BoxRec

so a fight between two novice boxers that has a 16-1 under dog is PPV , this is just a normal learning fight for AJ not a super fight

stevedoc wrote:so a fight between two novice boxers that has a 16-1 under dog is PPV , this is just a normal learning fight for AJ not a super fight

Normal learning fight for AJ is ppv because he is hot!

Nightmare Roy wrote:You'll all fold and pay for it at the last minute and they will continue to fleece again and again.

I'd imagine most on here are too wise for that. PPVs are always aimed at casuals anyway so it doesn't make much difference what the hardcore fans think. Although I'll be interested to see how many people are willing to pay for 2 PPVs within 2 weeks. I suspect not many will, especially so close to Christmas.

I'll pay for one of the ppv's but not both so I'll toss a coin to decide which one.

palooka wrote:I'll pay for one of the ppv's but not both so I'll toss a coin to decide which one.

I'll definitely buy the Fury PPV, as it's a genuinely big, intriguing event. And if anyone has 'earned' a big money fight, it's Fury.

Not even remotely tempted to pay 20 quid for a British title fight tbh.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

palooka wrote:I'll pay for one of the ppv's but not both so I'll toss a coin to decide which one.

I'll definitely buy the Fury PPV, as it's a genuinely big, intriguing event. And if anyone has 'earned' a big money fight, it's Fury.

Not even remotely tempted to pay 20 quid for a British title fight tbh.

I thought we'd had the thin edge of the wedge already but it gets thinner and thinner; what we think and feel about it all has no bearing on the outcome, I'll watch it on YouTube in the morning.

This has to be the worst Sky PPV in living memory (I would argue slightly worse than Groves-DeGale as that was a more competitive fight - I don't really see this going past 3 rounds).

Really ludicrous that boxing fans are expected to pay extra, on top of their subscription. Talk is cheap, vote on your feet! Boycott the PPV and either don't watch or view through an "unofficial" medium.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

palooka wrote:I'll pay for one of the ppv's but not both so I'll toss a coin to decide which one.

I'll definitely buy the Fury PPV, as it's a genuinely big, intriguing event. And if anyone has 'earned' a big money fight, it's Fury.

Not even remotely tempted to pay 20 quid for a British title fight tbh.

Whats interesting about wlad battering a euro level fighter, free to air on german telly to boot. Fuckin joke of a ppv aswell..hearn is rippping the piss.

Jack B wrote:This has to be the worst Sky PPV in living memory (I would argue slightly worse than Groves-DeGale as that was a more competitive fight - I don't really see this going past 3 rounds).

Really ludicrous that boxing fans are expected to pay extra, on top of their subscription. Talk is cheap, vote on your feet! Boycott the PPV and either don't watch or view through an "unofficial" medium.

Agrees. But most on this forum are smart enough not to pay for it, its the casuals who know nothing about boxing that sky are pitching this to

It needs to be Mitchell vs Campbell for me to buy this. Sounds like Eddie's got another big name on the card, unexpected and not his fighter, sounds like they've begged Groves again.

Absolute piss take. This really is very poor of Sky to sanction this as ppv.

Joshua might be a great prospect but fighting Whyte isnt a great contest or event. These are bad times for us fans. Really, if a british title fight is ppv we have no hope with any future euro or world title fights.

Who exactly are the big earners on this card??

It's not worth the money anyway because it will probably be finished withing two rounds.
Nobody is going to pay a pound a minit.

This fight is perfect for terrestrial tv. The type of bout that partial followers tune into, maybe it'll prove a financial success, but I think this would pay longer term if it was open to all.

im clearly in the minority here, but ill buy the ppv...the reason is i refuse to pay a sky sport subscription to subsidise epl football...this way im just paying for boxing, it makes financial sense to do it this way. no contract, no subs...just give me the occassional ppv and ill buy it. i get b0xnati0n for the fights.

An absolute joke that the card is PPV.

Joshua vs Whyte? Bellew vs Masternak? Eubank vs Spike? If that is PPV, then we are totally screwed.

To watch Joshua's career live on TV is going to end up costing you about £1000 - no doubt him against Fury will end up doubling the PPV cost. That'll be next, £25, then £30 etc..

Greedy, greedy, greedy bumheads.

Two novice pros for the British title a PPV?

Fair play to him if it sells but they'll be having none of my money.

veriton wrote:im clearly in the minority here, but ill buy the ppv...the reason is i refuse to pay a sky sport subscription to subsidise epl football...this way im just paying for boxing, it makes financial sense to do it this way. no contract, no subs...just give me the occassional ppv and ill buy it. i get b0xnati0n for the fights.

Likewise.

Boycotting the PPV won’t do any good – you need to actually boycott Sky Sports, and tell them exactly why when you cancel. Sky need to see they are actually losing revenue from this.

I cancelled Sky Sports months ago. Now when I fancy watching boxing for an evening its either on allegedly or the occasional Sky PPV. Costs far less overall than a monthly Sky Sports subscription.

