Do not buy the Whyte fight.

I really enjoyed Ball vs Gilley on the little heralded Friday night Queensberry card. Terrific scrap, differing styles, both guys gave it everything they had and a narrow but deserved victory at the end for Ball.

As long as I see a couple of those on the card I don't mind so much if there's a 'big name' topping the bill or if one or other of the match-ups is a bit rubbish.

Course we also saw Adeleye matched up against a fella literally making his debut as a boxer.

 

See I disagree though mate, and there are several ways to legally watch boxing for nothing / not much most weekends. But if you want to watch certain fights, you have to pay, just like if you want to certain films - you have to pay.

There is still a very comparable market to renting VHS’ - Amazon prime you can access almost any film but only a small percentage are free - the rest you can either pay £1.50 - £4.50 to rent or £6-9.99 to buy.

I’m not fundamentally disagreeing with you by the way. I agree that professional sport, not just boxing, is gradually being spoilt and split across very mediums and the end consumer despite having the best access they’ve ever had is having to pay more and more. It’s a really tough one. Do I want to pay for any fight? No, of course not unless I’m there in person. Do I pay for fights? Yes, because I want to watch them when they’re on.

 

We were talking about PPV, not just any boxing. Like I said, there is only one way to legally watch a live PPV card in your home, and that's behind a paywall which now seems to be a minimum of £20 and heading North.

Films and live sport are separate phenomena, by nature. Of course, if you want to watch the latest release, it's normally at the cinema where you will pay £10 or less to view (I'm not accounting for optional extras because we are talking about the product here).

However, your argument was that "10 years ago everyone was on the same wave length watching films on telly". Therefore, you weren't addressing new releases. You were addressing the "I fancy watching a film or something tonight" segment. That's where Netflix et al. come in and provide consumers more value than ever before. Once upon a time (well before 10 years ago, by the way) film consumers either had the option of seeing what would be on television, if anything at all, or purchasing or renting a VHS or DVD which exceed the costs of Netflix et al. for a single film. The conclusion is that films are not becoming more expensive like you initially said, they are becoming considerably cheaper.

Sports media fragmentation is another discussion entirely and it is in fact the antithesis of what is happening with film, with platforms like Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and others coming together to offer more value than what has previously existed, all on one platform. Needless to say, I don't use any, anyway.

 

You make a point and have certainly corrected me on things, I suppose you are correct that I hadn’t factored in new releases.

I suppose the point I was making, at its core, was the fights that are on PPV now weren’t on PPV 10/15 years ago. Everyone watched the same fight at no extra cost. However, now you have the choice to pay an additional fee if you want to watch certain fights. The parallel I was trying to make, albeit poorly, was that 10/15 years ago film at home was fairly similar with Jurassic Park 2 on ITV at 9 on a Sunday night, but now you have the choice to pay an extra fee to widen that horizon. Of course, Netflix is much better value than Chisora vs Parker.

 

The problem I see is not that promoters are catering for the "casual" audience.
It's the assumption that the audience should stay casual and confused and view boxing as a series of sideshows. And that the 'hardcore' should be dumbed down too, if possible.

I have friends who have been watching boxing, buying PPVs, for years upon years, they are quite 'hardcore' in a way but they remain fairly ignorant and don't follow the sport much beyond what SKY etc. are telling them. They don't get the same information or sense and perspective that they get from following their football.
In fact, they possibly know less and less as the years roll on. Conditioned to believe (and they do occasionally disbelieve) THE HYPE and to press that button on their remote, buy, buy, buy. Conditioned to just view boxing as a Saturday night sideshow. They walk away disappointed as often as not, but with enough hype behind the next one, they'll get reeled in again.

It's not all the fault of pay-per-view and it's certainly not all Eddie Hearn's fault, and professional boxing has had its huge structural flaw and the 'hype and ballyhoo' principle since its very inception.
But this expansion of the PPV model is making it worse.

Promoters and broadcasters should be concerned with making profits and maximizing profits, yes.
But they should also have a concern for growing the sport, putting some degree or structure in place and informing the audience and developing an informed fan base.
Because .... well, because it's a great sport. And has that potential.

 

Sounds much like what's happened with political debate in this country...

I think where it's gone wrong is that they've effectively made the PPV slots a permanent fixture, regardless of whether or not there's a genuine big fight there to be made. Hence Chisora v Parker or Whyte v Povektin are elevated to a level they don't really deserve to be.
I think the PPV slots are priced into the Sky Matchroom deal, instead of being something which can be organically justified based on an outstanding boxer with a big following taking on a peer in a big fight. So a structural problem once again, but a new one to go with all the other nonsense!

