David-Leo Santa Cruz PPV numbers

[Bandman]

Mexicans bought all the PPVs so kudos to Santa Cruz.

Davis didnt do sht dude. He is a mumbling idiot who makes chad dawson sound eloquent.

Davis has no personality, no charm, cant talk for sht. He isnt PPV material.

He doesn't need personality. He just sent Leo's head to the moon ☽ and trended on Twitter for it. He'll be okay. His next ppv fight will do even bigger #'s

[Bandman]

What it means is that Al Haymon needs Mexican Bidness to save ****** fellowship fanhood because Wilder is gone. LSC got paid well while being an idiot allowing TMT swap gloves last minute. Tank has 2.4mil followers. You don't think it'd be disastrous if he lost to LSC? What else would Showtime provide thereafter? Charlos? There's a reason why Davis never fought Loma before. It's called preserving that 0 and swapping tampered gloves last minute. Ask Fury. He knows all about it innit!

How tf is this site so sensitive to racism yet this mofo gets to constantly say sht like this? or typing sht like "mayne" or "in dis hoe".. listen brother you can do a better job of hiding ur racism. you're a full time LDBC stalker. but you only stalk to bash them..

[Thuglife Nelo]

How tf is this site so sensitive to racism yet this mofo gets to constantly say sht like this? or typing sht like "mayne" or "in dis hoe".. listen brother you can do a better job of hiding ur racism. you're a full time LDBC stalker. but you only stalk to bash them..

mayne, in dis hoe is a ******* language techniques. Got nothing to do with “racism”

By the way, do you roll single dollar bills in bands, mayne?

[Goldie]

Lol...I love your "I didn't read your post" combined with "your talking out of your a$$", a conclusion that's definitely valid since you didn't read my post after all. You then created a strawman argument about sources which has nothing to do with my proposition. And once again name calling is not a counter argument

I didn’t say that I didn’t read your post I said I didn’t read all of it. I also didn’t call you any names. You’re either a bald faced liar or you’re the one who didn’t read my post lol.

This IS about sources because you have none. You have no inside information to refute reports about the ppv buys and that’s been my point this whole time. You say that these numbers aren’t true and it’s based on nothing other than you not wanting to believe that they’re true. To be objective you would have to have information/facts that contradict the reports. You have nothing other than biased speculation.

[Gate keeper]

I didn’t say that I didn’t read your post I said I didn’t read all of it. I also didn’t call you any names. You’re either a bald faced liar or you’re the one who didn’t read my post lol.

This IS about sources because you have none. You have no inside information to refute reports about the ppv buys and that’s been my point this whole time. You say that these numbers aren’t true and it’s based on nothing other than you not wanting to believe that they’re true. To be objective you would have to have information/facts that contradict the reports. You have nothing other than biased speculation.

Right, you not reading all of my post is of course what I meant. Reading a piece of it does not somehow guarantee that you fully understand the entirety of my argument as you seem to be alluding that it does.

And no, this is not about sources at all. As I said, that is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with my proposition. I believe the PPV numbers are unlikely to be true because they follow PBC's trend of massive deviation from non-PBC PPV performances historically. Although PPV sources are usually not official, let's say one was official and they said that Tank's PPV sold 100 million PPVs, about 25x May vs PAC numbers. Shall I simply believe it because it was an official source that said so? Of course not, I'm unlikely to believe it because it deviates exponentially from the historical trend of PPV performances. Hence my doubt has nothing to do with the source itself but the data regarding the trend of PPV performances historically. And PBC deviates from this trend on the regular basis and seems to be the only organization that ever has so regularly. Hence being an outlier and so I am doubtful.

[Goldie]

Right, you not reading all of my post is of course what I meant. Reading a piece of it does not somehow guarantee that you fully understand the entirety of my argument as you seem to be alluding that it does.

And no, this is not about sources at all. As I said, that is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with my proposition. I believe the PPV numbers are unlikely to be true because they follow PBC's trend of massive deviation from non-PBC PPV performances historically. Although PPV sources are usually not official, let's say one was official and they said that Tank's PPV sold 100 million PPVs, about 25x May vs PAC numbers. Shall I simply believe it because it was an official source that said so? Of course not, I'm unlikely to believe it because it deviates exponentially from the historical trend of PPV performances. Hence my doubt has nothing to do with the source itself but the data regarding the trend of PPV performances historically. And PBC deviates from this trend on the regular basis and seems to be the only organization that ever has so regularly. Hence being an outlier and so I am doubtful.

Thats a baseless argument rooted in nothing but your biased anti-pbc perspective. You’ve provided no factual information backing up anything you’re saying. You’re just babbling on saying nothing. You’re just a pbc hater. There’s nothing objective about you.

[Thuglife Nelo]

Thats a baseless argument rooted in nothing but your biased anti-pbc perspective. You’ve provided no factual information backing up anything you’re saying. You’re just babbling on saying nothing. You’re just a pbc hater. There’s nothing objective about you.

wah wah ''PBC hater.''

WAR CANELO! Your favorite fighter!

[Mooshashi]

Reruns of Little House on the Prairie get better numbers.

[Gate keeper]

Thats a baseless argument rooted in nothing but your biased anti-pbc perspective. You’ve provided no factual information backing up anything you’re saying. You’re just babbling on saying nothing. You’re just a pbc hater. There’s nothing objective about you.

It has nothing to do with anti-PBC anything and the data behind everything I'm claiming is freely available. Have you even actually checked the performance of boxing PPV's in the pre-Mayweather and post -Mayweather eras? You can even check the average recent ratings of fighters who've headlined PPVs. If so, are you really arguing that PBC PPV's do not consistently perform way better than non-PBC PPV's historically? All you have to do is say yes I've checked and no I don't believe PBC's PPV numbers are unusual or they are unusual but here's why PBC is so successful and then we can proceed logically from there.

[Goldie]

It has nothing to do with anti-PBC anything and the data behind everything I'm claiming is freely available. Have you even actually checked the performance of boxing PPV's in the pre-Mayweather and post -Mayweather eras? You can even check the average recent ratings of fighters who've headlined PPVs. If so, are you really arguing that PBC PPV's do not consistently perform way better than non-PBC PPV's historically? All you have to do is say yes I've checked and no I don't believe PBC's PPV numbers are unusual or they are unusual but here's why PBC is so successful and then we can proceed logically from there.

If you’re going to make claims then it’s on you to back it up. You must be real slow to think that saying “the data behind what I’m claiming is freely available” somehow legitimizes your claims. Anybody can say that lol.

I’m not checking for sht that you’re saying. You said it so it’s up to you to back it up. You haven’t backed up your claims because you’re just talking out of your a$$ from a biased perspective. It’s like I said in the first post. You don’t believe the numbers because you don’t want to believe them. I don’t know why you’re going on and on tryna oak to yourself as “objective”.