Errol Spence Jr vs Terence Crawford real PPV buys is.....

[elfag]

550K seems about right.


It was a big fight in an era where the PPV sales are down.


The days where canelo could fight some random bum and do 1 million are long gone.

[Hustle]

550K seems about right.


It was a big fight in an era where the PPV sales are down.


The days where canelo could fight some random bum and do 1 million are long gone.

Canelo has never fought a bum and did 1 million buys at any point of his career

He only has 4 fights that did 1 million ppvs.

Mayweather
GGG 1
GGG 2
Chavez jr

[Hustle]

so pac vs thurman did really well (in your words) crybaby.

Pacquiao is the 2nd biggest ppv star of all time.

How are you comparing pac ppvs to Spence and bud who never did 500k ppv before.

So yes 550k is a bust for someone who is 2nd all time in ppv buys

And 550k ppv is a success to someone who never cracked 400k buys before

[IceTrayDaGang]

Pacquiao is the 2nd biggest ppv star of all time.

How are you comparing pac ppvs to Spence and bud who never did 500k ppv before.

So yes 550k is a bust for someone who is 2nd all time in ppv buys

And 550k ppv is a success to someone who never cracked 400k buys before

excuses... spence vs crawford supposed to be the top 2 fighters right now according to ya so yes, the ppv should have did way better than 550k.

[Gate keeper]

yes, but you are saying spence vs TC did really well when it was just slightly above pac vs thurman... so do you consider pac vs thurman ppv did reallly well too?

Seems like you randomly added the "did really well" part to his argument out of nowhere. That's called a straw man.

But anyway I think whether a PPV is considered to have done well or not should be contextualized by the fighters and the era. Doesn't seem logical to compare fighters like Spence and Crawford to Pacquiao. It is possible for a number to be bad for one fighter but be good for another.

If I fight a bum in the back alley and sell it on PPV and get 50,000 buys at $65 each then that would be an amazing number for me. But the same amount of buys would be a terrible number for Mayweather, especially 2013 Mayweather. By your logic that number would be equally as bad for me as it would be for Mayweather, which makes no sense.

[Gate keeper]

excuses... spence vs crawford supposed to be the top 2 fighters right now according to ya so yes, the ppv should have did way better than 550k.

So if I take whoever the top two fighters were in 1960, should they also be expected to sell 1M buys or whatever you think is a good number? The fighters themselves and era they're in play no factor in what's considered overperforming or underperforming? Is that your argument?

[El_Mero]

by the way, pac vs thurman ppv price was more than spence vs crawford.. and spence vs crawford only did slightly more with a lower ppv price!

pac vs thurman ppv price = $74.95

spence vs crawford ppv price = $65

Crawf/Spence was 85$. Pulled in over 46mill and the gate brought over 20 mill? Not bad at all for both these guys considering this was a hardcore fans fight and Crawf has never sold well on ppv and Spence has never sold more than what 350k?

[IceTrayDaGang]

Seems like you randomly added the "did really well" part to his argument out of nowhere. That's called a straw man.

But anyway I think whether a PPV is considered to have done well or not should be contextualized by the fighters and the era. Doesn't seem logical to compare fighters like Spence and Crawford to Pacquiao. It is possible for a number to be bad for one fighter but be good for another.

If I fight a bum in the back alley and sell it on PPV and get 50,000 buys at $65 each then that would be an amazing number for me. But the same amount of buys would be a terrible number for Mayweather, especially 2013 Mayweather. By your logic that number would be equally as bad for me as it would be for Mayweather, which makes no sense.

did you read the original post? that's what the original post stated!!!!

[IceTrayDaGang]

So if I take whoever the top two fighters were in 1960, should they also be expected to sell 1M buys or whatever you think is a good number? The fighters themselves and era they're in play no factor in what's considered overperforming or underperforming? Is that your argument?

not in 1960 when social median ,etc aint around but in this era where we have all these social media platform so YES fights now should do more than fights from 1960!! LOL. you just exposed yourself! we have all these social media sites/apps TODAY, we dont have this luxury back in 1960! LOL!!

[buddyr]

We will never know because PBC will inflate the numbers and Rick Glaser will deflate them. So we will always be in the dark. So truthfully, the numbers are under what PBC said and above what Glaser said. I've had the misfortune of talking with Rick Glaser. He's a very knowledgeable guy, but a serious Top Rank homer.