I reserve some of my criticism for the media. On the latest Costello and Bunce podcast Steve Bunce, the definition of an industry shill, speaks out in favour of Whyte's next fight being against someone who can just about stand up for 3 rounds. He's been taking 'too many risks' apparently and 'had no business' fighting Oscar Rivas or Povetkin.

Mike Costello, who is usually on the right side of the journalist / shill line, didn't pick him up on it because it's not that controversial an opinion in boxing circles, but it damn well should be. Why didn't he? Because Whyte had frozen them out for years because he didn't like the line of questioning on a previous interview. The media should be holding the promoters and boxers to account. If they get frozen out, they have a bona fide reason not to cover that guy.

 

Yeah, loads of contenders have beat Chisora.

Oscar Rivas didn't need to be on pay-per-view.
It was an understandable decision to offer Parker pay-per-view again just a few months after they paid him millions for the AJ fight, but they could have equally put him and Whyte on the next AJ show, which would have been fair too.
It was Parker-Whyte that gave Hearn the idea that Whyte was a full-time permanent pay-per-view star, which continues.

Honestly, these guys (Whyte particularly) are really just riding off the Anthony Joshua association, with Hearn cheekily squeezing in pay-per-views as AJ was set on his "1 or 2 fights a year" schedule.
Somehow him and Dillian have pulled it off over the last 2 or 3 years.

 

The real reason is it doesnt make financial sense. Why would wilder need to fight 40 bums? This forums called them bums. Its not like their all sitting making millions each fighting bums. Even if the fighter was on to a good thing...surely the investors...promoters/trainers etc are thinking theres more money to be made out there
...but we,ll fight another 20 bums anyway because we,re protecting him. Wilder had a big billing quite early in his career as well...because he was knocking guys out in one round.

Was time to step up after say 20 bums. Get him in with stiverne then. Stivernes not even a big name really. Whats stopping him and what did the other 15 bums thereafter prepare him for stiverne any more than the first 20.

Then you sit down stiverne and say how much do you want for the fight....probably your one of four or five pay days you,ll ever get being in the top say 50 boxers in the whole world.

Its a short career stiverne says half a million quid...wilder looks like he can really punch. I need to pay tax on it. My trainer and manager take 35 percent also. My training camp costs a bit money...my bills need paying for the 4 months i need to train for it and the paydays i,ve had up to now are barely seeing me by. I,ll say 500,000. By the end of it i,ll come out with...£100,000.

100,000 sounds allright for a fight at that level but i m pretty sure a guy working in mcdonalds makes about £800,000 over his career. 40 years at a tenner an hour for arguments sake....18 grand a year times 40...740,000 pound in his career.

I m not criticising mcdonalds workers but what i m saying is it actually looks the safer bet. A lot of these fighters are struggling to get by for years to start with. Then if their lucky they get decent money but your all telling me povetkin could hardly walk on saturday night...same as the last time he fought whyte. What career does povetkin have after saturday. Hows his brain looking after all these years of fighting. Hes been one of the lucky ones as well.

If it wasnt for us all paying our twenty quid would he have been that lucky tho. Povetkins fought joshua, price, whyte times 2 without that tho. What we,re his other big fights. Hes been top cruiserweight and heavyweight for years now. He got klitchko etc.

Anyway back to the wilder v stiverne fight. Wilder wants half a million as well.

He,ll end up with about 100,000.

So a million quid to cover the fight. They need to pay out for the venue, ring, doctors, ref, judges. The list goes on. Say another 100,000.

So 1.1 million to cover it. Who wants ticket?

No, i m fine i m keeping my money for joshua,s next fight..never really heard much about stiverne or wilder.

Anyone want to sponser it...adidas? No we,re going for joshua next fight. but a company called atlantis will.

What networks want it..."we,ll give you a 100,000 its a small fight"

Boxings a massive gamble is the point....thats why its got to be worthwhile for not just that one superstar...but also the guys around the top ten.

Theres not enough money in the sport without that 20 quid apart from all but the superstars is essentially the truth.

Think he ended up fighting stiverne in his 30 something fight...probably made decent money as well at that point. But when he tries it after 20 fights. Theres no investment for it....and fans then wonder why he fought fought 40 bums. He did cause no one would fund him after say 20 fights.

 

Great post btw.

