Conor is light years ahead of Floyd in PPV performance

But we DO know that Rousey was a big star in the making NOW, and she even had a ton of media coverage about her then, so it's easier to say she helped bump up numbers for that PPV. THAT'S THE POINT. And those guys and gals you mentioned are no names to the general public, at least compared to Conor. Celebrities visiting them and being fans of them doesn't make them huge attractions. And the stuff I said about Conor wasn't dick-sucking fanboyism, it was just the truth. Har har. It doesn't matter now If Holly Holm KO'd Ronda back in 2013 she would not have blown up. At the time she was a "no name" to the mainstream as you like to put it. How the hell is Ronda a superstar but Holly Holm is still a no name after KOing Ronda? You can't say Ronda helped out cards but the person who beat her did not.

No wonder you can't comprehend what I'm telling you. Conor' balls are stuck in your mouth. That post at the end was pure dick sucking. You said Ronda helped Anderson's numbers because it was proven LATER that she would become a star. My point is that at that time no one knew who she was outside of the people who knew MMA. Rouseys career really blew up in 2014 and especially 2015. You can't call Miesha Tate, Holly Holm, and Wonderboy nobodies. Nearly all of those guys have had celebrities visit them before fights. Not just Conor. I've seen Lady Gaga visit Woodley, DiCaprio visit the Diaz's, and Holly Holm was on every talk show after her destruction of Rousey. So they are far from no names. And Im not going to address the last post because it's pure fanboyism. If Conor wasn't with the UFC he would have still been the same person and all of those people would probably still not know who the hell he is. My original point is that the reason Conor's numbers at 28 are bigger than Floyd's numbers at 28 is because the UFC promoted him better than TopRank promoted Floyd. once Floyd left Top Rank he became the biggest Pay Per View Attraction in history. But we DO know that Rousey was a big star in the making NOW, and she even had a ton of media coverage about her then, so it's easier to say she helped bump up numbers for that PPV. THAT'S THE POINT. And those guys and gals you mentioned are no names to the general public, at least compared to Conor. Celebrities visiting them and being fans of them doesn't make them huge attractions. And the stuff I said about Conor wasn't dick-sucking fanboyism, it was just the truth. Har har.

Of what relevance is this this is a boxing forum to discuss boxing go post on sherdog to discuss UFC

Yeah, the UFC gave him the platform to become a star, but it was his charisma and talent that won the public over. An organization can give you the platform to become a star, but if you don't have the charisma and talent to make people gravitate towards you, you won't become a star. That simple. The UFC can promote you, but they can't make people like you, certainly not to the point of crossing over into the mainstream as much as Conor (and Ronda) have. And I explained the Ronda point perfectly clear in my last post. Read it again, it's almost impossible not to comprehend what I said. And if you wanna give supporting players and no-names credit for boosting Conor's numbers, go ahead. There's no proof of those guys (or gals) being able to boost any meaningful numbers, though. Just saying they have a respectable fanbase isn't enough. That doesn't make you a PPV draw. You tell me who has by far the most Youtube views for their videos, who has the most media following them around and covering them. Who's starring in Call of Duty (one of the most popular video game franchises in the world), starring in Game Of Thrones (the second biggest television show in the world), and having NBA athletes imitate their walk on the court. Who announced a fake retirement last year and had it blow up all over the internet and the media almost instantly (followed by reporters at the UFC 200 press conference asking more questions about him than any of the fighters actually present there.) It's Conor, it's always Conor. Other than Rousey, it's basically Conor and everyone else as far as massive star power goes. But if you really want to pretend that these other cats are magically drawing numbers for Conor despite no other measureable way of them coming anywhere close to his popularity, then go ahead. No wonder you can't comprehend what I'm telling you. Conor' balls are stuck in your mouth. That post at the end was pure dick sucking. You said Ronda helped Anderson's numbers because it was proven LATER that she would become a star. My point is that at that time no one knew who she was outside of the people who knew MMA. Rouseys career really blew up in 2014 and especially 2015. You can't call Miesha Tate, Holly Holm, and Wonderboy nobodies. Nearly all of those guys have had celebrities visit them before fights. Not just Conor. I've seen Lady Gaga visit Woodley, DiCaprio visit the Diaz's, and Holly Holm was on every talk show after her destruction of Rousey. So they are far from no names. And Im not going to address the last post because it's pure fanboyism. If Conor wasn't with the UFC he would have still been the same person and all of those people would probably still not know who the hell he is. My original point is that the reason Conor's numbers at 28 are bigger than Floyd's numbers at 28 is because the UFC promoted him better than TopRank promoted Floyd. once Floyd left Top Rank he became the biggest Pay Per View Attraction in history.

