AJ is a cash cow so can see him being milked until he HAS to face the best. Then can see him being a multi world champ. Not necessarily because he is the best fighter but because that's where the money is. There are 4 future fights which would be big pay days. In order haye, fury, possibly wlad and then at the end wilder. But will be a couple of years till he faces them.
If these fights were on regular Sky Sports I wouldn't have a problem with them. But a PPV for every Joshua fight is going to be pretty hard to justify long term, especially if he loses at any stage.
Not really different standards. Saunders matches get criticized too, if anyone can be bothered to talk about it. But AJ gets more attention, good and bad, it cuts both ways. That's what being a high profile, high-paid heavyweight is.
Would like if this was at the millennium in Cardiff with Aj v Parker, selby v Warrington as chief support, now there's your worthy ppv.
Is Buffet King really any better than Let's Go Champ? That is a life and death war at least. First to land gets the McD vouchers.
Eh? The Pay per Poo model is not justified for existing Sky Sports subscribers regardless of who is fighting. Cannot see where the super fight is in the two you listed either. Non subscribers being charged Pay per Poo I understand.
The only time it's justified is if they're getting a top class fighter from abroad and need the cash for it to make sense. Sky Sports subscribers are paying for football, F1, cricket etc.. I can see how there wouldn't be enough money available for, say, Vargas and his demands against Brook. I personally would have been happy paying PPV to get that fight made and (hopefully) see Brook become a double world champion. PPV to get Dominic ****ing Breazeale over though ... no thanks.
According to Big Abdul, Sky do have plenty of money to make the big fights but view Boxing Fans the same as Wrestling Fans - complete mugs. They will screw as much money out of people as possible and the only way to stop it is not to buy any Pay per Poos.
It's worth noting that Sky spend less on boxing than they do on their WWE contract- less than the equivalent of two games of Premier League football. Hearn for some reason is very happy with the low rights fees for the regular cards. I don't buy the fact 90 percent of what is on PPV now couldn't go ahead without PPV without tweaks to cards/venues etc. Could be much worse- the WWE now have 17 PPVs a year priced on Sky between £15-20. That's one every three weeks.
If the mugs continue to fork out for Pay per Poos, then I would not be surprised if Matchroom Boxing becomes a monthly Pay per Poo within 5 years.
Well, yeah, if you look at Sky as a whole, they make £100s of millions profit. They're not going to start chucking it at overseas boxers though. Don't get me wrong, the majority of PPVs are bull****. But I can swallow it if it means genuinely massive fights get made in the UK.
They are quite happy to chuck it towards foreigners in football - the Spanish Football is understandable but Dutch, American and even worse Chinese Football. Maybe Sky would pump more money into Boxing if the Promoters got together and stuck on real 50/50 fights in the ring. All we see is 50/50 fight press conferences when most of these fights have fighters that are frequently 1/10 to 1/100 odds on at the bookmakers.
This thread Tony Dosh v Stiverne - a fight that is a complete one sided waste of space with pudding Stiverne zero threat. Mugs buying a Pay per Poo for that fight are driving boxing down the pan.
Hold on. According to the front page, triple header being looked at in Wales. Joshua v pulev. Price v Parker. And chisora v whyte. That would be a great night of boxing.
A test for Joshua - yes but one that should be comfortable but a big improvement to pudding Stiverne. Price gets sparked out quickly within 3 rounds max although shattered glass always good to see. Dull Boy Chisora and Dull ian Shyte in a 12 round snoozefest. The usual bullshyte build up followed by 2 plodders barely landing a decent punch.