 

The damage was done when it became apparent their was no money there for top ten v top ten fights. Look around you these guys weren,t fighting each other. Look at ortiz...ortiz was a good fighter. Till he got wilder...he,d largely fought no one. You,ve got to ask yourself why. Look at all the guys....none of them we,re fighting each other. Thats a broken sport. Your talking from a point of view that the game was doing allright till eddie came along.

It couldnt be further from the truth. Think people are in denial about that.

People saying they,ll fight for whats there....only they weren,t and they wont. Dillian,s shown that if you get paid parity with other top sports stars these guys will fight. I ve been pointing out other sportsstars in sports much easier with a lot less risk than boxing that are being paid far better.

Personally there all getting too much...but i know if i was a boxer i,d be waiting it out waiting for the big one so i could get paid. Thats what we,re seeing. If you werent a massive name....you had to fight a massive name...the problem is theres not all that many massive names out there.

You,ve to just sit it out waiting fighting non challengers. Its that that will kill it for the new breed of fan or the next generation. Probably why the hardcore market right now isnt sustainable.

The kids we,re watching ufc from way before hearn got involved in boxing...its been talked about for years. Pretty sure eddies even talked about it. The new generation arent attracted to small hall shows or boys coming out with a pair of shorts on and a beer belly. Ufcs a slick package...and thats exactly what hearns aiming for. The only problem with hearn is that twenty quid. But the reality is no one else is going to fund it but yourselves.

Eddie is making a killing i bet...but thats none of my business tbh...the way i see it is...eddies doing it....but anyone could be doing it. Their just selling a service. A service that does cater for the boxing fan in that top contenders are actually fighting each other.

Its just that the hardcore fan doesnt like change...its not how it was...well the truth is the game was broken and it,ll stays broken...and its harder now because theres actually lower investment in boxing nowadays.

People saying its killing british boxing are having a laugh. Too many ppv,s you say. And yet for each of them ppv,s...say 10 fighters are on...it gets them all working. Theres never been a more active time for british fighters to fight decent challengers than now. Or even just keeping them busy...building their profile.

How many guys like campbell are challenging the top names...crolla had a shot at lomachenko. Callum smith fought canelo the other week. Billy joes about to fight canelo. That list can go on and on.

The british fighters are active. Whyte and joshua been consistantly fighting good guys. Chisora the same.

Been moaning for years...there not fighting each other. This guys fighting another pudding. When they start doing that you say it,ll break the game. The kids cant watch it. Or its gonna cost me twenty quid.

I m not saying buy every ppv...i dont. Sometimes eddie can do better.


But you cant sit moaning about it if your not gonna fund it...because no one else will. The fans need to....or no one is going to. Its pretty much that simple.

 

Actual footage of me logging in and seeing this..

This content is protected

 

And yet...its true

 

His posts are like a case study on delusion but once you get past the anger and frustration at someone on a British boxing forum defend the actions of an individual who is doing irreparable damage to British boxing his posts are actually quite interesting if you're interested in the macabre side of life.

 

They match fighters with 30 or 40 "bums" to build them up, especially if they are "KO artists". It's been a favourite of promoters forever. Instead of risking that "0" after 15 or 20 fights, they play it safe for longer, and it builds an aura around their "puncher".
Loads of fighters are 20-0 with KOs, but Wilder went 32-0 (32 KOs), and he was 42-0-1 (41 KOs) going into the second Fury match, 10-0-1 (9 KOs) in WBC title fights, and his aura and reputation had grown as a resullt.
Wilder's entire standing and reputation depended on him KOing a lot of guys because he can't do much else. Quantity of KOs has been important, and KO %, to build him up.

Wilder fought 36-1-1 Malik Scott a year before he challenged Stiverne (and Scott's only loss was a controversial count-out against Chisora), and it wasn't a main event. It was second billing on a Danny Garcia card.
It was a 30-0 (30 KOs) contender against a 36-1-1 contender, and was a final eliminator for the WBC title.
I don't rate Scott, but that's not far off the types of matches Eddie Hearn will sell you as pay-per-view.

 

Luis Ortiz fought Bryant Jennings in his 24th pro fight.

Jennings had only had 20 fiights himself, (and hardly any amateur career) was coming off a very decent effort against Wladimir Klitschko at the time and was regarded as solid top 10.
(Prior to that, Jennings had two wins over undefeated 'prospects' Artur Szpilka (16-0) and Mike Perez (20-0-1), "risky" fights on paper at that stage, in his 18th and 19th pro fight.)

The idea that no one was willing to step up without PPV doesn't ring true.