except he will get Ronda Rouseyed before any of this happens

gatti was not ppv it was just normal boxing after dark. This was the first time Mayweather headlined a pay-per-view event. It generated 340,000 buys and $15.3 million in revenue. Before the fight, HBO analyst Max Kellerman called this the biggest pay-per-view mismatch since Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson. Just so you know now ;)

And how did Conor become a megastar? Through successful management and promoton by the UFC. Not simply because of his charisma or even close. In an earlier post you even said people didn't know anything about Conor when he was in the smaller organizations but they know him now. That is all thanks to the UFC. And for you to think Conor's numbers were not boosted by the names on his undercards but other fighters numbers were boosted by names on their undercards makes you sound like a biased nuthugger. You say the fighters on Conor's undercards have no history of headlining a ppv so that means they could not have contributed to his numbers but Ronda Rousey had never headlined a PPV either when she was on the undercard of Silva Weidman 2 but you think her presence vastly helped those numbers. So Holly Holm whooping Ronda's ass and becoming the second female bantamweight champion did not help Conor's numbers in the first fight with Diaz? Miesha Tate being on his undercards, who is also a big name in MMA, didn't help his numbers either? Yeah, the UFC gave him the platform to become a star, but it was his charisma and talent that won the public over. An organization can give you the platform to become a star, but if you don't have the charisma and talent to make people gravitate towards you, you won't become a star. That simple. The UFC can promote you, but they can't make people like you, certainly not to the point of crossing over into the mainstream as much as Conor (and Ronda) have. And I explained the Ronda point perfectly clear in my last post. Read it again, it's almost impossible not to comprehend what I said. And if you wanna give supporting players and no-names credit for boosting Conor's numbers, go ahead. There's no proof of those guys (or gals) being able to boost any meaningful numbers, though. Just saying they have a respectable fanbase isn't enough. That doesn't make you a PPV draw. You tell me who has by far the most Youtube views for their videos, who has the most media following them around and covering them. Who's starring in Call of Duty (one of the most popular video game franchises in the world), starring in Game Of Thrones (the second biggest television show in the world), and having NBA athletes imitate their walk on the court. Who announced a fake retirement last year and had it blow up all over the internet and the media almost instantly (followed by reporters at the UFC 200 press conference asking more questions about him than any of the fighters actually present there.) It's Conor, it's always Conor. Other than Rousey, it's basically Conor and everyone else as far as massive star power goes. But if you really want to pretend that these other cats are magically drawing numbers for Conor despite no other measureable way of them coming anywhere close to his popularity, then go ahead.

lol Arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year-old. Maybe even worse. I never said the UFC's marketing hype didn't benefit them. I said just because you put the machine behind someone doesn't mean the public will gravitate towards them and turn them into a star. That's a 100% fact. Even Hollywood has tried to make stars out of people that the public just didn't end up taking to. As for "proving your point", I did no such thing. I said ascribing credit for buyrates to a bunch of undercard guys whom have no proof of ever drawing (and in several instances, even headling a PPV period) is retarded, especially when you have a megastar like Conor at the top of the card clearly bringing in the big numbers. Ronda would obviously be an exception to that considering the publicity already around her and the mainstream star she became shortly after. And saying the mainstream didn't already care about her? Her fight with Liz Carmouche in the inaugural women's UFC match was covered massively by the media. And her fight with Tate next was built up over a several week period on The Ultimate Fighter, back when The Ultimate Fighter meant a lot more than it does now. That got a great deal of publicity, too. Obviously her star power continued to rise, but she already had plenty of hype around her from outside the UFC. And how did Conor become a megastar? Through successful management and promoton by the UFC. Not simply because of his charisma or even close. In an earlier post you even said people didn't know anything about Conor when he was in the smaller organizations but they know him now. That is all thanks to the UFC. And for you to think Conor's numbers were not boosted by the names on his undercards but other fighters numbers were boosted by names on their undercards makes you sound like a biased nuthugger. You say the fighters on Conor's undercards have no history of headlining a ppv so that means they could not have contributed to his numbers but Ronda Rousey had never headlined a PPV either when she was on the undercard of Silva Weidman 2 but you think her presence vastly helped those numbers. So Holly Holm whooping Ronda's ass and becoming the second female bantamweight champion did not help Conor's numbers in the first fight with Diaz? Miesha Tate being on his undercards, who is also a big name in MMA, didn't help his numbers either?

