I never understand the, put two fighters on a card together before they fight strategy.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Just feels like so much can go wrong. Not only do they both have to win, they essentially both need to look good too.

Like let’s say Ryan blasted out Rolly like he was expected too, would there really be more interest in Ryan-Haney II after how boring the Haney fight was? I think there would have been far more interest in an immediate rematch straight up.

Same with Plant and Charlo last night, let’s say Plant get’s a gift decision last night, are we really any more interested in seeing Plant-Charlo than we already were? I don’t think so, if anything I’d be less interested after a bad performance.

We also seen it go horribly wrong with Joshua and Wilder 18 months ago, for a fight that was already way past it’s best, if one fight didn’t need marinating any further it was this one.

To cut a long story short, stop all this slow build BS and just make the fight!! Hearns and Leonard fought at 22 and 25 respectively and both became bigger stars in the process. This whole “marination” strategy is nowhere near as rewarding as promoters think.

[TheProudLunatic]

Marketing

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Marketing

Generally it’s bad marketing. If the demand is there make it happen before the demand decreases. Case and point with the three examples I listed.

[TheProudLunatic]

Generally it’s bad marketing. If the demand is there make it happen before the demand decreases. Case and point with the three examples I listed.

Not sure of the success rate of said marketing ploy.
The idea is simple.
Should both fighters win, the hype machine begins.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Not sure of the success rate of said marketing ploy.
The idea is simple.
Should both fighters win, the hype machine begins.

But as I showed with multiple examples, often either or both fighters lose or perform bad which generates less interest in a potential matchup. The strategy doesn’t make sense in terms of risk vs reward IMO.

[TheProudLunatic]

But as I showed with multiple examples, often either or both fighters lose or perform bad which generates less interest in a potential matchup. The strategy doesn’t make sense in terms of risk vs reward IMO.

Can't hurt.
Many more things boxing does wrong

[ShoulderRoll]

You just explained it yourself, if both fighters are on the card and they both look good that whets the appetite for people to see them against each other.

They still obviously have to do their part and win, though. And sometimes that can go bad.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

You just explained it yourself, if both fighters are on the card and they both look good that whets the appetite for people to see them against each other.

They still obviously have to do their part and win, though. And sometimes that can go bad.

My point is why risk it? Does them both winning really add that much value? I just don’t see it.

[ShoulderRoll]

My point is why risk it? Does them both winning really add that much value? I just don’t see it.

I would say it does add value. Especially for casuals who have short attention spans, you have to put it into their head who these guys are and why they should be excited about them fighting next.

The risk can be minimized if you have proper matchmakers but that is something PBC has always lacked.

[Mimms]

Just feels like so much can go wrong. Not only do they both have to win, they essentially both need to look good too.

Like let’s say Ryan blasted out Rolly like he was expected too, would there really be more interest in Ryan-Haney II after how boring the Haney fight was? I think there would have been far more interest in an immediate rematch straight up.

Same with Plant and Charlo last night, let’s say Plant get’s a gift decision last night, are we really any more interested in seeing Plant-Charlo than we already were? I don’t think so, if anything I’d be less interested after a bad performance.

We also seen it go horribly wrong with Joshua and Wilder 18 months ago, for a fight that was already way past it’s best, if one fight didn’t need marinating any further it was this one.

To cut a long story short, stop all this slow build BS and just make the fight!! Hearns and Leonard fought at 22 and 25 respectively and both became bigger stars in the process. This whole “marination” strategy is nowhere near as rewarding as promoters think.

One of the best ways to answer your two questions and determine if these matchups are worth pairing up is to have these fighters fight on the same card, on the same night. Fighters are judged by their last performance.

The Ryan-Haney rematch is even more interesting now that Haney won his last fight and Ryan lost his last fight. Before that, you'd think Ryan would easily dominate Haney again but now it looks like a 50-50 match-up.