Tweet
It's all been said in this thread.
Fighters, especially the heavyweight champ, were once very popular athletes. The heavyweight champ was the most popular athlete in the world. Now, the average person has never heard of the K****ko brothers. Muhammad Ali was a phenomenon who had crossover fans. People heard of Tyson and he was champ as the sport went into decline. Ironically, Tyson could demand big PPV dollars and this reduced the overall number of viewers (as compared to fights on free broadcast TV). Pretty soon, there were NO fights on network TV. This was the end result of the big PPV's. Why would a fighter go on free TV for small purses when they can get PPV dollars? Networks couldn't get the interesting fights, so they cut and run.
Only diehard boxing fans pay for PPV's. The casual fan may be able to see a PPV fight at a friends house. How the heck are young fans going to get excited about this sport?
PPV's are good for the few fighters than can generate a PPV audience. Guys like DLH can generate huge $'s for themselves. PPV's are bad for the long term health of the sport. If it wasn't for ESPN and Fox showing fights, the sport would be in terminal decline.
Eventually a better compromise will be reached. I say that because there is still huge money involved, and it's in nobodys interest to see the pie keep getting smaller and smaller. When the old fossils are out of the way (Don King, Bob Arum, etc.) the younger crowd may be able to see the bigger picture and work to enlarge the pie.
Getting back on network TV is a MUST. The elite fighters need to fight more often and for less per fight, still making the $'s when it's all added up. I'm not sure that the fighters themselves can see that the current trend is going to put them below Ultimate Fighting and clones before long. There is no strong single commission to chart a prosperous future for boxing (as there is for the NBA, NFL, Nascar, ...).
I hate to see where boxing is heading, 'cuase I love it.
Fighters, especially the heavyweight champ, were once very popular athletes. The heavyweight champ was the most popular athlete in the world. Now, the average person has never heard of the K****ko brothers. Muhammad Ali was a phenomenon who had crossover fans. People heard of Tyson and he was champ as the sport went into decline. Ironically, Tyson could demand big PPV dollars and this reduced the overall number of viewers (as compared to fights on free broadcast TV). Pretty soon, there were NO fights on network TV. This was the end result of the big PPV's. Why would a fighter go on free TV for small purses when they can get PPV dollars? Networks couldn't get the interesting fights, so they cut and run.
Only diehard boxing fans pay for PPV's. The casual fan may be able to see a PPV fight at a friends house. How the heck are young fans going to get excited about this sport?
PPV's are good for the few fighters than can generate a PPV audience. Guys like DLH can generate huge $'s for themselves. PPV's are bad for the long term health of the sport. If it wasn't for ESPN and Fox showing fights, the sport would be in terminal decline.
Eventually a better compromise will be reached. I say that because there is still huge money involved, and it's in nobodys interest to see the pie keep getting smaller and smaller. When the old fossils are out of the way (Don King, Bob Arum, etc.) the younger crowd may be able to see the bigger picture and work to enlarge the pie.
Getting back on network TV is a MUST. The elite fighters need to fight more often and for less per fight, still making the $'s when it's all added up. I'm not sure that the fighters themselves can see that the current trend is going to put them below Ultimate Fighting and clones before long. There is no strong single commission to chart a prosperous future for boxing (as there is for the NBA, NFL, Nascar, ...).
I hate to see where boxing is heading, 'cuase I love it.
Comment