By Cliff Rold

It “shouldn’t be on pay per view.”

Probably not.

That’s too bad.

One of the biggest complaints among boxing fans is that the best don’t fight the best. That isn’t the case this weekend. Whether its TBRB, Ring, ESPN, the UK’s Boxing Monthly, or even the sometimes-puzzling algorithms of BoxRec, agreement is near universal.

WBO 140 lb. titlist Terrence Crawford (28-0, 20 KO) and WBC 140 lb. titlist Viktor Postol (28-0, 12 KO) are the two best fighters in their division. The winner of this unification clash will have a claim to history’s crown at Jr. welterweight, vacant only briefly since Danny Garcia exited to welterweight proper.

This is the best fighting the best, in their prime, without a single loss between them. It’s the traditional but waning professional prestige of the US against the rising strength of the one-time Soviet bloc (with the UK outpacing just about everyone right now in terms of titles collected).

As a fight fan looking at the fight alone, what’s not to like? 

Sure, it’s not the best possible outcome for the sport. The best possible outcome was on display a few weeks ago. Keith Thurman-Shawn Porter was on free terrestrial television, drew almost four millions eyes, and delivered a hell of a show. That outlet wasn’t available here.

It would be great if this fight were at least on HBO. It’s not. Budget constraints exist and the two fighters wanted bigger purses, more reward for their risk, than the budget had room for. Pay-per-view was the best path to get there.

One hopes we get a good fight this weekend and it would be great if the most possible people were able to tune in. That is unlikely. Fewer people will see the fight live. That’s almost always the case when there is an additional charge. A replay is sure to be found on HBO a week later and many may opt to wait.

It doesn’t change the product in the ring. There are so many fascinating questions in this one. Both men appear to be facing the best opponent of their careers. Postol has the height advantage  (5’11 to 5’8) and rides the wave of being the first man to stop Lucas Matthysse. Crawford, already a former lightweight champion, is a skillful boxer with a chip on his shoulder, the higher knockout percentage, and a lightweight classic already under his belt against Yuriorkis Gamboa.

While odds makers favor Crawford, the eye test says this one may be every bit the toss up Sergey Kovalev-Andre Ward looks like for later this year.

If that’s not what is deemed worthy of pay-per-view by fans, than what is?

There is an answer to that question and finding that answer does not require defending the choice to put this fight on that platform; it’s not a condemnation either.

It is a recognition that too much of the boxing fan base doesn’t vote with their dollars the way they vote with their mouths and social media thumbs. We know what they’ll pay the most for. Put two established stars in a competitive fight, and that will draw the most. That’s where real riches wait.

Beyond that, a single star trumps fights.

It’s beyond a safe bet that this fight will not do as well on pay-per-view as Saul Alvarez’s bouts with Amir Khan in this past May or Liam Smith coming in September. This will do so despite millions of characters bled into cyberspace about how Alvarez should be fighting Gennady Golovkin.

Neither of those Alvarez contests match nor will match the best with the best. They were and are anticipated to be spotlight shows for a star; events in place of what could be perceived as genuine, unpredictable athletic contests.

The bottom line is the bottom line. It’s naked and right there.

Given a choice between a fight that delivers ‘the best versus the best’ and ‘a star versus some guy everyone thinks he probably beats,’ the latter sells more.

It sells more because the fans make it so.

What one pays for is what they really want. If this weekend is deemed not worth the money, and less competitive (on paper) contests are, then doesn’t the customer bear some responsibility for the market they participate in? Isn’t the customer setting the standard?

And let’s not dwell on undercards. This weekend’s isn’t a banner support card. Very few pay shows provide that. It is ultimately main events that drive buys. It is main event talent that gets the lion’s share of the wealth generated.

Let’s not dwell on the whole ‘hardcore’ versus ‘casual’ viewer thing either. Crawford’s last fight on HBO, against Hank Lundy, had almost a million viewers. Postol-Matthysse did roughly two-thirds of that. This is a fight built from mostly hardcore viewership in the first place. Casual fans aren’t overly aware of this one. That still leaves plenty of hardcore fans to dig in, right?

The chasm between interest this weekend and what we’ll see in September is not just because of casual viewer differentials. Hardcore fans will respond, and purchase, differently as well. 

As a fight fan, a serious one who follows the sport regularly, the fight should be what matters. This weekend, we have a genuine fight on our hands.

We don’t know who is going to win.

The stage, the platform, shouldn’t matter as much as that.

It does.

The evidence suggests that the whole idea of ‘the best versus the best’ doesn’t mean what it sounds like. It’s not really about the best fighters in respective divisions facing off when it counts at all.

It’s about the best stars making the fights ‘we’ want when we want them and then paying for less from those stars when ‘we’ don’t get it.

The customer is always right.

This weekend, the results will probably tell us that that, for the customer, a pair of undefeated champions risking their titles and 0’s wasn’t exactly what they were looking for.

Cliff Rold is the Managing Editor of BoxingScene, a founding member of the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board, and a member of the Boxing Writers Association of America.  He can be reached at roldboxing@hotmail.com