BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:59

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:35

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:27

So you’re saying that people that normally refuse to watch your bouts… or have never even seen you compete… are suddenly going to tune in?

So there’s no such thing as brand recognition then?

So does this also mean that the millions around the world that normally watch Canelo compete, would suddenly stop tuning in if he engaged in an uncompetitive matchup?

No, I'm not saying that.

Do you believe, that it's possibe to count people aware of a fighter only by his PPV numbers?

Die-hard boxing aficionados only account for a very small portion of viewers.

And if you’re claiming a lot of casuals are aware of Crawford, but haven’t been tuning in, then what’s the reason for this?

Like I keep saying, Crawford-Spence Jr. will do very decent numbers, but they won’t be huge.

And the majority of people who’ll tune in, will be doing so because they’ve previously watched Errol’s bouts.

The commercial numbers mean something.

Numbers mean something, but not everything. Relying alone on statistics and leaving circumstances behind makes statistics misleading. People will buy Crawford-Spence majorly because it will be a fight of the two undefeated and highly accomplished competitors for the unified welterweight championship.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:07

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:59

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:35

No, I'm not saying that.

Do you believe, that it's possibe to count people aware of a fighter only by his PPV numbers?

Die-hard boxing aficionados only account for a very small portion of viewers.

And if you’re claiming a lot of casuals are aware of Crawford, but haven’t been tuning in, then what’s the reason for this?

Like I keep saying, Crawford-Spence Jr. will do very decent numbers, but they won’t be huge.

And the majority of people who’ll tune in, will be doing so because they’ve previously watched Errol’s bouts.

The commercial numbers mean something.

Numbers mean something, but not everything. Relying alone on statistics and leaving circumstances behind makes statistics misleading. People will buy Crawford-Spence majorly because it will be a fight of the two undefeated and highly accomplished competitors for the unified welterweight championship.

Let's step away from discussing numbers, do we at least agree that Spence Jr. is the A-side?

If not, are you claiming that any Crawford-Spence Jr. bout must be on a 50-50 basis, even though you concede that Errol's commercials are much bigger than Bud's?

I just want to clarify your stance here, because the fact you repeatedly stated 50-50, means that you don't believe in A-sides or commercial track-records.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:11

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:07

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 04:59
Die-hard boxing aficionados only account for a very small portion of viewers.

And if you’re claiming a lot of casuals are aware of Crawford, but haven’t been tuning in, then what’s the reason for this?

Like I keep saying, Crawford-Spence Jr. will do very decent numbers, but they won’t be huge.

And the majority of people who’ll tune in, will be doing so because they’ve previously watched Errol’s bouts.

The commercial numbers mean something.

Numbers mean something, but not everything. Relying alone on statistics and leaving circumstances behind makes statistics misleading. People will buy Crawford-Spence majorly because it will be a fight of the two undefeated and highly accomplished competitors for the unified welterweight championship.

Let's step away from discussing numbers, do we at least agree that Spence Jr. is the A-side?

If not, are you claiming that any Crawford-Spence Jr. bout must be on a 50-50 basis, even though you concede that Errol's commercials are much bigger than Bud's?

I just want to clarify your stance here, because the fact you repeatedly stated 50-50, means that you don't believe in A-sides or commercial track-records.

I don't believe in particularly Spence being side A against Crawford, because despite the fact of having bigger PPV numbers Spence still isn't a PPV star like Canelo or Pac, or Mayweather. His first PPV was his biggest and that's mostly because of his opponent in Mikey Garcia, not him, while Spence PPV numbers has been declining since then. His recvent PPV is higher then Crawford's recent one only on about 70k views. So, he definitely isn't a PPV star. His PPV vs Crawford won't be advertized as 'the next Spence bout', for instance, like almost every Canelo's bout is recognized by the public. Spence-Crawford is taken by the public as an even matchup by overall terms: resumes, accomplishments, marketabilities, but not some one thing of this list.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:26

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:11

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:07

Numbers mean something, but not everything. Relying alone on statistics and leaving circumstances behind makes statistics misleading. People will buy Crawford-Spence majorly because it will be a fight of the two undefeated and highly accomplished competitors for the unified welterweight championship.

Let's step away from discussing numbers, do we at least agree that Spence Jr. is the A-side?

If not, are you claiming that any Crawford-Spence Jr. bout must be on a 50-50 basis, even though you concede that Errol's commercials are much bigger than Bud's?

I just want to clarify your stance here, because the fact you repeatedly stated 50-50, means that you don't believe in A-sides or commercial track-records.

