Ppv is gonna end soon because of Streaming. It is illogical to pay $60 for a ppv when you can stream for free but to each his own :)Badhusker wrote:I honestly cannot believe PPV even exists anymore. Get a brain, get a stream.
I probably would, I end up buying most ppv over here and this is a good fight two undefeated fighters in there prime and probably one and two at there weight if you compare this to ppv I've brought over here (Bellew/Cleverley springs to mindImpractical Poster wrote:You would buy this otherwise?afcmarshall wrote:I'm not but only because I'm not in the US and is on allegedly here in the uk
) it would be a no brainer. Thurman/Porter was a great fight that you got for free so if I was American the way I would look at it is that I've watched two good fights in a few weeks and only had to pay ppv once.$50SenorPipino wrote:I didn't even realize this fight was on PPV until I saw a commercial for it Friday night during the Spanish language boxing telecasts.
It's hard to believe that it could draw 100,000 but the beauty of PPV is that if it doesn't interest you, then you don't have to pay for it.
A lot of fights wouldn't have a television slot available, so PPV is a godsend for some of these bouts getting made.
Crawford-Postol is "must-miss" entertainment for casual fans (either free or on PPV) but the real boxing fans recognize it as a quality bout worth paying for as long as the price isn't exorbitant.
There has been illegal cable boxes since the late 80's.scallum2015 wrote:Ppv is gonna end soon because of Streaming. It is illogical to pay $60 for a ppv when you can stream for free but to each his own :)Badhusker wrote:I honestly cannot believe PPV even exists anymore. Get a brain, get a stream.
I guess you can't teach charisma and personality.StrapMeUp wrote:Terrible undercard. I'm a Crawford fan and I like a good pure boxer but this fight has the potential to be a stinker.
I watched Crawford live in orlando stink up Cotto-rod undercard vs some eastern euro, I have a feeling Crawford is going to box with Postol. I hope i'm wrong, I hope both fighters lay it on the line seeing how it's on PPV. I like Postol and I backed him to outbox Matthysse when no one thought he could.
As a Crawford fan I wish he'd show some more charisma, he's incredibly talented but stale personality. This combined with no one knowing wth is going to happen next with either fighter I seriously doubt this PPV is going to capture the imagination of the casual fans. HARDcore boxing fans and some ppl from Nebraska are the only ppl that are going to be interested in this PPV. Also 140 is pretty dull right now winner is the king of the division so that is nice.
I'm sorry but as a boxing fan I demand more. We need more Super 6 type tournaments for the fans.
Can you imagine a Super 6 tournament at Welter Weight?
Broner v
Crawford
Spence v
Brook
Garcia v
Thurman
Wild Card Porter type fighter
If boxing did more positive things like this 1000% guarantee more interest/buys from casual fans.
I agree with your point entirely. Besides wanting to see the fight though I do want to support the sport and match making this is probably like 20% of the reason why I would buy the fight mostly though I want to see the fight.Lackeos wrote:I think this fight deserves to be bought, to reward the matchmaking, but it's like an $8 value. I'm sure they'll be charging more than that, so... sorry. I think all sports ppv's generally overcharge, and some of the fans are overly willing to pay for overpriced shows. If we could get ppv's that were more in the $10, $15, and $20 range, and order them more frequently, then I think that would be a more reasonable system.
I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.Enlightened-One wrote:Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.
HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.Impractical Poster wrote:I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.Enlightened-One wrote:Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.
Hate to be one of these types of guys as well, but the horizon isn't looking good for the sport. When rumors of a top MMA fighter bringing a retired boxer out of retirement being the top grossing fight to be made within the sport, there is something wrong.
Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.Enlightened-One wrote:HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.Impractical Poster wrote:I had forgotten all about following up on this. Yeah, sounds like it did right around $50K.Enlightened-One wrote:Dan Rafael believed that the Crawford-Postol achieved 48K PPV buys. Apparently Bob Arum previously claimed the break-even point was 80K.
Hate to be one of these types of guys as well, but the horizon isn't looking good for the sport. When rumors of a top MMA fighter bringing a retired boxer out of retirement being the top grossing fight to be made within the sport, there is something wrong.
I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.
There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.
My comments about the UFC pay-per-view model are purely based on the overall underlying trend rather than one-off exceptions to the general rule.Impractical Poster wrote:Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.Enlightened-One wrote:HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.
I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.
There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.
There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.Enlightened-One wrote:My comments about the UFC pay-per-view model are purely based on the overall underlying trend rather than one-off exceptions to the general rule.Impractical Poster wrote:Actually, the UFC has had 4 of their top 5 grossing PPVs ever within the last year alone.Enlightened-One wrote:HBO have cut their boxing budget, but I have not had the time to research the reason why.
I think it's because of Time Warner’s disappointing profits towards the end of last year compelled HBO sports to reduce its funding of non-PPV bouts, which is the reason why the Crawford-Postol fight had to be funded by PPV buys and also the reason why they released Pacquiao from his exclusive contract with them for taking the Vargas bout.
There are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all sports and the PPV model is losing popularity also, as we’ve witnessed in diminishing buys for the UFC, WWE and also recent boxing events.
