Comments Thread For: Golovkin Promoter: Lemieux Had To Be PPV To Happen

[GMAN SUPREME]

I see so your saying this fight is okay on PPV because "Hey, he's better than Quillin." BWAHAHAHA!!!!! That's what they should call the PPV, I might pay for the trolling. It's sad that's your defense though, but do what works I guess.

you jackass you don't even know what you are arguing about.its a ppv fight because of golovkin he's exciting knocks people out he has that buzz like another ko artist by the name of mike Tyson once had.

[Beater_of_ass]

Yeah he lost 4 years ago or so, not much different than Cotto who lost to Austin Trout just a few fights back, and like Cotto, David Lemieux has looked good and entertaining since those losses. I'm sure no one would care to watch Cotto on PPV coming off back to back losses to Floyd and Austin Trout, but fortunately for both neither are coming off losses here and both have a bit of hot streaks going.

The value of the PPV is in the eyes of the beholder.

If you find value in watching:

Golovkin vs Lemieux
Roman Gonzalez vs Brian Viloria
Luis Ortiz vs. Bermane Stiverne
Tureano Johnson vs Eamonn O'Kane

Then it's a good card to order. Comparing it to a recent PPV in Pacquiao vs Mayweather, which had a horrible undercard with a price tag of $100, I definitely see value in this card. I'm ordering it because I'm a fan of entertaining fights & cards. Pretty solid if you ask me. However if you don't see value in that, quite obviously don't order it.

Hey, you actually posted something and reminded why I respected you as a poster. This is the first real reply where I've struggled to argue it and really, I can't.

I paid for Mayweather/Canelo for the undercard, not the main event. Floyd kept all the money though. I just can't see myself paying anyone facing a 14-1 underdog. But if it wasn't for Danny/Lucas I never would have bought that fight and it was Floyd who kept all the money, not the undercard. I see it the same way here. Maybe I'm just jaded but as stated value is in the eye of the beholder, it isn't a universal viewpoint, so to each their own.

[Beater_of_ass]

Ever? Hopkins lost to Clinton Mitchell. Nonito Donaire lost to Rosendo Sanchez. Henry Armstrong was KO'd by Al Iovino, lost to Eddie Trujillo and Al Greenfield. I can go on.

Manny had bad losses too. Hopkins lost his first fight. These things do happen, I can't recall either of those guys ever being 14-1 underdogs though.

[Beater_of_ass]

you jackass you don't even know what you are arguing about.its a ppv fight because of golovkin he's exciting knocks people out he has that buzz like another ko artist by the name of mike Tyson once had.

Exciting shouldn't mean pay me more money, but you seem to think so obviously.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Hey, you actually posted something and reminded why I respected you as a poster. This is the first real reply where I've struggled to argue it and really, I can't.

I paid for Mayweather/Canelo for the undercard, not the main event. Floyd kept all the money though. I just can't see myself paying anyone facing a 14-1 underdog. But if it wasn't for Danny/Lucas I never would have bought that fight and it was Floyd who kept all the money, not the undercard. I see it the same way here. Maybe I'm just jaded but as stated value is in the eye of the beholder, it isn't a universal viewpoint, so to each their own.

Did you pay for the Cotto vs Jennings PPV?

[ИATAS]

Hey, you actually posted something and reminded why I respected you as a poster. This is the first real reply where I've struggled to argue it and really, I can't.

I paid for Mayweather/Canelo for the undercard, not the main event. Floyd kept all the money though. I just can't see myself paying anyone facing a 14-1 underdog. But if it wasn't for Danny/Lucas I never would have bought that fight and it was Floyd who kept all the money, not the undercard. I see it the same way here. Maybe I'm just jaded but as stated value is in the eye of the beholder, it isn't a universal viewpoint, so to each their own.

Manny had bad losses too. Hopkins lost his first fight. These things do happen, I can't recall either of those guys ever being 14-1 underdogs though.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up "14-1" underdog, as if odds have ever decided whether or not a fight is entertaining. GGG being a big Vegas favorite has a lot more to do with the perception people have of Golovkin and less to do with Lemieux, because I guarantee you there isn't a middleweight on the planet who would be that big of a favorite against Lemieux. Cotto, Canelo, Quillin, Jacobs, none of these guys would be big favorites against Lemieux, if not underdogs themselves.

Regardless, we are talking about the entertainment value here, so it doesn't matter if the viewer believes Golovkin is going to win, the question is if they find enough value in the fight/card to order the PPV. People weren't ordering Mike Tyson PPV's because they thought there was a chance he would lose, they were ordering it because they wanted to watch Mike Tyson destroy some guy. As this thread has clearly shown, there is plenty of entertainment value for a lot of people to order this (enough so that they are putting this on PPV in the first place) and that's what this thread is about.

[ИATAS]

Exciting shouldn't mean pay me more money, but you seem to think so obviously.

Why are you telling people what they should think is exciting to them? See, this is where you just come off like a "hater". You're telling people what should and should not be exciting. Why do you care? Why do you care if some random person on a boxing site wants to order a Golovkin PPV because he finds it exciting? Type of ish is that? This is boxing, a sport in which anything can happen, which some of us find exciting and entertaining (amazing isn't it?). This is a middleweight unification bout between two big punchers. That in itself is exciting.

[New England]

that's the way it's goingto have to be with ward and golovkin, and probably kovalev-ward.


these guys are priced out of the networks if they take opponents who demand a lot of money. if they stay on the networks and off of ppv it is against guys who command small amounts of the purse.


it's a bad spot to be in if you are a fan.

[BazookaGomez]

that's the way it's goingto have to be with ward and golovkin, and probably kovalev-ward.


these guys are priced out of the networks if they take opponents who demand a lot of money. if they stay on the networks and off of ppv it is against guys who command small amounts of the purse.


it's a bad spot to be in if you are a fan.

Al Haymon increased the rates and inflated boxing, it may be good for the fighters but for the fans and sport in general it's not great.

[Beater_of_ass]

Why are you telling people what they should think is exciting to them? See, this is where you just come off like a "hater". You're telling people what should and should not be exciting. Why do you care? Why do you care if some random person on a boxing site wants to order a Golovkin PPV because he finds it exciting? Type of ish is that? This is boxing, a sport in which anything can happen, which some of us find exciting and entertaining (amazing isn't it?). This is a middleweight unification bout between two big punchers. That in itself is exciting.

Because when people buy **** match ups in masse, they end up on PPV not PBC. That's not good for boxing.