFC fight night model for PPV events.

Finn wrote: 3. The main event on paper WAS PPV worthy

Finn wrote:I'm going to make a some points about this PPV and in general:
1.The main fight was an anticlimax even for a purist.
2.The undercard was very very poor.
3. The main event on paper WAS PPV worthy
4. A PPV card needs to have another big named fighter or two on the undercard so if the main event falls short viewers still feel they have got their money's worth.
5. Boxing promoters need to start looking at the UFC fight night model for PPV events.

chad wrote:
2013 - Froch Vs. Kessler II (Hit)
2013 - Froch Vs. Groves (Hit)
2014 - Froch Vs. Groves II (Hit)
2014 - Bellew Vs. Cleverly II (Miss)
2015 - Brook Vs. Gavin (Miss)
2015 - Pacman Vs. Mayweather (Miss)
2015 - Fury Vs. Klitschko (Miss)
2015 - Joshua Vs. Whyte (Hit)
2016 - Quigg Vs. Frampton (Miss)

davie wrote:When was the last one that meritted actually being PPV?

For me it has to tick more than one box, people vary on what is the top priortiy here but for me it really should deliver on all the following fronts:

1. Have a top class main event - High profile fight, MUST be at world class, should be competitive 60/40 type fight at very least
2. Have a good undercard - Some good names AND competitive fights. I'm not asking for 3 world title fights on the bill, just better than Gaving McDonnell
3. Of course the sales have to justify the event. This is more for Camp Eddie than fan satisfaction, but the facts are, if it doen't sell, it shouldn't have been PPV.
4. Actually deliver on the night - No good having an all British unification hyped to the max if the 2 fighters don't throw a punch

There are some PPV in recent years that have ticked one box, a few ticked two, I can't think of a single show that delivered on all fronts and some could argue that one or two shows have come up short in every department

Is PPV an utterly failed venture?

Kingfield wrote:

davie wrote:When was the last one that meritted actually being PPV?

For me it has to tick more than one box, people vary on what is the top priortiy here but for me it really should deliver on all the following fronts:

1. Have a top class main event - High profile fight, MUST be at world class, should be competitive 60/40 type fight at very least
2. Have a good undercard - Some good names AND competitive fights. I'm not asking for 3 world title fights on the bill, just better than Gaving McDonnell
3. Of course the sales have to justify the event. This is more for Camp Eddie than fan satisfaction, but the facts are, if it doen't sell, it shouldn't have been PPV.
4. Actually deliver on the night - No good having an all British unification hyped to the max if the 2 fighters don't throw a punch

There are some PPV in recent years that have ticked one box, a few ticked two, I can't think of a single show that delivered on all fronts and some could argue that one or two shows have come up short in every department

Is PPV an utterly failed venture?

I mean where do you start with this post?

The beginning

You are claiming that something which makes millions is a failure. You are basing this on the fact you dont believe the main event was world class. But if that wasnt world calls then how exactly would you like to define 'world class'? 2 fighters who hold world titles, fighting each other.

The fight was very much a world class match up, As I said in the OP, many PPV's tick one or two boxes, none tick them all

Also what did you expect from the fight, because your point seems to be quite confusing. You wanted more action but also insist it has to be a close match up. You do realise that elite level fighters have the utmost respect for each others capabilities don;t you? This is why so few truly world class fights end up just being bar brawl-esque middle of the ring barnstormers. The top teams in the premier league often play out snoozefest draws. It's called tactics and sticking to a game plan. Something boxers work on throughout their training camp.

There's a big difference between being respectful and refusing to throw a punch for 6 rounds.
I bought Mayweather vs Pacquiao expecting a dull fight. I expected better entertainment last night from 2 exciting fighters.
Did I expect it to be a bit more cagey than their usual fights? Of course.... did I expect that dross? No.
Did you expect Quigg to start THAT slow?

The undercard - why does this need to be stacked with other top level fighters? the whole show is there to make money, maybe you dont understand how it works with the payments and who gets what (the fighters/managers have the biggest say and also call shots on how much is spent on the undercard) but why would they spend more money than they need to.

OK, for starters, please stop talking to me like I'm a fornicating moron. Your condescending tone is wearing thin now.
no, I don't know the intricate workings of the fight game, but yes I know enough to understand how it works. There are very greedy men trying to make money.
I, on the other side of the equation, am a customer who demands value for my money. PPV's very very seldom deliver that.
In fact televised boxing seldom does, I get more value from Youtube videos from the 60s these day

I was there last night and sat next to a couple who had paid £1600 for their seats each. They had been to 2 small hall shows before and they said how good an event it was. The place and atmosphere was unreal. I've been to a lot of shows but last nights was the best by far. Fair play to matchroom/cyclone, it was professional and executed very well. It will have also made a lot of money and people will go back because of how good it was.

I can't speak for the atmosphere at the live show. But then I'm not critising the venue, the atmosphere or the live event. I'm criticising the telvised product that did not provide value for money, which is becoming a recurring theme.

Ultimately you have to realise that this is professional boxing, the guys in the ring are putting their health on the line and they have a lot riding on the outcome so when they're cautious and not looking to blast the other guy out and they stick to the game plan it's understandable. Going out there aiming for a ko every round would be like liverpool playing 10 up front. To these guys it's a job, yes we want them to entertain but in reality they want to keep winning and earning money.

Got it. Cheers
I, like you, pay their wages and they promised something they blatantly failed to deliver.
I pay for a product, as a customer I have a right to expect a certain level of return
also, I don't do my job very well, I get a bollocking from my paymasters.
Again, there is a very very large difference between fighting defensively (which I have a great appreciation for) and fighting without actually fighting.