Like I said before, it’s inevitable that there are peaks and troughs, in terms of the ongoing popularity for all niche sports… and I guess it’ll take a while for the UFC to build new brand names to replace the Ronda Rousey’s, the Brock Lesnar’s and possibly the Conor McGregor’s of the MMA world.
The same applies to boxing, with the departure of the likes of Mayweather, Pacquiao and Cotto, because apart from Canelo… there aren’t any new superstars with crossover appeal that can transcend the sport to the mainstream, whilst also having the potential to become household names.
I’m not really an MMA “expert”, but I did post my source that I used for my claim (did you check it?), which indicates a general decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between 2009 & 2015, but if you’re convinced that the trend is now showing an increase in popularity… then I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter and concede your point.Impractical Poster wrote:There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.
http://www.tapology.com/search/mma-even ... ys-buyrate
Alright man. If you want to get into this to prove your point that UFC PPVs are tanking and the model is going away, this is a piss poor example. It started inclining mid 2015 again, and you totally neglected to add the past year. The PPV model is not hurting. The sport of boxing is hurting. The recent spike in UFC PPV numbers is a tell tale sign of where the sport is headed. At no time in it's history has it had a year like this one. You use a specific 5.5 year time period to justify your stance. In other words, a trough. And even then, the decline in those 5.5 years was extremely mild. I didn't take the time and draw up a spreadsheet, I just looked at the numbers throughout their history and saw that as a whole, until quite recently it had been pretty steady. But if you want to say that UFC PPVs are on a decline, by all means. I just came on to give you the facts.Enlightened-One wrote:I’m not really an MMA “expert”, but I did post my source that I used for my claim (did you check it?), which indicates a general decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between 2009 & 2015, but if you’re convinced that the trend is now showing an increase in popularity… then I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on the matter and concede your point.Impractical Poster wrote:There is no trend of UFC PPVs declining.. Of course there are peaks and troughs, but the overall trend of UFC PPVs, if anything, is going up, not down. Not sure how you can call having four out the five highest grossing PPVs happening with one years time a one off. It's a steep incline. And even before that, it wasn't in decline. It was pretty steady.
http://www.tapology.com/search/mma-even ... ys-buyrate
EDIT: I’ve just copied and pasted the UFC PPV data supplied by your own Tapology source into an Excel spread sheet and then inserted a linear trendline.
Guess what? Your own data actually confirmed my original claim that there has been a steady decline in UFC PPV buy-rates between the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2015.
I never said that. I merely performed a trend analysis of the PPV stats from your source and submitted the Excel results.Impractical Poster wrote:Alright man. If you want to get into this to prove your point that UFC PPVs are tanking and the model is going away...
It’s your data, which you previously supported.Impractical Poster wrote:...this is a piss poor example.
I didn’t say otherwise.Impractical Poster wrote:It started inclining mid 2015 again…
My original claim, which you repeatedly challenged, relates to the steady decline in the UFC’s PPV buy-rate between 2009 and 2015. I even supplied information that supported this theory… and so did you!Impractical Poster wrote:… and you totally neglected to add the past year.
If that’s your opinion, then fine. I don’t know what “hurting” means in your context, so I’ll side-step this point.Impractical Poster wrote:The PPV model is not hurting.
Yes, but boxing’s popularity (historically-speaking) has always been a seemingly constant cycle of peaks and troughs, a point you previously agreed with.Impractical Poster wrote:The sport of boxing is hurting.
So far, the UFC has enjoyed a very good 2016, but my original claim relates to the underlying PPV buy-rate trend between 2009 and 2015. I never commented on anything else.Impractical Poster wrote:The recent spike in UFC PPV numbers is a tell tale sign of where the sport is headed. At no time in it's history has it had a year like this one.
I justified it by supplying my own data and then you kindly (but inadvertently) supported my stance by giving me even more data to endorse my theory.Impractical Poster wrote:You use a specific 5.5 year time period to justify your stance.
I commented on a six year trough, whereas you’re commenting on a 12 month peak... or to use your own words... "a spike", which is too short a period to boldly proclaim as a long-term trend.Impractical Poster wrote:In other words, a trough.
It wasn’t that mild, because there were an awful lot of MMA websites discussing the matter. I didn’t do a J.K. Rowling and creatively formulate a fictional scenario.Impractical Poster wrote:And even then, the decline in those 5.5 years was extremely mild.
You formulated an opinion without analysing the trend that those numbers illustrated. Whereas I took 15 seconds out of my life to review the stats and formulate an opinion based on a statistical analysis that Excel calculated for me.Impractical Poster wrote:I didn't take the time and draw up a spreadsheet...
I only claimed what is written in this thread and I have not made any derogatory remarks about the UFC.Impractical Poster wrote:I just looked at the numbers throughout their history and saw that as a whole, until quite recently it had been pretty steady
You can’t really take the moral high ground, when you’ve already admitted to failing to analyse the numbers that you previously claimed contradicted my argument, when in fact they actually endorsed it?Impractical Poster wrote:But if you want to say that UFC PPVs are on a decline, by all means. I just came on to give you the facts.