I don't believe in particularly Spence being side A against Crawford, because despite the fact of having bigger PPV numbers Spence still isn't a PPV star like Canelo or Pac, or Mayweather. His first PPV was his biggest and that's mostly because of his opponent in Mikey Garcia, not him, while Spence PPV numbers has been declining since then. His recvent PPV is higher then Crawford's recent one only on about 70k views. So, he definitely isn't a PPV star. His PPV vs Crawford won't be advertized as 'the next Spence bout', for instance, like almost every Canelo's bout is recognized by the public. Spence-Crawford is taken by the public as an even matchup by overall terms: resumes, accomplishments, marketabilities, but not some one thing of this list.

• During 2019, Shawn Porter was attracting bigger numbers than Terence Crawford (i.e. twice as many PPV buys and 47% more non-PPV viewers).

• Terence Crawford’s PPV buys against opponents not-named Shawn Porter was: Khan [150,000]; and Postol [55,000].

• Terence Crawford’s viewing figures for all his non-PPV bouts have generally declined.

• Errol Spence Jr. has attracted more than twice as many PPV buys during his career than Terence Crawford has.

• Errol Spence Jr’s PPV buy-rate for the Shawn Porter bout was 75% greater than Terence Crawford’s own fight against the same opponent.

In my mind, Spence Jr. is either a 70-30, or at least a 60-40, A-side over Crawford.

The fight won’t happen if Crawford insists on receiving the lion’s share, as per previous interviews he’s given.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:48

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:26

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:11
Let's step away from discussing numbers, do we at least agree that Spence Jr. is the A-side?

If not, are you claiming that any Crawford-Spence Jr. bout must be on a 50-50 basis, even though you concede that Errol's commercials are much bigger than Bud's?

I just want to clarify your stance here, because the fact you repeatedly stated 50-50, means that you don't believe in A-sides or commercial track-records.

I don't believe in particularly Spence being side A against Crawford, because despite the fact of having bigger PPV numbers Spence still isn't a PPV star like Canelo or Pac, or Mayweather. His first PPV was his biggest and that's mostly because of his opponent in Mikey Garcia, not him, while Spence PPV numbers has been declining since then. His recvent PPV is higher then Crawford's recent one only on about 70k views. So, he definitely isn't a PPV star. His PPV vs Crawford won't be advertized as 'the next Spence bout', for instance, like almost every Canelo's bout is recognized by the public. Spence-Crawford is taken by the public as an even matchup by overall terms: resumes, accomplishments, marketabilities, but not some one thing of this list.

• During 2019, Shawn Porter was attracting bigger numbers than Terence Crawford (i.e. twice as many PPV buys and 47% more non-PPV viewers).

• Terence Crawford’s PPV buys against opponents not-named Shawn Porter was: Khan [150,000]; and Postol [55,000].

• Terence Crawford’s viewing figures for all his non-PPV bouts have generally declined.

• Errol Spence Jr. has attracted more than twice as many PPV buys during his career than Terence Crawford has.

• Errol Spence Jr’s PPV buy-rate for the Shawn Porter bout was 75% greater than Terence Crawford’s own fight against the same opponent.

In my mind, Spence Jr. is either a 70-30, or at least a 60-40, A-side over Crawford.

The fight won’t happen if Crawford insists on receiving the lion’s share, as per previous interviews he’s given.

Since you are relying alone on PPV numbers, will you call Jake Paul side A against Artur Beterbiev or Dmitry Bivol?

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:53

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:48

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 05:26

I don't believe in particularly Spence being side A against Crawford, because despite the fact of having bigger PPV numbers Spence still isn't a PPV star like Canelo or Pac, or Mayweather. His first PPV was his biggest and that's mostly because of his opponent in Mikey Garcia, not him, while Spence PPV numbers has been declining since then. His recvent PPV is higher then Crawford's recent one only on about 70k views. So, he definitely isn't a PPV star. His PPV vs Crawford won't be advertized as 'the next Spence bout', for instance, like almost every Canelo's bout is recognized by the public. Spence-Crawford is taken by the public as an even matchup by overall terms: resumes, accomplishments, marketabilities, but not some one thing of this list.

• During 2019, Shawn Porter was attracting bigger numbers than Terence Crawford (i.e. twice as many PPV buys and 47% more non-PPV viewers).

• Terence Crawford’s PPV buys against opponents not-named Shawn Porter was: Khan [150,000]; and Postol [55,000].

• Terence Crawford’s viewing figures for all his non-PPV bouts have generally declined.

• Errol Spence Jr. has attracted more than twice as many PPV buys during his career than Terence Crawford has.

• Errol Spence Jr’s PPV buy-rate for the Shawn Porter bout was 75% greater than Terence Crawford’s own fight against the same opponent.

