Gavin vs Brook: PPV or not?

Absolute joke of a fight.

 

I'm not bothered about PPV. Its the match up itself. How does gavin deserve this?????

 

I don't always agree with Eddie Hearn but can't really knock him in this instance. I would say if you view the complete event and not just the headline fight it's worthy of being PPV. Hypothetically if it was Brook v Gavin instead of No No Dan with the same/ similar undercard at Sheffield Arena last month then no it wouldn't be a PPV.

 

Can't see how anyone can justify anything so far that Gavin has done as being PPV main event worthy. The fans being ripped off and the casuals being ripped off.

 

Triangle theory? :rofl Do you know what that means? :rofl:rofl

I'll tell you. It means if fighter A beats fighter B and fighter B beats fighter C, some people then think fighter A will beat fighter C.

But yes, you're right triangle theory doesn't apply to combat sports but at least you now know what it actually means. Try again. :good

 

You obviously have no clue.

So Skeet can beat Bundu, according to you, right?

 

Here's what you wrote.
"A fight that had tipped the balance to the show being PPV is decide by a 'champion' who beat a p*ss poor mandatory, and a fighter who just beat an opponent ranked 446th IN THE WORLD and prior to that arguably lost against BRADLEY SKEETE."

Here's what I wrote.
"It's a champion who beat Porter who was a good champion. And if Skeete arguably beat Gavin then Gavin arguably beat European champ Bundu."

There's no mention of Skeete fighting Bundu.
I simply pointed out Gavin who had a close fight with Skeete is the same Gavin who also had a very close fight with Euro champ Bundu that could have gone either way, and pointed out that Brook who beat a "p*ss poor mandatory" is the same Brook who also beat World Champion Shwan Porter.

 

This fight as a main event isn't but the card is, shame is that they'll just stack the good fights on PPV and the best we get on sky sports is Scott quigg fighting an anorexic 14 year old girl

 

The fight isn't PPV the card however is strong all round. So 'yes'

 

No way is this card a PPV, don't get me wrong there's some fights on the card but for me PPV events should be about the big mega fights only.

 

Its a good card I grant you!
But it should be part of the sky sport subscription! We are being fleeced and it looks like there's more to come.
Hearn is taking the pi $$.

 

This.

Sky's prices are a joke now, and this is a kick in the b*lls on top of that!

 

Who gives a rats ass about the titles?

Froch - Groves I & II wasn't the massive PPV success it was because Carl's belts were on the line.
Froch was already an established PPV attraction and the fight an intriguing 50/50 match-up that had everybody talking.

These fights are all miss matches. Nobody knows who Frankie Gavin is.

There is nothing whatsoever on the card that appeals to the casual market.

Hean should have realized that after the last farce that packing in as many names as possible in miss matches does not make for a successful PPV.

I like the card , but its as PPV worthy as Brook vs Jo Jo Dan.

 

Froch had 1 PPV prior to the first groves fight, hardly established

 

This is actually the best ppv by far that hearn has ever done. So many good fights. I'll happily pay 20 euro for this