Boxing popularity about to explode, will boxing overtake UFC in the USA again?

Discussion in 'MMA Forum' started by bluebird, May 22, 2021.

  1. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    Your idea of "context" is to twist, cherry pick, goalpost shift, deny, speculate and fabricate in the absence of any evidence to support your argument.

    So now MMA fights doing 1m+ buys dont count because nobody is buying PPVs involving two MMA fighters having an MMA fight because they're actually into MMA. Meanwhile people buy Paul Bros fights and Floyd vs Conor purely because of boxing. A perfect example of taking clear numbers and evidence and trying to goalpost shift it into some weird abstract argument that cant be proven nor disproven.

    ...aaannd another example. As already shown MMA has had more names involved in 1m+ drawing fights from 2008 (ie the first year they broke a million buys) to now than boxing has had from 2000 to now. But because its not convenient for your narrative and you know it, you're now trying to ignore that to cherry pick fights/fighters than never broke a million buys. When did Roy Jones jr break a million buys? Whittaker? Chavez? Ward? Spence? Crawford? Loma? Usyk?

    Best part is the two fighters whose numbers you're trying to **** on (GSP and Jones) have generated around 9 million and 7 million total PPV buys respectively, in other words they were both sustained major PPV draws only surpassed by Floyd, Pac and Canelo in boxing during the same era.

    Heres a cherry pick for you though - between Oscar/Hopkins in 2004 and Canelo/Chavez jr in 2017 the only boxing matches that broke a million buys involved Floyd or Pac.

    Probably because the MMA buys are real and provable while the boxing numbers were literally made up by you.


    Brock Lesnar hasnt fought since 2016, and before that fought in 2011. Jake Paul/Ben Askren happened last month. Floyd/Logan is happening next week. Tyson/RJJ with Jake Paul vs an NBA player was last year.

    Which old men incapable of fighting are they using? so what about AJ/Wlad, Fury/Wlad, AJ/Povetkin? Wilder/Ortiz 1+2, Pac/Thurman, Pac/Broner, Whyte/Povetkin 1+2 and the upcoming Spence/Pac?

    You talk about context but sure as hell dont wanna give it when it doesnt fit your narrative eh?

    Anderson was coming off of a win against a top 10 ranked opponent, his losses were via freak leg injury, a win over Nick Diaz that was turned into a no contest because he later failed a drug test, a contentious decision loss over Bisping (who went on to become the champ) and a decision loss to Daniel ****ing Cormier in a higher weight class. You also left out that it wasnt even meant to be the shows main event, but the actual main event had to be cancelled a few hours before the show went on air.

    No up and comers ever fight faded old names on the way up in boxing do they?

    I did laugh in your other post when you attempted to excuse that the 3 (soon to be 4) biggest boxing PPVs of the last 6 years involved 0 active boxers, two MMA fighters and a Youtuber.......by bringing up Rampage/Wand....off PPV....in Bellator.

    So because a fighter who isnt Fury or Wilder did a certain number of buys while fighting in a country that has a two hour time difference from the UK, and because Fury/Wilder 1 did less than half a million buys in the UK......Fury/Wilder 2 at like 4am did over a million buys in the UK?

    I cant argue with your logic mate.

    No the problem is 1.3m is the official figure for Usman/Masvidal with multiple sources, while 2m+ for Fury/Wilder 2 is a figure you pulled out of your ass.

    We're now attributing millions of buys to boxing matches that never even happened, sounds about right.
     
  2. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    Look at the context, mate. The question here is not if a certain fight did 1mi ppv buys, but why and how often. You look at the numbers and what you clearly see is the only figures in the history of MMA that have been able to bring those numbers REGULARLY, not just for a specific fight, are Lesnar and McGregor. None of them because of their actual MMA skills.

    All of the boxing names that have brought regularly 1mi+ ppv numbers have something in common - They are exceptional fighters. De La Hoya is a 6-division world champion, was pound-for-pound best; Pacquiao is a 8-division world champion, was pound-for-pound best; Mayweather is a 5-division world champion and undefeated, was pound-for-pound best; Canelo is the best pound-for-pound.

    Lesnar got his numbers from his previous WWE career. McGregor, the biggest attraction n the history of the sport (!!!!) is just an average fighter, above average at best, who got his numbers from his persona and not from his actual performances in the octagon.