In my mind, Spence Jr. is either a 70-30, or at least a 60-40, A-side over Crawford.

The fight won’t happen if Crawford insists on receiving the lion’s share, as per previous interviews he’s given.

Since you are relying alone on PPV numbers, will you call Jake Paul side A against Artur Beterbiev or Dmitry Bivol?

Jake Paul would be the commercial A-side over Spence Jr., so he'd obviously be the A-side over the anonymous (to mainstream casuals) Beterbiev and Bivol.

I’m not relying on PPV numbers alone. Instead I’m claiming the commercially bigger name is the A-side – it’s not about sporting prowess.

We both agree that Crawford is a better fighter than Spence Jr. But that’s irrelevant in terms of gauging whom the bigger commercial name is.

Have you ever heard of Guillermo Rigondeaux or Butterbean?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Jake Paul would be the commercial A-side over Spence Jr., so he'd obviously be the A-side over the anonymous (to mainstream casuals) Beterbiev and Bivol.

So, do you think, that Jake Paul with 4-0 record over debutees should receive a bigger purse percentage than the unified champion Artur Beterviev, who defeated Gvodzyk, or the WBA champion Dmitry Bivol, who defeated Joe Smith and Jean Pascal?

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 We both agree that Crawford is a better fighter than Spence Jr. But that’s irrelevant in terms of gauging whom the bigger commercial name is.

Also, we gotta agree that Crawford is a more accomplished boxer.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Have you ever heard of Guillermo Rigondeaux or Butterbean?

Yes, I have.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Jake Paul would be the commercial A-side over Spence Jr., so he'd obviously be the A-side over the anonymous (to mainstream casuals) Beterbiev and Bivol.

So, do you think, that Jake Paul with 4-0 record over debutees should receive a bigger purse percentage than the unified champion Artur Beterviev, who defeated Gvodzyk, or the WBA champion Dmitry Bivol, who defeated Joe Smith and Jean Pascal?

Yes, because he generates more MONEY. And we're talking about purse splits - aka MONEY!

I've always claimed the commercially bigger name is the A-side – it’s not about sporting prowess.

Whilst it clearly takes two to tango, if one person brings MORE MONEY to the negotiating table than the other one, then they’re considered the A-SIDE.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 We both agree that Crawford is a better fighter than Spence Jr. But that’s irrelevant in terms of gauging whom the bigger commercial name is.

Also, we gotta agree that Crawford is a more accomplished boxer.

Crawford is the vastly more accomplished boxer overall, but Spence Jr's resume at 147lbs is far superior.

Terence Crawford is a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford is probably the best welterweight on the planet. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford generates less money than Errol Spence Jr.

Therefore, Errol Spence Jr. is a bigger commercial name than Terence Crawford.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Have you ever heard of Guillermo Rigondeaux or Butterbean?

Yes, I have.

And do you understand the reason why I mentioned their names?

I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about sporting prowess.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:21

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Jake Paul would be the commercial A-side over Spence Jr., so he'd obviously be the A-side over the anonymous (to mainstream casuals) Beterbiev and Bivol.

So, do you think, that Jake Paul with 4-0 record over debutees should receive a bigger purse percentage than the unified champion Artur Beterviev, who defeated Gvodzyk, or the WBA champion Dmitry Bivol, who defeated Joe Smith and Jean Pascal?

Yes, because he generates more money.

I've always claimed the commercially bigger name is the A-side – it’s not about sporting prowess.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 We both agree that Crawford is a better fighter than Spence Jr. But that’s irrelevant in terms of gauging whom the bigger commercial name is.

Also, we gotta agree that Crawford is a more accomplished boxer.

Crawford is the vastly more accomplished boxer overall, but Spence Jr's resume at 147lbs is far superior.

Terence Crawford is a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford is probably the best welterweight on the planet. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford generates less money than Errol Spence Jr.

Therefore, Errol Spence Jr. is a bigger commercial name than Terence Crawford.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:03 Have you ever heard of Guillermo Rigondeaux or Butterbean?

Yes, I have.

And do you understand the reason why I mentioned their names?

I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about sporting prowess.

Eventually your definition of the so-called 'sporting prowess' somehow equals to PPV numbers, despite your attempts to dissociate these terms.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:25

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:21

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13
So, do you think, that Jake Paul with 4-0 record over debutees should receive a bigger purse percentage than the unified champion Artur Beterviev, who defeated Gvodzyk, or the WBA champion Dmitry Bivol, who defeated Joe Smith and Jean Pascal?

Yes, because he generates more money.

