BoxRec

I hope it is in trouble to be honest.

I like Eddie Hearn and Matchroom, but to just expect people to be alright with this being PPV, and his general tone that it is just the "hardcore" moaning, is wrong. It is bound to be the hardcore moaning, because they are the ones who actually know it's a rip off, the more casual fans can lap up any hype and jump on in without much of a clue.

I think whats leaving a bad taste here is the Eddie isn't stupid, and he is a boxing fan, he KNOWS that in its current guise this PPV would be a rip off.

orbtastic wrote:Surely Khan/Fagin was the worst PPV?

There been a few awful ppvs from Sky

Mike Tyson vs Francis/Lou Savarese
Naseem Hamed vs Manuel Calvo
Vitali Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders

Glass Joe wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Surely Khan/Fagin was the worst PPV?

There been a few awful ppvs from Sky

Mike Tyson vs Francis/Lou Savarese
Naseem Hamed vs Manuel Calvo
Vitali Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders

Klitschko/Sanders was PPV?! Lol. How the hell did that ever sell? haha.

lefty wrote:

Glass Joe wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Surely Khan/Fagin was the worst PPV?

There been a few awful ppvs from Sky

Mike Tyson vs Francis/Lou Savarese
Naseem Hamed vs Manuel Calvo
Vitali Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders

Klitschko/Sanders was PPV?! Lol. How the hell did that ever sell? haha.

yeah i kid you not i searched for my recording of it and double checked. they showed 2 fights from the bill and charge 14.95 for it.

How on earth anyone can say it's bombed when it isn't even on sale yet is beyond me.
That's not to say it won't but I prefer to deal in facts.

Promoters are already benefiting hugely by "duping" much of the public by using alphabet titles to advertise a fight and make it seem bigger and better than it actually is. What more do they want? The see no evil, hear no evil attitude of the negligent boxing media enables them to do this without too many questions asked.

I just see adding names to the bill as taking away from fans who have a Sky Sports subscription and taking away from forthcoming bills. It's seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[quote="Cholo_cws"]Promoters are already benefiting hugely by "duping" much of the public by using alphabet titles to advertise a fight and make it seem bigger and better than it actually is. What more do they want? The see no evil, hear no evil attitude of the negligent boxing media enables them to do this without too many questions asked.

I just see adding names to the bill as taking away from fans who have a Sky Sports subscription and taking away from forthcoming bills. It's seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.[/quot

This is a good post

Cholo_cws wrote:Promoters are already benefiting hugely by "duping" much of the public by using alphabet titles to advertise a fight and make it seem bigger and better than it actually is. What more do they want? The see no evil, hear no evil attitude of the negligent boxing media enables them to do this without too many questions asked.

I just see adding names to the bill as taking away from fans who have a Sky Sports subscription and taking away from forthcoming bills. It's seems like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That's a good point, we already pay good money to watch boxing on SKY and we ought to be seeing good boxers in competitive bouts - the whole thing looks shoddy.

Tyson vs etienne,i felt really ripped off after that one.

Etienne was disgraceful and if memory serves took all kinds of abuse off the crowd on his way out.

Maybe there will be a convenient injury nearer fight time ?

What Barney Francis should of said is you have two options ..... this fight either occurs on regular sky sports and you get payed accordingly or it doesnt happen at all. The majority of fans I dont think give a shit about this fight. It's not like the two of them have some massive strong hold over sky saying something along the lines of if this isnt on PPV and we dont get paid accordingly then we're head off here (wherever here might be) and fight on that channel and get such and such money. They dont have that kind of power or influence or just options! The market would dictate that if the head Honcho's hadnt given into this being on PPV.

I hope it absolutely bombs.

we cant compare any Tyson PPV to this.

Tyson is a worldwide superstar.... his fights might have been useless over here but they were actually EVENTS

I bought a Tyson UK PP and complained cause the signal didn't work during the calzaghe fight... they wouldnt give me my (mum & dads) money back cause it worked during the main event.... not sure who he was fighting that night

Parson Cross wrote:How on earth anyone can say it's bombed when it isn't even on sale yet is beyond me.
That's not to say it won't but I prefer to deal in facts.