Man you must be 12 years old or something. You didn't even know who Ronda or Conor were before they joined the UFC but then want to turn around and pretend they became big names because of themselves alone and not the UFC hype machine. In a previous post you said Undercards don't matter then you proceded to post how the numbers for Weidman Silva 2 did better because of the undercard :lol1: You just proved my own point retard. And no one knew Rousey would become a big star back in 2013, the mainstream barely knew who she was back then. She was a big name in MMA and that is all. This past weekend proved that Rousey was nowhere near as good as she was built up to be and she still became a huge star because of the UFC hype machine, not because she was so "interesting" as you put it. McGregor, although entertaining has benefitted from a lot of that same hype. He got a title fight without having to face any of the top contenders at 155 simply because Dana White allowed him to. Let's see if McGregor will do the same numbers once he suffers yet another humiliating loss. lol Arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year-old. Maybe even worse. I never said the UFC's marketing hype didn't benefit them. I said just because you put the machine behind someone doesn't mean the public will gravitate towards them and turn them into a star. That's a 100% fact. Even Hollywood has tried to make stars out of people that the public just didn't end up taking to. As for "proving your point", I did no such thing. I said ascribing credit for buyrates to a bunch of undercard guys whom have no proof of ever drawing (and in several instances, even headling a PPV period) is retarded, especially when you have a megastar like Conor at the top of the card clearly bringing in the big numbers. Ronda would obviously be an exception to that considering the publicity already around her and the mainstream star she became shortly after. And saying the mainstream didn't already care about her? Her fight with Liz Carmouche in the inaugural women's UFC match was covered massively by the media. And her fight with Tate next was built up over a several week period on The Ultimate Fighter, back when The Ultimate Fighter meant a lot more than it does now. That got a great deal of publicity, too. Obviously her star power continued to rise, but she already had plenty of hype around her from outside the UFC.

Yeah, Canelo drawing a huge buyrate against the biggest name in boxing definitely proves that those no-name guys fighting each other on undercards in the UFC are helping boost Conor and Rousey's numbers in any meaningful way. lol Child, please. Furthermore, the reason for that fight doing so well is obvious - Canelo is Mexican, and there's a huge boxing culture there. If I recall, he also did huge television ratings in Mexico. Plus, Floyd markets himself as the villain that everyone wants to see lose, so you put a guy who's younger and from a higher weight class than him in the ring with him, and of course millions will buy the PPV in hopes that they'll finally get his. Trying to compare that with undercard guys that only a moderate amount of people are invested in and that hardly anyone would buy a PPV to watch is absurd. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. As for my second supposed "contradiction", it's easier to give Ronda large credit for that buyrate because of the megastar that we know she became later. She already had an immense amount of media attention around her (an amount that surpassed even the extent that UFC was trying to promote her), and she started headlining her own PPV's very shortly after for that reason. 202 was hardly even a "stacked card" by the standards of hardcore fans, let alone casuals. Conor vs Diaz 2 was a hugely anticipated rematch for several months, even arguing that anything else was a selling point for that PPV is just retarded. And yes, Conor and Ronda are the most interesting figures to the public - It's why they're the stars they are. They do more media BECAUSE of the caliber of stars they are, not the other way around. It's pretty obvious and simple to understand, and only dumb-ass folks like yourselves would fail to get that. Man you must be 12 years old or something. You didn't even know who Ronda or Conor were before they joined the UFC but then want to turn around and pretend they became big names because of themselves alone and not the UFC hype machine. In a previous post you said Undercards don't matter then you proceded to post how the numbers for Weidman Silva 2 did better because of the undercard :lol1: You just proved my own point retard. And no one knew Rousey would become a big star back in 2013, the mainstream barely knew who she was back then. She was a big name in MMA and that is all. This past weekend proved that Rousey was nowhere near as good as she was built up to be and she still became a huge star because of the UFC hype machine, not because she was so "interesting" as you put it. McGregor, although entertaining has benefitted from a lot of that same hype. He got a title fight without having to face any of the top contenders at 155 simply because Dana White allowed him to. Let's see if McGregor will do the same numbers once he suffers yet another humiliating loss.