I've always claimed the commercially bigger name is the A-side – it’s not about sporting prowess.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13 Also, we gotta agree that Crawford is a more accomplished boxer.

Crawford is the vastly more accomplished boxer overall, but Spence Jr's resume at 147lbs is far superior.

Terence Crawford is a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford is probably the best welterweight on the planet. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford generates less money than Errol Spence Jr.

Therefore, Errol Spence Jr. is a bigger commercial name than Terence Crawford.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:13Yes, I have.

And do you understand the reason why I mentioned their names?

I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about sporting prowess.

Eventually your definition of the so-called 'sporting prowess' somehow equals to PPV numbers, despite your attempts to dissociate these terms.

I've never claimed that "'sporting prowess' somehow equals to PPV numbers", so why lie? I've actually claimed they aren't necessarily related!

Can't you be honest and attack my actual words? Are you that weak-minded that you've resorted to blatant lies? Anyone reading our comments in this post will surely appreciate you've lied!!!

Come on kid, you're better than that! FFS!

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:28

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:25

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:21
Yes, because he generates more money.

I've always claimed the commercially bigger name is the A-side – it’s not about sporting prowess.

Crawford is the vastly more accomplished boxer overall, but Spence Jr's resume at 147lbs is far superior.

Terence Crawford is a dead-cert first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford is probably the best welterweight on the planet. Errol Spence Jr. isn’t.

Terence Crawford generates less money than Errol Spence Jr.

Therefore, Errol Spence Jr. is a bigger commercial name than Terence Crawford.

And do you understand the reason why I mentioned their names?

I’ll give you a hint, it’s not about sporting prowess.

Eventually your definition of the so-called 'sporting prowess' somehow equals to PPV numbers, despite your attempts to dissociate these terms.

I've never claimed that "'sporting prowess' somehow equals to PPV numbers", so why lie? I've actually claimed they aren't necessarily related!

Can't you be honest and attack my actual words? Are you that weak-minded that you've resorted to blatant lies?

Come on kid, you're better than that! FFS!

Your claimed, that those terms aren't necessarily related, but your wasn't able to back it, instead you kept relating them in reality and denying doing it. Now your hysterical weeping and desperate attempts to blame me in lies prove that.

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:35Your claimed, that those terms aren't necessarily related, but your wasn't able to back it, instead you kept relating them in reality and denying doing it. Now your hysterical weeping and desperate attempts to blame me in lies prove that.

I don't even understand what that sentence means in the context of our discussion!

I've provided loads of stats - you haven't.

I have justified my claims with real-world information - you haven't.

I have told the truth - you haven't.

End of discussion!

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:37

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 06:35Your claimed, that those terms aren't necessarily related, but your wasn't able to back it, instead you kept relating them in reality and denying doing it. Now your hysterical weeping and desperate attempts to blame me in lies prove that.

I don't even understand what that sentence means in the context of our discussion!

I've provided loads of stats - you haven't.

I have justified my claims with real-world information - you haven't.

I have told the truth - you haven't.

End of discussion!

Your butt's on fire again, so you chose a correct decision to run away and extinguish it.

The Davis-Barrios PPV event did better numbers than Crawford-Porter (by a 25K margin).

Crawford-Porter only achieved 40K more buys than Holyfield-Belfort.

I originally predicted Crawford-Porter to achieve 225K buys, but at the time I thought I was being pessimistic with my numbers.

But I was wrong by 35K, with my numbers being higher than the actuals. Talk about a disappointing PPV!

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=250509

I think Tank is now a bgger draw than both craw and spence. spence vs danny garcia did about the same as tank vs barros.... we know who got the most help from there opponent on ratings there...

Spence and craw can outsell tank by fighting each other, but otherwise tank vs Loma, haney, ryan garcia, teo, shakur, josh taylor.... All do better than spence or craws second best PPV option i think.

EO is correct that Spence is the A side and should receive a larger payday than Crawford. That's how boxing has worked since the beginning of time, the more commercially recognized fighter gets the bigger purse. It's quite simple to grasp. Crawford should be willing to accept that if you really wants to fight Spence and Spence shouldn't have to low ball himself to make the fight because Crawford can't accept that he's not as commercially well known as Spence.

Are you saying that Spence Jr. should be charitable and take a pay cut to fight Terence Crawford?

Do you mean take a pay cut or take a smaller % of the purse then he usually takes? If he actually gets a pay raise but gets a smaller % of the purse then he usually gets will his ego be able to stand it?