To be fair, the opening post about this states that it's more of a recognition at sky that this needs beefing up. I'm sure they have ways of monitoring interest in potential ppvs so Sky may be basing it on some data.

From my side, i've barely seen anything about it on social media (positive anyway), none of my mates who are the target audience here have mentioned it at all and there's not been one positive thread on here about it.

Even an article on the guardian about '5 British Fights to Look Forward to this Autumn' doesn't even mention the fight.

You are right though, it hasn't bombed yet but the guys in suits at sky will be worried

I do not think any Mike Tyson PPV fight was not worthy. The opponents may have been shit but he was and is true global superstar, one of the biggest name in the history of the sport for gods sake. His fights were mega events and those nights, even the ones mentioned, were excitement that I miss now.

Nothing quite like a Mike Tyson fight night

If the biggest global superstar is being disputed for being on PPV then we are idiots. Mayweather may be huge, the biggest draw in history but go ask casual or non sports fans who he is.

The whole planet knew Mike Tyson and even today he is used in expressions, like if you have a black eye and someone would still say, "Christ you look like you fell out with Mike Tyson", and he has been retired 10 years!

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:How on earth anyone can say it's bombed when it isn't even on sale yet is beyond me.
That's not to say it won't but I prefer to deal in facts.

To be fair, the opening post about this states that it's more of a recognition at sky that this needs beefing up. I'm sure they have ways of monitoring interest in potential ppvs so Sky may be basing it on some data.

From my side, i've barely seen anything about it on social media (positive anyway), none of my mates who are the target audience here have mentioned it at all and there's not been one positive thread on here about it.

Even an article on the guardian about '5 British Fights to Look Forward to this Autumn' doesn't even mention the fight.

You are right though, it hasn't bombed yet but the guys in suits at sky will be worried

I think this is the thing, there is no interest in the fight even for hardcore boxing fans who SKY would imagine would be the most likely to buy this PPV, even if the undercard is beefed up by adding Groves or Haye unless they are worthwhile matches then it won't mean a thing, Groves beating up a Latvian punchbag is what we normally pay our monthly SKY subs for not to pay extra to see on PPV.

orbtastic wrote:Fagin

They definitely picked a pocket or two that night.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Fagin

They definitely picked a pocket or two that night.

Bullseye

Warrens Friday column saying this is a 10 round fight, surely not on PPV, they have to at least make the effort for a bauble so its 12 rounds surely.

If they add haye v Ustinov and Harrison v Briggs or slice them this becomes a Ppv event. But let's face it haye would want shed loads of money. He won't be on the bill and in the slightest chance he is it will be against some taxi driver from Latvia.

Also groves on his own isn't Ppv imo.

Finn wrote:Also groves on his own isn't Ppv imo.

Nope. He is a good opponent but not a main attraction

Riddick Blowe wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Fagin

They definitely picked a pocket or two that night.

That's a tad unfair to compare it to Khan - Fagan as previously mentioned, we also got De la Hoya vs Pacquiao with that package.
Pacquiao certainly is a PPV fighter.

Finn wrote:If they add haye v Ustinov and Harrison v Briggs or slice them this becomes a Ppv event. But let's face it haye would want shed loads of money. He won't be on the bill and in the slightest chance he is it will be against some taxi driver from Latvia.

Can't see Haye facing Ustinov at this short notice and being his 'comeback' fight. That shoulder needs a trial run. Haye v Ustinov could be hyped into a PPV event alone.

Audley Harrison is hardly the saviour of this PPV. It's going to bomb unless something miraculous can be pulled off. Eddie Hearn v allegedly in a tasty foawww rounder with Kellie Malony as a ringcard girl, anyone???

Finn wrote:If they add haye v Ustinov and Harrison v Briggs or slice them this becomes a Ppv event. But let's face it haye would want shed loads of money. He won't be on the bill and in the slightest chance he is it will be against some taxi driver from Latvia.

This is what people seem to be forgetting - Haye's smart enough to realise this PPV is likely to crash & burn so he won't want his usual large chunk of PPV sales, he'll want a large up front-fee instead, which Eddie won't want to pay as he'll also be worried about the PPV not selling & ending up out of pocket.

It'll be a miracle if Haye fights on this bill.