I love how you glossed over my point about Canelo lol. Canelo breaking ppv records with Floyd completely disproves your point. You say having a following does not make you a pay per view star. Then tell me how Floyd was able to have one of his highest selling pay per view fights against a guy who had never headlined a pay per view before? He did it because Canelo had a huge following. Canelo has never exceeded a million buys on his own but when he fought Floyd a lot of Mexicans tuned in. So yes, having a following can translate into pay per view numbers. And I love how you contradict yourself in your own post. You say Silva Weidman 2 sold well because Ronda Rousey was on the undercard but don't think Conor's numbers were boosted by the names on his undercard? Undercards only matter when they are used to back your point lol. And 202 as a "stacked card" but you clearly don't follow MMA enough to know that those guys have are popular in the MMA world. And no, Rousey and Conor aren't the most interesting. They've simply done the most media. Dana White has said that Rousey and McGregor have done more media than anyone else in the company which is why they became so popular so quickly. Yeah, Canelo drawing a huge buyrate against the biggest name in boxing definitely proves that those no-name guys fighting each other on undercards in the UFC are helping boost Conor and Rousey's numbers in any meaningful way. lol Child, please. Furthermore, the reason for that fight doing so well is obvious - Canelo is Mexican, and there's a huge boxing culture there. If I recall, he also did huge television ratings in Mexico. Plus, Floyd markets himself as the villain that everyone wants to see lose, so you put a guy who's younger and from a higher weight class than him in the ring with him, and of course millions will buy the PPV in hopes that they'll finally get his. Trying to compare that with undercard guys that only a moderate amount of people are invested in and that hardly anyone would buy a PPV to watch is absurd. Talk about comparing apples and oranges. As for my second supposed "contradiction", it's easier to give Ronda large credit for that buyrate because of the megastar that we know she became later. She already had an immense amount of media attention around her (an amount that surpassed even the extent that UFC was trying to promote her), and she started headlining her own PPV's very shortly after for that reason. 202 was hardly even a "stacked card" by the standards of hardcore fans, let alone casuals. Conor vs Diaz 2 was a hugely anticipated rematch for several months, even arguing that anything else was a selling point for that PPV is just retarded. And yes, Conor and Ronda are the most interesting figures to the public - It's why they're the stars they are. They do more media BECAUSE of the caliber of stars they are, not the other way around. It's pretty obvious and simple to understand, and only dumb-ass folks like yourselves would fail to get that.

I'll take Mayweathers bank accounts over Connors! When it comes to promtions and earning money Connor has a loooong way to go to catch up to lil' Floyd. In fact he won't get there, he's ready to loose again soon enough. Ray

ok so now what?

1. Having a 'following' doesn't make you a PPV draw, and plenty of people on Conor's undercards don't even have a significant following of any kind. Yes, that includes Woodley and Thompson, whose match was promoted as a big deal because they're both good fighters and they were competing over a title (titles being something the organization want to feel important), but whom have no record as of yet of drawing PPV buys or even ratings. 202 broke records without a "stacked card", so yes, it's fair to say that at least 95-98% of the reason 205 did well was due to Conor. 2. Hardly anyone cares about women's boxing, and 99% didn't care about Holm in UFC until she defeated Rousey. And I never said you couldn't become a draw from beating a draw, just not that you always do, and you certainly never become just as big (or bigger) of a draw just based on that. Also, any numbers that her versus Tate might have added may not have even mattered, since it's possible those same people may have bought the event for Conor vs Diaz anyway. 3. I'm talking about modern day, obviously. And Silva-Weldman II got a huge boost from guess who fighting right beneath them. 4. 200 and 202 were exceptional events, so of course it wouldn't get the same coverage as those did. But it DID get the same promotion as the vast majority of PPVs do, so let's not get things twisted. 5. The public cares more about Conor and Rousey because they simply find them more interesting, hence the 'push' they were given in the first place. You can't just put the promotional machine behind anyone and make them a star, let alone a crossover star. That's not how it works. I love how you glossed over my point about Canelo lol. Canelo breaking ppv records with Floyd completely disproves your point. You say having a following does not make you a pay per view star. Then tell me how Floyd was able to have one of his highest selling pay per view fights against a guy who had never headlined a pay per view before? He did it because Canelo had a huge following. Canelo has never exceeded a million buys on his own but when he fought Floyd a lot of Mexicans tuned in. So yes, having a following can translate into pay per view numbers. And I love how you contradict yourself in your own post. You say Silva Weidman 2 sold well because Ronda Rousey was on the undercard but don't think Conor's numbers were boosted by the names on his undercard? Undercards only matter when they are used to back your point lol. And 202 as a "stacked card" but you clearly don't follow MMA enough to know that those guys have are popular in the MMA world. And no, Rousey and Conor aren't the most interesting. They've simply done the most media. Dana White has said that Rousey and McGregor have done more media than anyone else in the company which is why they became so popular so quickly.

