Are 'great' undercards that important?

[Strategic1]

Great undercards for PPV events are always welcome. DEFINITELY.
It can make potentiallly make a night of boxing more entertaining...

BUT...

Is it really necessary or all that important? I'd argue no. Why?
Because these 'great' undercard fights would be showcases on the premium cable boxing shows on HBO and Showtime. We're paying for premium cable to watch boxing. So we like to see good fights. Great undercard fights would be good fights for these shows. If you fill the undercards with too many 'great' fights, there won't be much left for regular shows throughout the year. I like it spread out.

For hardcore fans, we already have subscriptions to HBO and/or Showtime. So having a 'great' undercard isn't all that necessary because the better fights will be saved for regular boxing shows.

I do like to have 1 really intriguing undercard fight however. It is great exposure for fighters. But to have multiple 'great' fights is a LUXURY. Yes. But not that necessary.

What's your opinion on this?

[djt117]

Great undercards for PPV events are always welcome. DEFINITELY.
It can make potentiallly make a night of boxing more entertaining...

BUT...

Is it really necessary or all that important? I'd argue no. Why?
Because these 'great' undercard fights would be showcases on the premium cable boxing shows on HBO and Showtime. We're paying for premium cable to watch boxing. So we like to see good fights. Great undercard fights would be good fights for these shows. If you fill the undercards with too many 'great' fights, there won't be much left for regular shows throughout the year. I like it spread out.

For hardcore fans, we already have subscriptions to HBO and/or Showtime. So having a 'great' undercard isn't all that necessary because the better fights will be saved for regular boxing shows.

I do like to have 1 really intriguing undercard fight however. It is great exposure for fighters. But to have multiple 'great' fights is a LUXURY. Yes. But not that necessary.

What's your opinion on this?

Bob, is that you? ROFL

[Mike D]

Strategic makes good points.

I'd honestly rather have a bunch of quality fights spread over the course of the year than a few super stacked PPV cards.

For example, I was actually a little disappointed that the Matthysse/Garcia fight was on the Floyd/Canelo card. Why? Because I was going to get the Floyd/Canelo fight regardless. Having the Lucas-Danny fight on that card took away a potential great fight night later on down the road on Showtime Championship Boxing. I would have made a night out of it just for the Danny/Lucas fight alone. But instead it just became an appetizer to Floyd/Canelo.

Like Strategic said -- it's not that we want bum ass undercards on PPVs, but there needs to be balance so we can still have plenty of great regular subscription HBO & Showtime fights as well.

Now that said...it's not like we've had this problem lately, as there have been a seemingly endless supply of bum undercards

[firstborn]

Great undercards for PPV events are always welcome. DEFINITELY.
It can make potentiallly make a night of boxing more entertaining...

BUT...

Is it really necessary or all that important? I'd argue no. Why?
Because these 'great' undercard fights would be showcases on the premium cable boxing shows on HBO and Showtime. We're paying for premium cable to watch boxing. So we like to see good fights. Great undercard fights would be good fights for these shows. If you fill the undercards with too many 'great' fights, there won't be much left for regular shows throughout the year. I like it spread out.

For hardcore fans, we already have subscriptions to HBO and/or Showtime. So having a 'great' undercard isn't all that necessary because the better fights will be saved for regular boxing shows.

I do like to have 1 really intriguing undercard fight however. It is great exposure for fighters. But to have multiple 'great' fights is a LUXURY. Yes. But not that necessary.

What's your opinion on this?

I respect your opinion but I subscribe to HBO/SHO for the overall programming, not just boxing so it doesn't bother me that much. However when I spend money soley for a boxing event I want to feel like I've received my money's worth by viewing something special. Watching hours of highly anticipated or intriguing fights fits that bill, not just one main event.

IMO, one showcase fight is not worth spending $75.......

[Strategic1]

Strategic makes good points.

I'd honestly rather have a bunch of quality fights spread over the course of the year than a few super stacked PPV cards.

For example, I was actually a little disappointed that the Matthysse/Garcia fight was on the Floyd/Canelo card. Why? Because I was going to get the Floyd/Canelo fight regardless. Having the Lucas-Danny fight on that card took away a potential great fight night later on down the road on Showtime Championship Boxing. I would have made a night out of it just for the Danny/Lucas fight alone. But instead it just became an appetizer to Floyd/Canelo.

Like Strategic said -- it's not that we want bum ass undercards on PPVs, but there needs to be balance so we can still have plenty of great regular subscription HBO & Showtime fights as well.

Now that said...it's not like we've had this problem lately, as there have been a seemingly endless supply of bum undercards

Yes. Well put. You provided better supporting arguments than my original post.

A good compromise would be cheaper PPV's for fights that aren't in high-demand or what I'd call 'epic' .. Instead of $70 HD PPV's... They should be $50 or something like that.

A good example is PAC-Algieri,...Floyd-Maidana. IMO, it would be better value if it was cheaper.

Legit PPV fights at full price...ex. Floyd-Canelo, PAC-Bradley 2, PAC-JMM, Floyd-Cotto, Cotto-Martinez

[Strategic1]

I respect your opinion but I subscribe to HBO/SHO for the overall programming, not just boxing so it doesn't bother me that much. However when I spend money soley for a boxing event I want to feel like I've received my money's worth by viewing something special. Watching hours of highly anticipated or intriguing fights fits that bill, not just one main event.

IMO, one showcase fight is not worth spending $75.......

I understand. I wish they would consider cheaper PPV's. But I guess, it will never work out that way.

For weaker fights like PAC-Algieri, Floyd-Maidana, Canelo-Lara, I'd prefer a stronger undercard for the price. It's all about value we're getting for our dollars.

'Epic' fights sell on their own. Too bad we're not seeing the best fights being made.

[jas]

no they are not, i want to see as many crap fights as possible,

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

for boxing fans yes

[Suavecito80]

Bob, is that you? ROFL

I know right? I mean people love dropping 40-60 bucks on a PPV fight to watch 3 shitty fights and one good one. Seems legit.

[Juof]

There should be at least one semi big name/up and coming star who's not yet ppv material co featuring. Floyd vs maidana card is looking shit but it is what it is. It's on a Mexican holiday and floyds trying to cater for Mexicans aswell seeing as maidana isn't a Mexican. Not only that but the first fight had jleon love, Adrien broner and khan on the undercard and still flopped and all those big names are obviously looking to get payed.