-
-
In the long run they might even lose money because more people start to watch stuff on live stream with ppv's , and eventually more and more people are going to start doing this, after all some live streams have just as good picture quality as the tv would, so in the long run its hurting the sport in all kinds of ways!Comment
-
It helps make some fights possible that otherwise wouldn't be. But other than that, it pretty much hurts the sport and the fans, and helps a few of the elite guys make a decent paycheck, and makes bank for the promoters.Comment
-
The money is in the masses and is how you get more new fans. I can count how many times ppl have told me that they didn't see the fight cause it was on PPV, HBO or showtime.
Exposure is the name of the game and the more fans the more the sport will thriveComment
-
Not really, but the impact of how it has hurt boxing is overblown. What has hurt boxing more is how boxing is not shown on network TV now, most likely due to a lack of sponsors. ESPN gets Hair Club for Men for boxing. Boxing used to largely be on network TV, CBS and all, Howard Cosell commentating on Saturday afternoons. The sponsors going away from boxing has hurt the sport more.
Back in the 80s, and before that, most of the big fights weren't free either. They were on Closed Circuit. Hagler-Hearns, Leonard-Hearns, Ali-Frazier, etc...were on Closed Circuit. PPV is a better viewing experience than Closed Circuit. However, they just put any old crap on PPV nowadays. Smaller cards sometimes put on independent PPVs because they can't get it on ESPN, HBO, Showtime, Versus, etc..
I wouldn't have a problem with PPV if they just put the best fights on it. But some of the PPV main events are crap. And to make it worse, the undercards are often poor too.
That POS Don King at least used to stack his undercards.Comment
-
If I'm not mistaken,espn has had more fights of the year than ppv.That says it all to me.Comment
-
Not sure where you got that idea.
Look at the last 20 years:
1991: Quiroga-Anifowoshe- small, cheap PPV for $10.
1992- Bowe-Holyfield 1- PPV
1993- Carbajal-Gonzalez 1- PPV
1994- Castro-Jackson 1- PPV undercard
1995- Sorjaturong-González- I think this was on Fox Sports, although I might be wrong and it was a PPV
1996- Holyfield-Tyson 1- PPV, although this was a horrible choice for FOTY. Barrera-McKinney and Gatti-Rodriguez on regular HBO were easily better, as was Bowe-Golota 2 which was on PPV.
1997- Gatti-Ruelas- PPV undercard
1998- Robinson-Gatti 1- Regular HBO
1999- Ayala-Tapia 1- Regular HBO
2000- Morales-Barrera 1- Regular HBO
2001- Ward-Burton (Augustus)- ESPN
2002- Ward-Gatti 1- Regular HBO
2003- Ward-Gatti 3- Regular HBO. Again, a poor choice, as Toney-Jirov (regular HBO) and Gomez-Arthur (not televised in the states) were more deserving
2004- Barrera-Morales 3- PPV
2005- Corrales-Castillo 1- Regular Showtime
2006- Sithchatchawal- Monshipour- not televised in the states
2007- Vazquez-Marquez 2- Regular Showtime
2008- Vazquez-Marquez 3- Regular Showtime
2009- Marquez-Diaz 1- Regular HBO
2010- Segura-Calderon- PPV
That's 8 Fights of the Year on PPV, and one on ESPN.Comment
-
It's actually Just for Men, but I bring this up because they have a new title Sponsor just announced today: Corona.
On this topic though I can say for sure it's hurt boxing. Only up until recently when I've had enough money to get the premium networks and pay per views I had very little interest in the sport. It's not accessible, and poor quality internet streams are not going to gain many people's interest in it.
Boxing doesn't necessarily need free TV to get huge, but bigger ESPN fights, and some other networks jumping on board like Versus (again), TBS, TNT, USA, Spike, and other national cable networks that 90% of the population has would be huge.Comment
Tweet
Comment