Should Froch vs. Groves be on PPV in the UK?

All I know is that it should be free to those of us in the US. Much like our PPVs are often shown for free over there. No Big Amercian PPV's are free over here. They are either on boxnation or sky sports which are subscription based or primetime which is PPV In regards to Groves vs Froch being PPV worthy, the numbers will tell. Kessler and Froch clearly justifed it but this fight will fall short of that despite both fighters being British. If Groves lost and lost badly then there will be alot of people looking back with hindsight saying it should have never been PPV in the 1st place. The same people who thought it was worthy by purchasing it

Nope, and they were bigger fights. Groves has fought nobodies since DeGale and in no way warrants a headline spot on a PPV bill. They weren't really though. The Ward fight, yes. of course it was. But Froch is a superstar now, he was still an unknown quantity back then having wasted years of his careers fighting for Hennessey. An old johnson a better fight than a prime domestic rival? I don't think so. Mack? No, and that's a resounding no. Bute could have been PPV, but that was Froch's coming out party. Froch is a PPV fighter now. Simple as that.-

Though Froch is known a little better in the UK, he is not exactly popular. 99.9% of people don't know who Groves is. I reckon a good 95% of Boxingscene posters have never seen his fight. Is it a good fight? Potentially. Is it PPV worthy? No. Most likely get inflated numbers afterwards justifying it. That is just ridiculous.

If anyone from MatchRoom browses this site, the fans have spoken! 80% are opposed to the idea of Froch-Groves being on PPV.

Though Froch is known a little better in the UK, he is not exactly popular. 99.9% of people don't know who Groves is. I reckon a good 95% of Boxingscene posters have never seen his fight. Is it a good fight? Potentially. Is it PPV worthy? No. Most likely get inflated numbers afterwards justifying it. Great post. I agree entirely. Was Froch/Ward PPV? How about Froch/Bute? Even Johnson and Mack had achieved more than Groves prior to fighting Carl. Do I think this fight should be on PPV...Fuk no. Nope, and they were bigger fights. Groves has fought nobodies since DeGale and in no way warrants a headline spot on a PPV bill.

Was Froch/Ward PPV? How about Froch/Bute? Even Johnson and Mack had achieved more than Groves prior to fighting Carl. Do I think this fight should be on PPV...Fuk no.

Though Froch is known a little better in the UK, he is not exactly popular. 99.9% of people don't know who Groves is. I reckon a good 95% of Boxingscene posters have never seen his fight. Is it a good fight? Potentially. Is it PPV worthy? No. Most likely get inflated numbers afterwards justifying it.

So fighting on channel 5 is now better than fighting on Sky? Let me think abou.. No. It's not. He might fight on terrestrial tv, and so what? I'm not talking about exposure as in nobody sees his fights, but as in they are all low profile fights nobody cares about. When Groves beat degale he beat the hype out of him as well. My point was, that even though I was in Denmark, and Degale was fighting there, I didn't even now about it. Now, do you now how many boxing events are made n Denmark each year? 4-5 max. Better in what sense? You're looking at this too myopically. You need to think of the wider public and not just from your own perspective.

Nobody has heard from DeGale? Hasn't had any exposure??? He fights on terrestrial TV! The casual fan doesn't really care so much about the opponent. The point is that more eyes are on DeGale than Groves who is buried on PPV undercards. What does Denmark have to do with it? We're talking about the UK. It seems you're relating it to you instead of looking at the bigger picture. So fighting on channel 5 is now better than fighting on Sky? Let me think abou.. No. It's not. He might fight on terrestrial tv, and so what? I'm not talking about exposure as in nobody sees his fights, but as in they are all low profile fights nobody cares about. When Groves beat degale he beat the hype out of him as well. My point was, that even though I was in Denmark, and Degale was fighting there, I didn't even now about it. Now, do you now how many boxing events are made n Denmark each year? 4-5 max.

I just hope hbo or showtime pick this fight up,,,,, seems like an interesting matchup of youth vs veteran........ i favor froch....