NateJR wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 17:52 EO is correct that Spence is the A side and should receive a larger payday than Crawford. That's how boxing has worked since the beginning of time, the more commercially recognized fighter gets the bigger purse. It's quite simple to grasp. Crawford should be willing to accept that if you really wants to fight Spence and Spence shouldn't have to low ball himself to make the fight because Crawford can't accept that he's not as commercially well known as Spence.

The assesment has been correct for years. But I will say its shifting to closer to a 50-50 (its not yet, but its shifting). Off the back of Mikey and porter spence was a monster A side (i though 70-30ish), but his last 2 years he has lost a lot of moentum, and id consider 225000 buys vs Danny garcia (whos a good draw) is a failure.

Craw been free gives him options and now has a more solid claim on being the number 1 welter than he did 2 years ago. I still think spence is the A side based on numbers, but its a lot closer than it was.

thereverend wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 17:57Do you mean take a pay cut or take a smaller % of the purse then he usually takes? If he actually gets a pay raise but gets a smaller % of the purse then he usually gets will his ego be able to stand it?

Boxing-Scene, which is owned by CBS Sports, via an article written by reputable journalist Keith Idec, is reporting that the Crawford-Porter bout did less than 150K buys!

Crawford’s PPV buy-rates are dwarfed by Spence Jr's (as per the figures cited by the same Keith Idec article - Khan [125,000], Postol [50,000] & Porter [<150,000] versus Mikey Garcia [375,000], Porter [350,000] & Danny Garcia [250,000]).

Crawford is on video stating the following:

“That [Spence Jr.] fight not gonna happen because he already talking that 60//40 deal and if it ain’t 60/40 in my favor then that fight is not going to happen. Period.” Crawford told BS.com. “I accomplished way more than he did in his little career.”

It’s likely that the PPV figures between Crawford-Spence Jr. could fail to exceed 400K buys.

If Spence Jr. agrees to a 50-50 split, even though Crawford claims he wants Errol to be the B-side and accept 40%, then ‘The Truth’ could potentially end up with a smaller payday than what he earned for the Mikey Garcia and Shawn Porter bouts.

The numbers suggest that the purse split for any potential Spence-Crawford bout should really be a 70-30 split in Errol’s favour.

If you look at the numbers, what do you think?

gregregegg wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 18:01

NateJR wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 17:52 EO is correct that Spence is the A side and should receive a larger payday than Crawford. That's how boxing has worked since the beginning of time, the more commercially recognized fighter gets the bigger purse. It's quite simple to grasp. Crawford should be willing to accept that if you really wants to fight Spence and Spence shouldn't have to low ball himself to make the fight because Crawford can't accept that he's not as commercially well known as Spence.

The assesment has been correct for years. But I will say its shifting to closer to a 50-50 (its not yet, but its shifting). Off the back of Mikey and porter spence was a monster A side (i though 70-30ish), but his last 2 years he has lost a lot of moentum, and id consider 225000 buys vs Danny garcia (whos a good draw) is a failure.

Craw been free gives him options and now has a more solid claim on being the number 1 welter than he did 2 years ago. I still think spence is the A side based on numbers, but its a lot closer than it was.

Imagine if Spence had also gotten the numbers in the fight with Pacquiao? There is no question even without that who is the bigger draw.
60/40 would be fair I think now, and winner can get it for the rematch. I doubt Crawford will go for it though. The main reason the fight hasn't happened is because Crawford wanted 50/50.

neither of these dudes want this fight too badly, its so obvious unfortunately. theyll both make more vs each than vs other dudes, theyll both also get far more legacy from beating each other than the other dudes

instead, they be putting on them tutus and be giving all these indirect answers and looking the other way and be doing everything but showing dat fire to face and beat the other

https://www.ringtv.com/631044-crawford- ... -ppv-buys/

The Ring is reporting 135,000 buys...


https://www.BS.com/crawford-ma ... ht--162263

Bscene says it "didn't exceed" 150,000....

They only offered it if you bought espn plus first

Which means it isnt apples to apples to compare with any otber ppv

Porter was 31 years old vs Errol Spence.

Porter is 34 years old now, and was half way out the door vs Crawford.

Speaking of which, Crawford better hurry and make the biggest fights he can, he's reaching the end of his prime too.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑24 Nov 2021, 20:57 neither of these dudes want this fight too badly, its so obvious unfortunately. theyll both make more vs each than vs other dudes, theyll both also get far more legacy from beating each other than the other dudes

instead, they be putting on them tutus and be giving all these indirect answers and looking the other way and be doing everything but showing dat fire to face and beat the other

Maybe it's not because of they don't want this fight too badly, but just because they are sh!tty self-promotors. They can do nothing, except childish twitter wars, thus they don't get a lot of casual attention, so promotions aren't eager to invest it.