Should Froch vs. Groves be on PPV in the UK?

**LacedUp** · 08-01-2013, 02:37 AM

Absolutely. You have Froch who's coming off a massive PPV fight and Groves who was a national champion and has built his name on fighting on PPV undercards. It's a domestic dust up, there's the needle between them, the age differece, one is unbeaten and exciting, the other is older and established as a champion. The difference in style. Two belts on the line.

This fight has everything. People here in Britian get too upset about PPV fights. In the US they stick the worst crap on PPV and charge three times the amount.

**Anderson Silva** · 08-01-2013, 03:31 AM

Ofcourse, what a ******ed poll and question to ask.

**LacedUp** · 08-01-2013, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Anderson Silva

Ofcourse, what a ******ed poll and question to ask.

Why is it ******ed? There's been plenty of debate about whether it is a legitimate PPV fight or not, so it's actually quite a relevant question to ask-

**Jam Jars** · 08-01-2013, 04:08 AM

I don't believe any fight should be PPV, but of course that's because i like to keep my money. From a business POV yes it makes sense.

**D-MiZe** · 08-01-2013, 04:11 AM

Why are you ****s agreeing?

It's not PPV worthy...

Well, one exception would be a stacked undercard but that won't happen. This fight has come a year too early for Groves and he doesn't have the name or proven ability for this to be PPV.

This country has to be the worst for PPV cards, fucking diabolical and embarrassing.

**LacedUp** · 08-01-2013, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by D-MiZe

Why are you ****s agreeing?

It's not PPV worthy...

Well, one exception would be a stacked undercard but that won't happen. This fight has come a year too early for Groves and he doesn't have the name or proven ability for this to be PPV.

This country has to be the worst for PPV cards, fucking diabolical and embarrassing.

How many PPVs have we had in the past 3 years? 5?

How are we the worst for PPVs? Froch-Groves is a genuinely good fight. Groves is a good fighter. If you don't like it don't buy it. Simple as that. Froch is a PPV attraction now, and with groves being a domestic rival who had a lot of exposure in his career, this makes total sense to put on PPV.

**yoz** · 08-01-2013, 04:49 AM

I'm torn.

Personally, I don't feel Groves had 'done' enough to warrant a box office fight. Sure, the fight is big, but its not HUGE. It'd have been PPV worthy if Groves had already fought a top 10 fighter or grabbed Stieglitz's belt.

As it is, I won't buy the fight. But if the undercard is STACKED, I may be persuaded.

**D-MiZe** · 08-01-2013, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by LacedUp

How many PPVs have we had in the past 3 years? 5?

How are we the worst for PPVs? Froch-Groves is a genuinely good fight. Groves is a good fighter. If you don't like it don't buy it. Simple as that. Froch is a PPV attraction now, and with groves being a domestic rival who had a lot of exposure in his career, this makes total sense to put on PPV.

Yea, let's forget about 'exposure' for a second and look at where the two fighters are at in their careers.

**gmc_rfc_06** · 08-01-2013, 06:09 AM

Carl is the man, but I'm going to say no.

Most of Carl's fights over the last 5 years have been PPV worthy, this one isn't. I just don't think Groves is remotely good enough to challenge Carl Froch.

I don't mind too much though; I got the Pascal, Taylor, Bute, etc....fights for free.

Should Froch vs. Groves be on PPV in the UK?