Kind of backs up my point. The last time it was eddie hearn at fault for putting ppv on. Now the new fellas doing it. Franks doing it. Infact their all doing it. Its been pretty clear for a long time a lot of these fights dont make financial sense to make. So the option you,ve got is to pay for it. And you,ll get a lot of these kind of fights consistantly or dont pay for it and wait too long for fights like this and more of the same. Smith or eubank v useless opponent. I wont buy this fight...because we have a choice at the end of the day. But no one is consistantly putting these kind of fights on....for a reason without ppv. So take whatever option you want. But you cant really say to people put on fights that dont really make you money or i m raging at you continually.
They put it on pay-per-view because there's a long line of mugs willing to pay for it. If they weren't willing to pay for it, do you think the boxers would just be sat at home, long-term?
Thats pretty much exactly what they done. Go look at pulevs record. Or anyone just before the recent ppv era that we,rent massive moneymakers. Most of them fought no hopers for years waiting for their shot. When the ppv money started flowing they started fighting decent names. The game was too slow moving. Regardless of if you or me agree with it...it became a better option to take a smallish payday to fight a no hoper...waiting on a shot against one of the better money men of the division that taking on a good challenger that could stop you from getting that big pay day...so thats pretty much exactly what most of them done. I m not sure why you tag me every so often about it. We,ve discussed it in depth. We,ve all discussed ppv over and over again. Just repeating the same stuff now. No one probably wants to hear it again. The games too slow moving as it is with ppv. Taking it away will just slow it down much further. The options are pay for it and see decent competetive fights consistantly or scrap ppv....and watch them all fight no hopers for far too long. Waiting too long for the big fights.
The fights versus no hopers have been PPV as well. Check out the Joshua PPV record for plenty of evidence
I can't believe his post. He's making out all PPV have been evenly matched. Joshua no-hopers on PPV Whyte Martin Pulev Takam Breazeale Molina Ruiz (still lost) Povetkin Parker All except Klitschko (41 year old, retiring, coming off a loss, inactive) and Usyk (cruiserweight just moved up to heavyweight, middle-aged man). Managed to scrape one win out of those three.
It's probably best I point out to everyone that despite what has been said, being 34/35 isn't middle aged.
You just said that we would be getting the big names against no-hopers without PPV. I just proved to you that that's what we are getting from Mr PPV himself. Nothing wrong with that. Eubank will batter Smith. Too big of a gap in talent, fitness and charisma. Smith is a decent boxer and quite tough, so he will give it a good go. Hopefully Eubank gives him a good hiding all around the ring.
Yes charisma is a huge factor in the outcome of a fight so the gap in charisma will surely favour Eubank.
I m not sure anyone wants to hear it all again...but here we go. Your labelling guys that are in the top twenty in the whole world as no hopers. Out of all the people in the world these guys have fought all the way to the top twenty in the world. Its a hard game. But its easy to do absolutely nothing with your life while labelling someone who actually has achieved something as a no hoper. What your talking is not really reality. Their just getting battered by great talents. Making them look worse than they actually are. Joshua was a bit of a special case in that people will pay to see a heavyweight that can knock people out like he did. They thought he was going all the way. They we,re good fights for him at the time and good progression considering we,ve all known hes been slightly flawed. Put anyone on that list in with a genuine no hoper and they,d make a mess of them. Pulev spent half his career fighting no hopers. A lot of them did. Even if joshua was a bit of a special case....without ppv....we,d have seen him knocking out another 15 andy leggs. Or no hopers. Like most of them done before the recent uptake of ppvs. But here we are....your still demanding people to put on fights that dont make them much money for a lot of work consistantly. The promoters dont want to do it. The fighters dont want to do it. You cant really make them do it. So either we get to see joshua v andy legg another 15 times or we pay and you get to see him fight someone in the top 20 with a decent undercard....progressing to the top one or two in the world with a half decent undercard. Or more for the guys sitting outside the moneymakers. Without ppv they werent fighting each other. Now look at parker, whyte, chisora. They,ve all fought a number of guys in the top ten. They,d be fighting has beens without it. Are they worth it i m not sure....again the reality tho is if your in or around the top ten best heavyweights in the world you can make a small fortune. Pretty big motivation to get into the sport and grow it if anything. I m not really making the rules here. Its not like i m saying take my money i dont want it. But the reality is the reality. And that reality is if you want to make boxing move faster you,ll need to pay but if no one pays them fights wont be made consistantly. Half of you watch it on boxes anyway. Agree with eubank v smith btw.
This will be an interesting fight. Liam Smith has the edge here and will get stronger as the fight goes on. I would expect Smith to dominate from around the 4th round here once he has Eubank sussed out. Both have good beards on them so it goes to a decision and I expect Smith to win it.