Maybe you need to reassess the reasons you watch boxing and what you want to get out of it. Instead of paying for a PPV maybe just stick rocky on instead!

I watch boxing for a number of reasons, one of them is to see grown men punch each other

davie wrote:

Kingfield wrote:

davie wrote:When was the last one that meritted actually being PPV?

For me it has to tick more than one box, people vary on what is the top priortiy here but for me it really should deliver on all the following fronts:

1. Have a top class main event - High profile fight, MUST be at world class, should be competitive 60/40 type fight at very least
2. Have a good undercard - Some good names AND competitive fights. I'm not asking for 3 world title fights on the bill, just better than Gaving McDonnell
3. Of course the sales have to justify the event. This is more for Camp Eddie than fan satisfaction, but the facts are, if it doen't sell, it shouldn't have been PPV.
4. Actually deliver on the night - No good having an all British unification hyped to the max if the 2 fighters don't throw a punch

There are some PPV in recent years that have ticked one box, a few ticked two, I can't think of a single show that delivered on all fronts and some could argue that one or two shows have come up short in every department

Is PPV an utterly failed venture?

I mean where do you start with this post?

The beginning

You are claiming that something which makes millions is a failure. You are basing this on the fact you dont believe the main event was world class. But if that wasnt world calls then how exactly would you like to define 'world class'? 2 fighters who hold world titles, fighting each other.

The fight was very much a world class match up, As I said in the OP, many PPV's tick one or two boxes, none tick them all

Also what did you expect from the fight, because your point seems to be quite confusing. You wanted more action but also insist it has to be a close match up. You do realise that elite level fighters have the utmost respect for each others capabilities don;t you? This is why so few truly world class fights end up just being bar brawl-esque middle of the ring barnstormers. The top teams in the premier league often play out snoozefest draws. It's called tactics and sticking to a game plan. Something boxers work on throughout their training camp.

There's a big difference between being respectful and refusing to throw a punch for 6 rounds.
I bought Mayweather vs Pacquiao expecting a dull fight. I expected better entertainment last night from 2 exciting fighters.
Did I expect it to be a bit more cagey than their usual fights? Of course.... did I expect that dross? No.
Did you expect Quigg to start THAT slow?

The undercard - why does this need to be stacked with other top level fighters? the whole show is there to make money, maybe you dont understand how it works with the payments and who gets what (the fighters/managers have the biggest say and also call shots on how much is spent on the undercard) but why would they spend more money than they need to.

OK, for starters, please stop talking to me like I'm a effing moron. Your condescending tone is wearing thin now.
no, I don't know the intricate workings of the fight game, but yes I know enough to understand how it works. There are very greedy men trying to make money.
I, on the other side of the equation, am a customer who demands value for my money. PPV's very very seldom deliver that.
In fact televised boxing seldom does, I get more value from Youtube videos from the 60s these day

I was there last night and sat next to a couple who had paid £1600 for their seats each. They had been to 2 small hall shows before and they said how good an event it was. The place and atmosphere was unreal. I've been to a lot of shows but last nights was the best by far. Fair play to matchroom/cyclone, it was professional and executed very well. It will have also made a lot of money and people will go back because of how good it was.

I can't speak for the atmosphere at the live show. But then I'm not critising the venue, the atmosphere or the live event. I'm criticising the telvised product that did not provide value for money, which is becoming a recurring theme.

Ultimately you have to realise that this is professional boxing, the guys in the ring are putting their health on the line and they have a lot riding on the outcome so when they're cautious and not looking to blast the other guy out and they stick to the game plan it's understandable. Going out there aiming for a ko every round would be like liverpool playing 10 up front. To these guys it's a job, yes we want them to entertain but in reality they want to keep winning and earning money.

Got it. Cheers
I, like you, pay their wages and they promised something they blatantly failed to deliver.
I pay for a product, as a customer I have a right to expect a certain level of return
also, I don't do my job very well, I get a bollocking from my paymasters.
Again, there is a very very large difference between fighting defensively (which I have a great appreciation for) and fighting without actually fighting.

Maybe you need to reassess the reasons you watch boxing and what you want to get out of it. Instead of paying for a PPV maybe just stick rocky on instead!

I watch boxing for a number of reasons, one of them is to see grown men punch each other

Boxing Prospect wrote:Sick of the idea that "this fight needs PPV", if that's the case then why is PPV used in so few countries whilst those countries get solid matches? Maybe, our fighters are over paid or something, maybe too much is spent on the teams running the events, or maybe other corners could be cut, there was something like 5 or 6 people working TV for Sky (Nelson, Smith, Froch, Watt, Halling, Robinson) did we need to shell out for those? Maybe Sky could start cutting the extra costs, especially when some of them are bloody useless.

It doesn't help when the under-card seems to go on forever but go nowhere. There was some excitement in the Burton/Shinkwin and McCcullogh/Lowe fights, and Taylor and Fitzgerald looked good (though case could be that they should both have been on a Sky Sports card), however Burnett and McDonnell stunk the spot out and then the main event failed to live up to expectations.

How McDonnell was in the co-feature is a bloody mystery in it's self, that was a terrible idea.

dalcumly wrote:While we're on the PPV theme, and in particular Frampton v Quigg for a world title fight, can someone shed a light on some guy called Rigondeaux. Who is he exactly? Oh, I've just remembered he's the world champion, but nobody is prepared to put him on PPV because he's too good!

keithmoonhangover wrote:In fairness to Mr Hearn, he can't make the fight be a classic. Ditto any other promoter in the world. They put the card together and hope. I didn't think last night's fight would have been a classic, but I did quite enjoy it.

As far as value for money is concerned, I thought the Joshua-Whyte bill was worth every penny.