    The most popular name in the history of MMA (!!!!) lost to 18-10 Nate Diaz, then barely won a majority decision on the rematch, fought 28-4 Eddie Alvarez, then became a boxer because boxing pays better. Got ko'd. Then he made a comeback to MMA where he lost again. Then he won against a 37-years old Cerrone, a guy with a record of 36-13 who was coming from two defeats. Finally, he lost again, now to Poirier.

    The biggest attraction in the history of boxing was Muhammad Ali. The biggest attraction right now is the pound-for-pound best fighter, Canelo Alvarez. Before that, the biggest attractions were Floyd Mayweather, undefeated and pound-for-pound best, and Manny Pacquiao, only 8-division boxing champion and pound-for-pound best.

    People buy things like Paul Bros fights and Floyd vs Connor for unrelated reasons to boxing, but they buy Canelo vs Saunders, Fury vs Wilder because of the boxing match. Now, people don't buy Conor fights for reasons related to MMA, because he's not even a good MMA fighter, so which MMA fighter is bringing million ppv in regularly because of his fighting skills? Which MMA fighter did that in the history of MMA? I'll wait.

    It's comprehensible that not every big figure in boxing will bring million ppv sales regularly, as it's also comprehensible that not every big figure in MMA will bring those numbers. What is incomprehensible is not even ONE MMA fighter being able to bring those numbers based on their fighting skills.
    Actually, it's comprehensible - MMA still is smaller than boxing and brings way less casual fans to premier events than boxing does. UFC is doing really well, but for unrelated to MMA reasons. Their biggest attraction is not even an exceptional MMA fighter.
    It's almost like the biggest seller in the history of boxing was Paulie Malignaggi, with all due respect to Paulie.

    The point was never when Lesnar fought, but the fact he, alongside Conor, are the only figures in the history of MMA capable to bring 1mi+ ppv regularly. You said boxing was dependent of youtubers to bring the numbers, which is a lie, so I told you the TRUTH: Your sport, historically, has relied on a WWE star and a media clown to bring big numbers. NEVER a MMA fighter was able to bring REGULARLY 1mi+ ppv events because of their fighting skills and/or because they were the best.

    The point is not to have old man fighting. You can be old and still deliver, like Bernard Hopkins. The point is to use old man that shouldn't be fighting anymore. Pacquiao is an amazing, ready fighter who hasn't really lost a fight since 2015 (Jeff Horn was robbery). Ortiz was a capable fighter, champion. Wladimir Klitschko was still a capable fighter.
    The same way, there's no problem in having Yoel Romero fighting, despite him being old, because Romero is a beast and can deliver.

    Funny enough, even the not biggest boxing ppv events are still doing much better than most UFC ppv events. You take the freakshows out and boxing still is in much better shape than MMA and that's because the biggest boxing star is not even on ppv model anymore.
    I though the point was to measure how much each sport can attract by itself. Boxing, even without considering the freakshows, is bringing the same numbers from UFC biggest fights in the US and worldwide is far outdoing MMA.
    So...

    It's a decent estimate. Fury vs Wilder II was a HUGE fight, 1mi ppv would still be only 2/3 (66,6%) of what AJ did for the rematch against Ruiz two months before and the LV argument is really lame. Mayweather vs Pacquiao (A fight where none of the fighters were british and happened in LV) sold around 1mi. Mayweather vs McGregor, a fight where none was british and happened in LV, sold 1 mi. Why Tyson Fury, one of the biggest stars in british boxing, making the biggest fight of his career and one of the biggest fight attractions in boxing couldn't realistically sell those numbers?
    Again, you just don't want to believe that boxing can pull up better numbers than MMA does, because you've created a reality where only MMA has fans and can make huge events, when the reality is way different.
    Do you think I forgot that you didn't look the numbers were worldwide, not US-based? Double standards.

    It's not official, because it was reported. UFC don't disclose those numbers since the ESPN deal. Even if we consider the fight, against all odds, did the exact same performance from the last fight, despite the much bigger investment in the rematch promotion, the fight would still have made 1.7 mi worldwide, so 400k over UFC 251. If we take the realistically scenario where one of the biggest fights in the history of the UK, with heavy promotion, with one of it's biggest stars, at the heavyweight division, was able to sell 1mi ppv, barely 2/3 of what Anthony Joshua did just 2 months before to fight an overweight Ruiz, the fight would have done around 2.2 mi sales worldwide. This means outperforming UFC 251 by more than 1mi ppv sales.
    Take the red pill, mate.

