BoxRec

caldo2025 wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Wilder is taking the Adonis route to title defenses. He's fighting bums in his home town so he can get the knockout and run around the ring like an absolute dink. Like they just knocked out Ali or something.

Wilder has had 5 title defenses and not one of them was a mandatory. Supposedly, the WBC has mandated Adonis and Wilder's next defenses but we'll see if they find a way around those mandatory defenses.

Hopefully, this time next year we'll have ONE heavyweight champion again and his name is Anthony Joshua. Just a matter of getting him in the ring with these dopes.

I wouldn't get excited. Wilder's mandatory is Stiverne again

Their first fight was great I thought. Stiverne had a lot of quit in him in that fight though. Maybe he's got his shat together and he can make it interesting. I do like Stiverne.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was never particularly good, worse now. He just got some shine because many fans refused to accept that arreola sucks.

Enlightened-One wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: Compared to?

Any free to air show on national tv in The UK.

Shouldn’t the typical network audience figures be considered in our evaluation of the Wilder-Washington ratings? For instance, in the UK, sporting events covered by Channel 5 will never surpass their equivalents televised by the BBC or ITV.

The Wilder-Washington fight televised by FOX peaked at 1.76m viewers on the 25th February, the week prior (during the same time-slot and network), ’24: Legacy’ peaked at 938K (on the 18th).

Therefore, the peak audience figures of last Saturday's PBC event enjoyed 88% more viewers than the weekly TV show that is typically aired by the FOX network during the same time-slot, despite the PBC going head-to-head against two other sporting events covered by rival networks.

The peak audience figures for the Wilder-Washington bout are also 22% higher than the ratings received for Deontay’s previous fight against Chris Arreola that was televised by the same FOX TV network during the same time-slot.

In terms of your remark about UK ratings, it was reported in November last year that the average audience viewing figures of a Super-Sunday Premier League game in the UK is only 1.03m.

The FA Cup final in the UK only attracted 6.7m viewers (BBC & BT Sport combined).

Rather than express criticism, please explain the figures that you deem wholly acceptable for the PBC to achieve, in the context of Haymon's company being a fairly new business venture, with audience figures growing?

Didn't the UFC figures start low and then organically grew over time?

gilgamesh wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
I wouldn't get excited. Wilder's mandatory is Stiverne again

Their first fight was great I thought. Stiverne had a lot of quit in him in that fight though. Maybe he's got his shat together and he can make it interesting. I do like Stiverne.

I wouldn't count Stiverne having gotten his sh*t together. He's only fought once since the Wilder fight, and that was a close decision win over Derric Rossy. That was 1 year and 3 months ago. He didn't fight at all in 2016.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:In theory it is, but you have to get an antenna box and you'd have 3 or 4 channels. Everyone pays for cable. Christ my bill is usually over $300 a month so it's no more free than HBO.

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

mickey1975 wrote: Any free to air show on national tv in The UK.

Shouldn’t the typical network audience figures be considered in our evaluation of the Wilder-Washington ratings? For instance, in the UK, sporting events covered by Channel 5 will never surpass their equivalents televised by the BBC or ITV.

The Wilder-Washington fight televised by FOX peaked at 1.76m viewers on the 25th February, the week prior (during the same time-slot and network), ’24: Legacy’ peaked at 938K (on the 18th).

Therefore, the peak audience figures of last Saturday's PBC event enjoyed 88% more viewers than the weekly TV show that is typically aired by the FOX network during the same time-slot, despite the PBC going head-to-head against two other sporting events covered by rival networks.

The peak audience figures for the Wilder-Washington bout are also 22% higher than the ratings received for Deontay’s previous fight against Chris Arreola that was televised by the same FOX TV network during the same time-slot.

In terms of your remark about UK ratings, it was reported in November last year that the average audience viewing figures of a Super-Sunday Premier League game in the UK is only 1.03m.

The FA Cup final in the UK only attracted 6.7m viewers (BBC & BT Sport combined).

Rather than express criticism, please explain the figures that you deem wholly acceptable for the PBC to achieve, in the context of Haymon's company being a fairly new business venture, with audience figures growing?

Didn't the UFC figures start low and then organically grew over time?

Is FOX TV network a free to air channel?

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:
Shouldn’t the typical network audience figures be considered in our evaluation of the Wilder-Washington ratings? For instance, in the UK, sporting events covered by Channel 5 will never surpass their equivalents televised by the BBC or ITV.

The Wilder-Washington fight televised by FOX peaked at 1.76m viewers on the 25th February, the week prior (during the same time-slot and network), ’24: Legacy’ peaked at 938K (on the 18th).

Therefore, the peak audience figures of last Saturday's PBC event enjoyed 88% more viewers than the weekly TV show that is typically aired by the FOX network during the same time-slot, despite the PBC going head-to-head against two other sporting events covered by rival networks.

The peak audience figures for the Wilder-Washington bout are also 22% higher than the ratings received for Deontay’s previous fight against Chris Arreola that was televised by the same FOX TV network during the same time-slot.

In terms of your remark about UK ratings, it was reported in November last year that the average audience viewing figures of a Super-Sunday Premier League game in the UK is only 1.03m.

The FA Cup final in the UK only attracted 6.7m viewers (BBC & BT Sport combined).

Rather than express criticism, please explain the figures that you deem wholly acceptable for the PBC to achieve, in the context of Haymon's company being a fairly new business venture, with audience figures growing?

Didn't the UFC figures start low and then organically grew over time?

Is FOX TV network a free to air channel?

I'm no expert in US television networks, but I believe it is.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I answered your question. It's technically free but I'd say that well over 99% of households pay for it with their cable/satellite plans.

boxing_rocks wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I answered your question. It's technically free but I'd say that well over 99% of households pay for it with their cable/satellite plans.

They would pay regardless to watch news, popular sports, series, etc., so watching boxing on those channels really is free.

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:
Is FOX TV network a free to air channel?

I'm no expert in US television networks, but I believe it is.

It wasn't a sarcastic question, I'm British and have no genuine idea.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Rob3_142 wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: I'm no expert in US television networks, but I believe it is.

It wasn't a sarcastic question, I'm British and have no genuine idea.

My response was sincere. I'm sorry if I inadvertently caused offence.

Kalan wrote:There were a ton of channels when Ali fought Evangelista... You'd have to go back to the 1950's to get 3... But people had other things to do then, like make out and pet away with a cute girl at the drive-in movie... or go out and play with the neighborhood kids as happens less today... or play cards, checkers, or board games on the front porch with the neighbors while smoking, drinking, and snacking away. Or just BSing over the back fence while tending to the garden. Or sitting down to dinner together and doing the dishes afterwards. The days before smart phones, microwaves, dishwashers, 6 feet wide TV screens with surround sound, and lightning fast computers.