BoxRec

caldo2025 wrote:I like the comparisons made between the free Porter/Thurman fight and the Crawford/Postol PPV event. Clearly it's the difference between a network desperate for one last gasp to grab viewer attention and a mainstay that has been doing their business for over 20 years and will be here long after this PBC is officially dissolved.

The PPV numbers will be a little bit higher than Sugar Shane/Mayorga fight but i'm good with it. We, as fans, have been clamoring for unification fights and we've got a dandy with this one in which i'll gladly fork over the cash. This is it for the PBC though. If this fight can't turn their prospects around then they are done. They basically need a miracle. I'm talking Rocky II type ending where they both get knocked down and one guy gets to his feet before the count. Whatever it is, it needs to grab headlines and airtime on ESPN. Honestly, I don't expect that kind of fight. To me, this fight is going to be ugly as Porter fights always are and there will be no drama and end in a ho hum decision for Thurman.

I can't wait to see the fights that finally get made when the PBC is gone and Haymon's boxers stop thanking him in the same breath as God after fights. He's promised the world to these boxers and he's failing. That has to have an effect.

As Errol Spence said in an interview "if the fighter's aren't upset about what they're getting paid. Why should anyone else be."

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:HBO wouldn't pay for it, they had no choice. I'm glad they got it made.

PPV wont pay it either. They will raise exactly 5 cents from this PPV. Even though it is a great fight is not PPV material.

The biggest problem in Boxing is the entitlement of these huge paydays. I'm glad HBO cut their budget and I don't care if Arum loses money. If they do 100k, which is a reasonable buy rate, it will turn a profit.

This is it in a nutshell. All the promoters got so use to the PPV money from certain fighters, they thought they could do it for every fighter regardless of exposure or popularity. PBC has the right idea, but the wrong price structure. They took hundreds of millions from investors to bankroll PPV worthy fights for free. They're hoping the interest in boxing will return and bankroll the product in actual PPV sales.
Without a viable audience the money men will drift away. The fighters will be forced to accept far less and be more active.

The money in the sport should be situated on winning a title. If a fighter got a couple of million for winning a belt. Then the onus would be on getting a belt. Not on fighting, supposed pay per view fighters.

What I find more disturbing is the logic used by some promoters. For instance you have Al Haymon and Bob Arum in negotiations over Spence v Ponomarev. They can't reach an agreement so it goes to a purse bid. The bid winner will be in control of venue and date (presumably). If the bid winner isn't Haymon and depending on when this fight is scheduled to take place, it might just push back the mandatory date for Spence v Brook. Al Haymon should see the bigger picture and let Top Rank get one "over" on him for the Ponomarev fight, so that Spence can get his hands on Brook. Who could potentially have the IBF and WBO titles when they meet. With the upshot being a mega 1m+ PPV fight with Keith Thurman should Spence get past Brook.

Al is watching the pennies, but losing sight of the pounds.

For $50 I will definitely buy this one. I give a lot of respect for unification fights.

good fight but not ppv worthy. oh well

People won't pay for a 50/50 unification but would pay for mismatches all day long as long as there a big name in it. They not fans
of the best fighting the best its just names fighting names