    I meant Thurman, my bad. HAHAHA
    Doesn't change the fact you're full of double standards and blind to the fact boxing, despite all it's problems, has been outperforming UFC/MMA overall.
     
  3. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    Yeah, it only took....

    ...replacing publicly reported PPV numbers with your own invented numbers, making excuses to downplay why YT/FB/IG/Twitter/Reddit which have readily available numbers that we can all check at any moment all constantly draw bigger for MMA, endlessly arguing oddly specific strategically caveated things that cant be proven nor disproven like "how many fighters draw over 1m regularly purely because of their fighting ability", treating £20 UK PPVs as being of equal value to $65 UFC ppvs while baselessly claiming all UFC PPV numbers are worldwide, focusing strictly on 1m+ PPVs because if you were to include the next tier of still big 500-999k drawing PPVs as well things would shift even more heavily in the UFCs favour (by a LOT), and equating Brock Lesnar and Conor to the Paul brothers...

    ...to come to this conclusion.
     
  4. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    We've come to the point where you're straight up lying about what I said and completely delusional about your own arguments, because your distorted view of the reality has been proven wrong.
    1) I didn't made up any numbers, they're there. But you want so much double standards that you want to say "Look, you can count UFC worldwide numbers, but only boxing US numbers are valid". You cannot apply different standards when comparing the same thing, it's a matter of fairness. Do you want to say UFC 251 made 1.3 mi? Fine. But then you have to say Fury vs Wilder II made anything between 1.7-2.2 mi ppv. Fairness.
    2) I didn't made any excuse about social media numbers, what I said, and I'm right, is that social media is only a share of the reality that can give very distorted views about the popularity of something based on the demographic that most use them. If you're popular in TikTok, for example, you're not necessarily popular in the population 30+ older, which is the core base of the population and consumer market. At the same time, you can be popular in this segment of the population and not have that many young fans. Social network trends are only a part of the market analysis of any big company, political party and entertainment industry, but TMTL87 thinks your number of followers online is enough to say how popular you're.
    3) It's not endlessly or "can't be proven". Boxing has Pacquiao. Pacquiao has been able to regularly bring 1m+ US ppv during the height of his career, where he was boxing pound-for-pound best athlete. Pacquiao is not american, doesn't speak english, don't live in the US and has a pretty boring, not mainstream lifestyle, much devoted to the church and his political career. When he stood up in the ring to fight Márquez, or Cotto or Mosley, people bought the fight because they wanted to see boxing's finest artist. Not because they wanted to see if a WWE champion could actually fight or because they wanted to see the guy who is on the news 24/7 doing stupid stuff to appear on TMZ evening news. So it's easy to answer and prove - How many pound-for-pound best MMA fighters have been able to produce 1m+ ppv sales regularly? The last pound-for-pound best UFC fighters have not been able to produce 1million ppv at all, much less regularly.
    So the sports of MMA, in it's whole history, has never been able to produce 1 champion that could attract this mark regularly because of his fighting skills, because he was MMA's finest artist, but somewhat is boxing, the sport who has produced at least 4 of those in the last 20 years to be the dying, not interesting sport.
    4) Again, lying. I never said all UFC ppv numbers are worldwide. I said the fights you brought here, like Usman v Masvidal, have worldwide numbers in the count. There's no problem in counting your worldwide sales, it's money the same way, the problem is you comparing the worldwide sales from one sport to the US sales of another sport. That's a double standard.
     
  5. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    .....



    No made up numbers.

    Where? in your head?
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2021
  6. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    These are projections, not made up. You know for a fact that Fury v Wilder II sold 1.2 million in the US and that fight was on the ppv in the UK. Unless the hell has frozen, Fury vs Wilder II must have done, AT LEAST, the same from the first fight. This would put the fight on 1.7 mi range worldwide. If the fight sold 1mi ppv in the UK, 2/3 of what AJ did 2 months before and barely twice for a fight that outperform itself in the US by 4x, the fight would be on 2.2 mi worldwide.
    But hey, maybe the fight sold 2 ppv in the UK, so your point can make some sense.
    There's a huge difference between made up a numbers and project what a not released number may are. By the way, UFC doesn't show what the fights actually did as well, so even the UFC numbers in this discussion are projections.

