Why Isn't Crawford vs. Postol a PPV Worthy Fight?

[brettWall]

Crawford wants hyuuge money in this risky fight. Hyuuuge. That's why it has to be PPV. This is similar to Danny Garcia only willing to rematch Khan unless it's PPV.

[Beercules]

I'm asking you as a boxing fan. Why accept fights like Canelo/Khan as PPVs but turn your nose up at fights like these? I can understand a casual having that mindset but shouldn't we be willing to pay to see the best fight the best as opposed to a mismatch involving a name fighter?

You have seen my posts about Canelo Khan right? I'm not buying that.


If Crawford Postol is PPV then yes I will buy it. I bought Pac-Bradley 3 FFS.

[DreamerUSA]

Today's boxing fan be like:

"Fighters today are divas. They don't fight anybody"

"He ducking doe"

"Boxing is dead. No good fights are being made."

"UFC has passed boxing. The best actually fight the best."

"Boxers are cherrypickers. They want the lowest risk for the highest amount of money."

Yet...380,000 fans purchased May/Berto, 400K purchased Pac/Algieri, 800K watched Floyd rematch Maidana, 350K watched Canelo/Angulo, and 500K watched Pac fight Bradley for a 3rd time.

Only the Pac/Bradley triology was a fight between two top 5 contenders in a division. What's wrong with this picture?

Shouldn't the best matchups be on PPV and the mismatches be on free TV? Since 2008, these are the only PPV fights that involved a unanimous 1 vs. 2 matchup in a division:

1. Mayweather vs. Canelo
2. Canelo vs. Lara
3. Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

Is this proof that boxing fans don't care about the best fighting the best but have a casual side of them that just cares about the big names?

Money was shelled out for mismatch after mismatch, year after year, but when we actually get a fight worth watching it's time to watch your budget?

For me it won't matter if I'm one of 500 people that buy the fight. Postol vs Crawford is a top notch match up and I'm not missing it. Unless they act dumb and charge like 100 bucks lol. With that said, I doubt this fight sells well. You got Crawford who has a very loyal following, but is far from a star and you have Postol, who from what i can tell has five hardcore boxing fans rooting for him. Crawford can't carry this PPV on his own.

[El-blanco]

I think fights with clear big names, who also happen to be top of the food chain in their division deserve ppv. Oscar-Shane, may-pac, Holyfield-Lewis, etc. postol vs crawford is a great fight but it doesn't warrant ppv. These guys don't have big win after big win on their resume. Floyd vs Chico was on regular HBO and that fight trumps 95% of the matchups that go on ppv nowadays. Canelo-Lara is not a ppv fight because Lara has no drawing power and isn't even that great. Neither is pacquiao vs algeri or Floyd vs Ortiz, Etc.

It's unfortunate what direction the business has moved towards but I still don't think really good fights deserve ppv. They should be great to warrant ppv. I would buy postol Crawford because I don't mind paying for what I think is a really good fight but objectively it shouldn't be on ppv and neither should mismatches.

[bojangles1987]

Because, unfortunately, no one will pay for it. So when it does miserably, you worry that they will go back to fighting crap fights because there's no reason to fight the best.

I would pay for it just because I want to at least do my part to see more fights like this. This is the kind of fight we should pay for.

[Beercules]

Because, unfortunately, no one will pay for it. So when it does miserably, you worry that they will go back to fighting crap fights because there's no reason to fight the best.

I would pay for it just because I want to at least do my part to see more fights like this. This is the kind of fight we should pay for.

Exactly.

[-PBP-]

I think fights with clear big names, who also happen to be top of the food chain in their division deserve ppv. Oscar-Shane, may-pac, Holyfield-Lewis, etc. postol vs crawford is a great fight but it doesn't warrant ppv. These guys don't have big win after big win on their resume. Floyd vs Chico was on regular HBO and that fight trumps 95% of the matchups that go on ppv nowadays. Canelo-Lara is not a ppv fight because Lara has no drawing power and isn't even that great. Neither is pacquiao vs algeri or Floyd vs Ortiz, Etc.

It's unfortunate what direction the business has moved towards but I still don't think really good fights deserve ppv. They should be great to warrant ppv. I would buy postol Crawford because I don't mind paying for what I think is a really good fight but objectively it shouldn't be on ppv and neither should mismatches.

I agree but at the same time, the sport has to adjust to current times. Floyd and Chico's purses were $1.7 million and $1.4 million so it took $3.1 million to get the best fighters in the ring at that time. There is no way any network can come up with that kind of money in today's boxing without doing a PPV.

Back in those times, fighters were getting paid PPV dollars to fight on regular HBO.

[Eff Pandas]

I definitely overall agree with your take. Even as a guy who hates the PPV model for the sport. I think what people are saying isn't that it shouldn't be on PPV cuz certainly you could make a case that any fight that has low enough costs to provide a profit after expenses is a PPVable fight.

I think what people are truly saying is its not THAT big of a fight to be a PPV between the matchup & appeal of the fighters right now. There is no Mayweather or Manny. There is no big fight feel to it like you get with most past PPV cards people think of. But that isn't really relevant to the true is it a PPV caliber fight discussion of does it make a profit vs the expenses.

[SouthPawHitman]

I might have to go swimming that night! Ha! Yeah ya hear! Hell yeah yo!

[techliam]

Today's boxing fan be like:

"Fighters today are divas. They don't fight anybody"

"He ducking doe"

"Boxing is dead. No good fights are being made."

"UFC has passed boxing. The best actually fight the best."

"Boxers are cherrypickers. They want the lowest risk for the highest amount of money."

Yet...380,000 fans purchased May/Berto, 400K purchased Pac/Algieri, 800K watched Floyd rematch Maidana, 350K watched Canelo/Angulo, and 500K watched Pac fight Bradley for a 3rd time.

Only the Pac/Bradley triology was a fight between two top 5 contenders in a division. What's wrong with this picture?

Shouldn't the best matchups be on PPV and the mismatches be on free TV? Since 2008, these are the only PPV fights that involved a unanimous 1 vs. 2 matchup in a division:

1. Mayweather vs. Canelo
2. Canelo vs. Lara
3. Mayweather vs. Pacquiao

Is this proof that boxing fans don't care about the best fighting the best but have a casual side of them that just cares about the big names?

Money was shelled out for mismatch after mismatch, year after year, but when we actually get a fight worth watching it's time to watch your budget?

What division was Canelo/Lara fought at? I thought it was Caneloweight (155lb) but I may be wrong. You could also add Pac-Bradley 3 to the list - theres only the RING who refused to see it, and this is the publication that sanctioned Floyd-Guerrero for their RING title, so theres major questions to be asked surrounding the legitimacy of their rankings (or titles).

I wish PPV equated more to skill more than network pushing or star power, but we know it doesn't. The issue here is that hardcore fans focus a lot more on the merits of the matchup, casuals focus way more on names. Its casuals that dictate the direction of PPVs - Canelo/Khan couldn't be a more perfect example