Difference is nobody has heard from degale since he lost to Groves. He's fighting for crappy titles no one cares about against awful opponents on channel 5. His career has taken a turn for the worse since joining up with Hennessy. I had to do a report on a Degale fight like 14 months ago when I was based in Denmark, and it was dropped on my table two days before. And he was fighting in Denmark! I had no idea he was fighting. That's how bad it is. But maybe to some people it would be ppv. Not to me. Firstly because there's no needle between Degale and Froch. Degale has lost at domestic level and hasn't had any exposure whatsoever for the last two years. That's three no goes. Nobody has heard from DeGale? Hasn't had any exposure??? He fights on terrestrial TV! The casual fan doesn't really care so much about the opponent. The point is that more eyes are on DeGale than Groves who is buried on PPV undercards. What does Denmark have to do with it? We're talking about the UK. It seems you're relating it to you instead of looking at the bigger picture.

All I know is that it should be free to those of us in the US. Much like our PPVs are often shown for free over there.

Obviously I said no but I'll probably spend the money anyway. So basically it's a PPV fight.

It wouldn't justify it at all because Groves is a no name. If Groves won in an exciting fight and then they did a rematch - then maybe THAT would be PPV worthy because Groves will have become more of a household name by getting the rub from Froch's name. Do you think DeGale-Froch is PPV worthy? I doubt it. Groves is about the same level as DeGale in terms of how big a name they are in the UK. Actually DeGale is probably more well known because of the Olympics and being on Channel 5. Difference is nobody has heard from degale since he lost to Groves. He's fighting for crappy titles no one cares about against awful opponents on channel 5. His career has taken a turn for the worse since joining up with Hennessy. I had to do a report on a Degale fight like 14 months ago when I was based in Denmark, and it was dropped on my table two days before. And he was fighting in Denmark! I had no idea he was fighting. That's how bad it is. But maybe to some people it would be ppv. Not to me. Firstly because there's no needle between Degale and Froch. Degale has lost at domestic level and hasn't had any exposure whatsoever for the last two years. That's three no goes.

If it makes them more money yea~ It is a simple equation really~ you get a set amount from a network if that amount is more than you can generate in buys you should take it but if a fight can generate more in buys than what a network is willing to pay it should be PPV every time. I would say Froch is big enough in the UK to at least test the waters in that regard.

I get where you are coming from, and I agree. But it would justify it a bit if it was indeed a close fight or an upset was to come. Keep in mind that Groves is an undefeated for British champion who has been exposed an awful lot more to the British public than tommy gun. I agree with the reputation thing as well, which was te point I was trying to make earlier. But I think Froch-Groves is a better fight than Haye-Fury and it's also a double world title fight. It wouldn't justify it at all because Groves is a no name. If Groves won in an exciting fight and then they did a rematch - then maybe THAT would be PPV worthy because Groves will have become more of a household name by getting the rub from Froch's name. Do you think DeGale-Froch is PPV worthy? I doubt it. Groves is about the same level as DeGale in terms of how big a name they are in the UK. Actually DeGale is probably more well known because of the Olympics and being on Channel 5.

I didn't say he was garbage, I said he was a nobody. You can't say a fight is PPV worthy after the fact. If Froch fought Thomas Oosthuizen and somehow managed to lose, that doesn't mean the fight was PPV worthy all along. That doesn't even make sense. Whether something is PPV worthy is not even necessarily about the quality of the fighter. Froch-Groves is probably a closer fight than Haye-Fury but they (Haye/Fury) are bigger names to the UK public. I get where you are coming from, and I agree. But it would justify it a bit if it was indeed a close fight or an upset was to come. Keep in mind that Groves is an undefeated for British champion who has been exposed an awful lot more to the British public than tommy gun. I agree with the reputation thing as well, which was te point I was trying to make earlier. But I think Froch-Groves is a better fight than Haye-Fury and it's also a double world title fight.

Well it kind of does though? You just said he was garbage. Which a win would prove he wasn't and it was a better fight than people expected. I didn't say he was garbage, I said he was a nobody. You can't say a fight is PPV worthy after the fact. If Froch fought Thomas Oosthuizen and somehow managed to lose, that doesn't mean the fight was PPV worthy all along. That doesn't even make sense. Whether something is PPV worthy is not even necessarily about the quality of the fighter. Froch-Groves is probably a closer fight than Haye-Fury but they (Haye/Fury) are bigger names to the UK public.

If Groves wins, that doesn't suddenly mean it was PPV worthy all along....? Well it kind of does though? You just said he was garbage. Which a win would prove he wasn't and it was a better fight than people expected.

This issue. Worded poorly as I am on my phone. I'm more curious to know if people think Haye-Fury is PPV worthy and if yes, why more than this one. If Groves wins, that doesn't suddenly mean it was PPV worthy all along....?