I'm actually finding this debate between Dunny and Zero entertaining.
I'm from the UK so mostly stay out of the Haymon TV debates. I usually see the UK broadcast (with UK commentary/presentation) or a stream of the US broadcast where I only watch the fight and none of the buildup. So I have no idea how good PBC is doing in the ratings, if the current approach is working, if being on network TV has led to boxing being a bit more popular/noticed by the average US fan.
But 2 things I would say is this 1. You guys are talking about the deal the UFC got and ratings they do. I don't know when that deal was agreed to or the particulars, but it seems that aside from the McGregor and Rousey fights the UFC has been declining in popularity, so even if PBC get equal views, it might not mean they get the same deal because the UFC deal might have been based upon the belief that the UFC would grow in popularity. Like I say I don't know the full details but just throwing it out there.
Second thing is that it seems clear we're still in a 'wait and see' stage with PBC. At this point it might still succeed or it might still fail, it's too early to rule either possibility out.
My guess is that part of Haymon's plan was to get all the available top talent, but he hasn't been able to. If he had Canelo, Cotto, Pac, Golovkin, Kovalev, Abraham, Brook, Fury and Joshua then a UFC approach would be successful: 1 PPV each month where the best fight the best, use the foreign talent to have PPVs in Europe and Asia like UFC do and build PBC brand recognition worldwide. I'm not saying Haymon ever intended monthly PPVs, just giving a personal view on what I think would work for fighters and still be profitable. Realistically though I don't see all the top boxers under one umbrella like that in this era and whatever Haymon's long-term plan is, it would be a concern if over half of the investment is gone because the brand and company are still building and this isn't the perfect time for them. 2016 are make-or-break years for Wilder, Thurman, and a couple of others. If the key PBC guys fulfill their potential they are going to be better off this time next year than they are now but the company could need that investment until that point.
I'm from the UK so mostly stay out of the Haymon TV debates. I usually see the UK broadcast (with UK commentary/presentation) or a stream of the US broadcast where I only watch the fight and none of the buildup. So I have no idea how good PBC is doing in the ratings, if the current approach is working, if being on network TV has led to boxing being a bit more popular/noticed by the average US fan.
But 2 things I would say is this 1. You guys are talking about the deal the UFC got and ratings they do. I don't know when that deal was agreed to or the particulars, but it seems that aside from the McGregor and Rousey fights the UFC has been declining in popularity, so even if PBC get equal views, it might not mean they get the same deal because the UFC deal might have been based upon the belief that the UFC would grow in popularity. Like I say I don't know the full details but just throwing it out there.
Second thing is that it seems clear we're still in a 'wait and see' stage with PBC. At this point it might still succeed or it might still fail, it's too early to rule either possibility out.
My guess is that part of Haymon's plan was to get all the available top talent, but he hasn't been able to. If he had Canelo, Cotto, Pac, Golovkin, Kovalev, Abraham, Brook, Fury and Joshua then a UFC approach would be successful: 1 PPV each month where the best fight the best, use the foreign talent to have PPVs in Europe and Asia like UFC do and build PBC brand recognition worldwide. I'm not saying Haymon ever intended monthly PPVs, just giving a personal view on what I think would work for fighters and still be profitable. Realistically though I don't see all the top boxers under one umbrella like that in this era and whatever Haymon's long-term plan is, it would be a concern if over half of the investment is gone because the brand and company are still building and this isn't the perfect time for them. 2016 are make-or-break years for Wilder, Thurman, and a couple of others. If the key PBC guys fulfill their potential they are going to be better off this time next year than they are now but the company could need that investment until that point.
Comment