1 I never said those names were huge draws I said they had significant followings in the MMA world. Woodley vs Thompson was a much anticipated match up if you follow the sport which is why it was featured on the undercard of UFC 205. Dana White called 205 the best "card" in the UFC's history before the fight so please dont pretend as if that event did well merely because of Conor. 2 Plenty of people knew who Holly Holm was if they followed combat sports. No she was not a household name but as someone who's followed boxing for years I knew who she was. And yes, beating a draw can make you a draw. Just ask Mayweather and Pacquiao after they defeated Oscar De La Hoya for example. Holm was the first women's bantamweight champion outside of Rousey. 3 Saying Lesnar is a star goes against your earlier point about UFC fighters not being able to sell over a million buys if they weren't named McGregor or Rousey. Silva vs Weidman 2 also did over a million buys. 4 And UFC 201 got nowhere near the hype and promotion that 200 or 202 got. What planet are you living on to say it got the same amount of promotion? 5 And why does the public care more for Conor? Because the UFC got behind Conor much like they did Rousey and gave him plenty of coverage. They also gave him the matchups he asked for. Dana White has admitted that he agreed to sign Conor to the UFC before even watching him fight because he knew Conor would be an easy sell to the public. 1. Having a 'following' doesn't make you a PPV draw, and plenty of people on Conor's undercards don't even have a significant following of any kind. Yes, that includes Woodley and Thompson, whose match was promoted as a big deal because they're both good fighters and they were competing over a title (titles being something the organization want to feel important), but whom have no record as of yet of drawing PPV buys or even ratings. 202 broke records without a "stacked card", so yes, it's fair to say that at least 95-98% of the reason 205 did well was due to Conor. 2. Hardly anyone cares about women's boxing, and 99% didn't care about Holm in UFC until she defeated Rousey. And I never said you couldn't become a draw from beating a draw, just not that you always do, and you certainly never become just as big (or bigger) of a draw just based on that. Also, any numbers that her versus Tate might have added may not have even mattered, since it's possible those same people may have bought the event for Conor vs Diaz anyway. 3. I'm talking about modern day, obviously. And Silva-Weldman II got a huge boost from guess who fighting right beneath them. 4. 200 and 202 were exceptional events, so of course it wouldn't get the same coverage as those did. But it DID get the same promotion as the vast majority of PPVs do, so let's not get things twisted. 5. The public cares more about Conor and Rousey because they simply find them more interesting, hence the 'push' they were given in the first place. You can't just put the promotional machine behind anyone and make them a star, let alone a crossover star. That's not how it works.

UFC 207 is the return of Ronda, that's the selling point. It won't be a McG level PPV. McG has done big PPVs numbers on the back of numerous top fighters on his cards, heck one of the major selling points was that UFC 205 was supposed to be their most stacked card ever. Almost every bit of promotional material spoke about that. Now, none of this is to negate the fact that McG can sell. He is an American star no doubt but he can not sell on his own, a 1 million plus PPV like Pac and Mayweather did for 7 or 8 years. My God, what did I just read.

