Wilder vs Parker, Joshua vs Wallin, Bivol vs Arthur planned for Dec 23rd

Well you again somehow manage to articulate the problem at hand so well.

The fighters want more money and they expect the public to pay for it. In that case they should take the best fights every time to encourage more ppv sales.

This isn't what's happening here. As you said the status quo is fighters try to sell PPVs off name value, not competition level. The idea of paying for name value as opposed to competition level is nonsense and you should want better fights with a higher frequency.

If the best fight each other more regularly they'll lose more regularly and no one will spend a decade trying to protect a meaningless 0 whilst avoiding their best challenges.

 

sounds too good to be true this.

 

How long do most of the UFC guys last at their peak before they get dethroned? A few years max? That's a few years of making 10 times less than a top boxer. Great for the fans, not that great for the combatants. The moment these men lose, their stock dwindles.

A top boxer can make 10 times more than a top UFC fighter and spend 5 - 10 years at the top. The byproduct of this approach is the best fights can marinate for years. If you're a prize fighter, which both the boxer and UFC fighter are, what's the better option from a prize fighters perspective?

A frustration of being a boxing fan sure but that's the status quo. Complaining on an online forum isn't going to change that.

 

I'm a fan, not a combatant, so thanks for acknowledging it's great for me.

Stock doesn't dwindle at all when people lose, I don't even know of an unbeaten fighter in the UFC, no one cares. If the best the best they'll pick up losses.

Yes you again highlight the problem. Fights take years to build in boxing and quite often don't come off. Fury v Usyk and Beterbiev v Bivol are two great examples. In UFC they would have already fought by now.

Not paying for sub par ppv fights will change it tho. As I said in my first post here, as long as it isn't ppv I'm ok with this card.

 

How can you delay something that's never going to happen?

Wilder has never, ever, wanted it.

 

You keep saying I'm highlighting the problem, I think I'm highlighting reality. I don't see the point in clashing with reality, facts don't care about your feelings.

"Stock doesn't dwindle at all when people lose, I don't even know of an unbeaten fighter in the UFC, no one cares. If the best the best they'll pick up losses."

Of course they care, too many losses at the top level and the fighters become chopped liver and unmarketable.

"Not paying for sub par ppv fights will change it tho. As I said in my first post here, as long as it isn't ppv I'm ok with this card."

If it goes ahead then it's probably going to be PPV so get the Kleenex ready.

 

Yes you do have a good way of articulating the problem.

They don't become unmarketable. Pacquiao was one of the most marketable fighters in history and he lost plenty of times.

Why would I need Kleenex? I just won't pay for it. I said I didn't think the card was ppv worthy, you credited my logic and asked me to expand so I did and then you said there's no point complaining on a forum. I was literally responding to your post.

I don't have an emotional investment like you do, I prefer UFC. I just maintain a casual interest in boxing for when big fights come along. I said all I needed to say in my opening post, anything beyond that is just answering your questions.

 

Good card but why not just make Joshua V Wilder the main event? Boxing is so bizarre sometimes.

 

Let's not forget how hard it is to get the dosser to fight anyone who isn't a journeyman bum...

 

"They don't become unmarketable. Pacquiao was one of the most marketable fighters in history and he lost plenty of times."

Pacquiao was a bit of an anomaly though. He had a giant fan base and was a money making power house. Most boxers that lose 2-3 times at the top, that's them done as a major draw.

"Why would I need Kleenex? I just won't pay for it. I said I didn't think the card was ppv worthy, you credited my logic and asked me to expand so I did and then you said there's no point complaining on a forum. I was literally responding to your post."

I didn't credit your logic. I view the status quo of top level boxing as a reality that a boxing fan should accept. You view it as a problem that you can't do anything about other than complain on a forum which is counter productive.

"I don't have an emotional investment like you do, I prefer UFC. I just maintain a casual interest in boxing for when big fights come along. I said all I needed to say in my opening post, anything beyond that is just answering your questions."

You don't have an emotional investment? A casual interest? 74,000 posts? Go **** in someone else's pocket.

 

Exactly.

Heck, I'm surprised he's even entertaining the idea of fighting Parker... He might be boring but he's levels on anyone the dosser actually beat.

 

Wow the hate is strong in you aye,