People get called “mugs” on here for buying a PPV, but in my opinion the real mugs are the plebeian hordes who pay a vast monthly sum to watch a bunch of overpaid perverts run around a football pitch.

Loftgroov wrote:

veriton wrote:im clearly in the minority here, but ill buy the ppv...the reason is i refuse to pay a sky sport subscription to subsidise epl football...this way im just paying for boxing, it makes financial sense to do it this way. no contract, no subs...just give me the occassional ppv and ill buy it. i get b0xnati0n for the fights.

Likewise.

Boycotting the PPV won’t do any good – you need to actually boycott Sky Sports, and tell them exactly why when you cancel. Sky need to see they are actually losing revenue from this.

I cancelled Sky Sports months ago. Now when I fancy watching boxing for an evening its either on allegedly or the occasional Sky PPV. Costs far less overall than a monthly Sky Sports subscription.

People get called “mugs” on here for buying a PPV, but in my opinion the real mugs are the plebeian hordes who pay a vast monthly sum to watch a bunch of overpaid perverts run around a football pitch.

All well and good, but what if you subscribe to a variety of sports including boxing (I won't name any specific examples in case you feel as strongly about them as you do football!)?

If you are a fan of 3-4 sports which are prevalent on Sky, of which boxing is one, you may feel your monthly subscription is good value. But the extra money for PPVs for one of your chosen sports is where it become a little bit much.....

Jack B wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:

veriton wrote:im clearly in the minority here, but ill buy the ppv...the reason is i refuse to pay a sky sport subscription to subsidise epl football...this way im just paying for boxing, it makes financial sense to do it this way. no contract, no subs...just give me the occassional ppv and ill buy it. i get b0xnati0n for the fights.

Likewise.

Boycotting the PPV won’t do any good – you need to actually boycott Sky Sports, and tell them exactly why when you cancel. Sky need to see they are actually losing revenue from this.

I cancelled Sky Sports months ago. Now when I fancy watching boxing for an evening its either on allegedly or the occasional Sky PPV. Costs far less overall than a monthly Sky Sports subscription.

People get called “mugs” on here for buying a PPV, but in my opinion the real mugs are the plebeian hordes who pay a vast monthly sum to watch a bunch of overpaid perverts run around a football pitch.

All well and good, but what if you subscribe to a variety of sports including boxing (I won't name any specific examples in case you feel as strongly about them as you do football!)?

If you are a fan of 3-4 sports which are prevalent on Sky, of which boxing is one, you may feel your monthly subscription is good value. But the extra money for PPVs for one of your chosen sports is where it become a little bit much.....

Boxing fans are a tiny minority.

It's aundantly clear Sky is marketing boxing to football fans who feel they get their money's on subscription, watching a Saturday night dust up between 2 blokes they are led to believe have bad blood is an added extra.

Sky is a disgrace. This is shameful

mind-blowingly short sighted from hearn and smith. has it not dawned on either of these fellows that its very possible that these two ppv cards, being so short a time apart, both feature headline fights which could each be over in a couple of rounds? has the aftermath of david hayes ppv laughathon been forgotten already? if eddie and adam arent trying to kill the ppv model stone dead, theyre doing a bloody good impression of a couple of guys who are

mike john wrote:mind-blowingly short sighted from hearn and smith. has it not dawned on either of these fellows that its very possible that these two ppv cards, being so short a time apart, both feature headline fights which could each be over in a couple of rounds? has the aftermath of david hayes ppv laughathon been forgotten already? if eddie and adam arent trying to kill the ppv model stone dead, theyre doing a bloody good impression of a couple of guys who are

With these both being close together it would give a good indication of what Sky can get away with, if they both sell well we may see Back to back PPVs a lot more in the future

I'm gutted I'll miss this now, but I'm not paying money for two domestic level potential mismatches and another guy who talks better than he fights against a glorified journeyman.

I hope Carl Froch doesn't change his tune when they are trying to sell this, he pretty much said that Eubank - O'Sullivan was a mismatch, hopefully he doesn't get told to say otherwise.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Nightmare Roy wrote:You'll all fold and pay for it at the last minute and they will continue to fleece again and again.

I'd imagine most on here are too wise for that. PPVs are always aimed at casuals anyway so it doesn't make much difference what the hardcore fans think. Although I'll be interested to see how many people are willing to pay for 2 PPVs within 2 weeks. I suspect not many will, especially so close to Christmas.

I won't pay for it. I've said before the only ppv's i've bought in the last year or 2 are Pacquiao v Mayweather and Froch v Groves 2.

If anything unexpected happens ie Whyte flattens him, it will be all over facebook, twitter, youtube within seconds and Matchroom will be in mourning at the loss of their cash cow to try and take them down.

It's a shame real boxing fans don't have the power to send Hearns senior & junior + the likes of Adam Smith packing. It's the general sport fans who pick up boxing when they want to be a part of it and then dump it when there's something better going on that keep these imposters in the business.