1. It matters when people point to it as a definitive reason for why Conor's numbers do better than anyone else's. Why aren't these big names being used to sell other PPV's if they're such draws? And the ones that are, why aren't they headlining events that do more than just the average 250,000-300,000 number of buys? 2. Rousey/Holm did 1.1 million because of Rousey's ever-growing star power and fame. Hardly anyone knew who the fuck Holm was before she beat Ronda, and beating the draw doesn't automatically make you a draw. UFC 202, whose only selling point was the Conor/Diaz rematch, did even better numbers than their first fight did. 3. UFC 200 did well because Brock Lesnar was on the card. Prior to Conor, he was the UFC's biggest draw in history. If you looked at the Youtube videos that covered the event, the ones concerning Lesnar by far got the most views. 4. Yeah, no. Just no. You can hype something as much as you want, that doesn't mean it will sell or sell like you want it to. 201 got the same promotion as anything else got - commercials, Embledded videos, etc. There feels like there's more hooplah around Conor's fights because the public cares far more about Conor than any other fighter, which is why he's crossed over into the mainstream the way that he has. 1 I never said those names were huge draws I said they had significant followings in the MMA world. Woodley vs Thompson was a much anticipated match up if you follow the sport which is why it was featured on the undercard of UFC 205. Dana White called 205 the best "card" in the UFC's history before the fight so please dont pretend as if that event did well merely because of Conor. 2 Plenty of people knew who Holly Holm was if they followed combat sports. No she was not a household name but as someone who's followed boxing for years I knew who she was. And yes, beating a draw can make you a draw. Just ask Mayweather and Pacquiao after they defeated Oscar De La Hoya for example. Holm was the first women's bantamweight champion outside of Rousey. 3 Saying Lesnar is a star goes against your earlier point about UFC fighters not being able to sell over a million buys if they weren't named McGregor or Rousey. Silva vs Weidman 2 also did over a million buys. 4 And UFC 201 got nowhere near the hype and promotion that 200 or 202 got. What planet are you living on to say it got the same amount of promotion? 5 And why does the public care more for Conor? Because the UFC got behind Conor much like they did Rousey and gave him plenty of coverage. They also gave him the matchups he asked for. Dana White has admitted that he agreed to sign Conor to the UFC before even watching him fight because he knew Conor would be an easy sell to the public.

McGregor is more popular now than Floyd Mayweather ever was, on every level. tell me something I didn't know already.

Your point about the people on Conor's undercards never headlining a PPV is irrelevant. Canelo had never headlined a PPV before his fight with Floyd and that fight set PPV revenue records. If there is enough hype behind a fighter their PPV's will sell. And Rousey vs Holm did 1.1 million. It was Rousey's highest PPV and it featured Holly Holm. Holly Holm was then put on McGregor's undercard of the first Diaz fight. Which helped boost that card's numbers. UFC 200 did over a million buys without Conor even on the card so don't tell me the card's need stars like Rousey and McGregor when the UFC has done over 1 million buys without either of them on cards several times before. If they hype an event enough it will sell. UFC 201 was hardly promoted while all of Conor's cards are heavily promoted and the same goes for most of Rousey's cards. Conor is a star but let's not pretend his numbers aren't benefitted by a huge push from the UFC. 1. It matters when people point to it as a definitive reason for why Conor's numbers do better than anyone else's. Why aren't these big names being used to sell other PPV's if they're such draws? And the ones that are, why aren't they headlining events that do more than just the average 250,000-300,000 number of buys? 2. Rousey/Holm did 1.1 million because of Rousey's ever-growing star power and fame. Hardly anyone knew who the fuck Holm was before she beat Ronda, and beating the draw doesn't automatically make you a draw. UFC 202, whose only selling point was the Conor/Diaz rematch, did even better numbers than their first fight did. 3. UFC 200 did well because Brock Lesnar was on the card. Prior to Conor, he was the UFC's biggest draw in history. If you looked at the Youtube videos that covered the event, the ones concerning Lesnar by far got the most views. 4. Yeah, no. Just no. You can hype something as much as you want, that doesn't mean it will sell or sell like you want it to. 201 got the same promotion as anything else got - commercials, Embledded videos, etc. There feels like there's more hooplah around Conor's fights because the public cares far more about Conor than any other fighter, which is why he's crossed over into the mainstream the way that he has.

Your point about Woodley vs Lawler is especially laughable... That shit did like 240,000 buys, which is below average for a UFC event. I love both guys, but that wasn't a draw, thus you shouldn't assume it lead to any sort of massive interest for Woodley vs Thompson among casuals. 98% of people on McGregor's undercards have never headlined a PPV, and the ones that have have never exceeded buys past somewhere in the 300,000+ mark. Your point about the people on Conor's undercards never headlining a PPV is irrelevant. Canelo had never headlined a PPV before his fight with Floyd and that fight set PPV revenue records. If there is enough hype behind a fighter their PPV's will sell. And Rousey vs Holm did 1.1 million. It was Rousey's highest PPV and it featured Holly Holm. Holly Holm was then put on McGregor's undercard of the first Diaz fight. Which helped boost that card's numbers. UFC 200 did over a million buys without Conor even on the card so don't tell me the card's need stars like Rousey and McGregor when the UFC has done over 1 million buys without either of them on cards several times before. If they hype an event enough it will sell. UFC 201 was hardly promoted while all of Conor's cards are heavily promoted and the same goes for most of Rousey's cards. Conor is a star but let's not pretend his numbers aren't benefitted by a huge push from the UFC.