    You're just delusional because your whole point of view about the shape of MMA and the shape of boxing has been proven wrong. You should be humble and just admit that you have not looked the situation from this point of view, got caught on Dana White's worldwide numbers bait and overestimate how much social media means for overall popularity.
     
  7. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    Projections from you, with no evidence, hence made up.

    That 1.2m number is based off of Arum saying, and I quote

    "In regards to the Fury vs Wilder (II) Pay-Per-View, they don’t have the digital numbers yet. The digital is well over 300,000 buys, It’s probably sort of accurate (the 850,000 reported). But then you add in the digital on top of that. So three hundred and change (to 850,000). It’s closer to 1.2 million.”

    Where does he specify that those are US or worldwide buys?

    Likewise your claim that the UFC meticulously includes every single PPV buy from every PPV provider in every country on the planet to come up with their numbers does not have sufficient evidence. The UFC claimed 700k worldwide for the Adesanya/Costa fight specifically, other than that two UK sources claimed Jorge/usman 1 did worldwide numbers however the source used for the 1.3m number on wikipedia specifically adds " on ESPN+" and one of those UK sources saying it was worldwide contradicts itself by using that exact same source in the article. So theres conflicting information. We dont know either way just the same as we dont know whether Fury/Wilders numbers are domestic or worldwide.

    But if you can allow me to speculate a little bit, (dont worry, I wont add millions of unprovable invisible extra PPV buys to UFC events)..

    My personal belief is that MOST of the UFCs reported PPV numbers are US domestic. Because they went out of their way to specify "worldwide" for Adesanya/Costa, which is not something ive heard before. Also because everything points towards the UFC being much more of a global brand today than it was a decade ago, so for the PPV numbers to have remained fairly consistent theres 3 conclusions 1) the international fanbase hasnt actually increased, its all a big lie 2) the American fanbase has decreased massively or 3) those are domestic numbers.

    As for Fury/Wilder 2, If I had to pick a theory to go with i'd be inclined to go with those 850k buys being the combined traditional PPV buys from the US and UK. Then there was 300k-ish buys on Fite tv or wherever it was which would partially account for worldwide buys, then anything else is up in the air. I'm basing this on the first fight doing 775k between those two markets. And that a jump from 325k in the US to 1.2m seems unlikely and there is no precedent for that kind of increase, I dont believe there is any clear reason to just assume it went from 450k to 1m+ in the UK either.



    At the end of the day though, all we can see is that the officially given pay per view numbers for both sports clearly indicate the UFC does better than boxing - I take that at face value, you take that as the UFC skillfully presenting their numbers while boxing for some reason underreports its numbers to the tune of MILLIONS of buys. Then in addition to that every form of social media and Youtube also consistently indicates that the UFC is generating more interest. I take that as further evidence alongside those PPV numbers, you take that as irrelevant because apparently boxing fans dont use the internet. Then along with those numbers i'll go by for example boxing not having a video game for a decade while the UFC has had 5 in the same time frame, I interpret that as yet more evidence, while you just brush it off.
     
  8. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    Nobody says worldwide numbers in boxing, my friend. That's a completely new thing made by the UFC.

    The evidence is the fact 1) The fight was on ppv in that other country. 2) There are other comparative numbers from similar ppv in this country, including from the past fight.

    By the way, you came up with the argument the fight couldn't have done 1mi ppv buys because it was in Las Vegas, 4 AM. Then I showed you that Mayweather x Pacquiao and Mayweather x McGregor, two fights that didn't involved a british fighter, that happened in LV, were capable to reach those numbers in the UK. So why Fury v Wilder II couldn't?

    Based on evidence, the fight should have done at least 500k ppv sales in the UK, because these are the numbers from the first fight, so even if a fight that grown 4x in the US didn't grown an inch in the UK, they would still have outdone UFC 251.

    Also, you brought excuses, these ones with no evidence, the fight could not have made those numbers, because they would be a spetacular raise from the first fight. So I showed you the fight sold much more because the investment on it was much bigger, with a whole article written about it.

    Made up is when you say a number with no evidence this number is possible. When you give a range projection that goes form 450k to 1 m of what the fight may have done based on past fights, similar events, promotion investment etc. That's not making things up.

    For you it's simple hard to accept that a boxing fight can outsell a MMA event. Well, welcome to reality.

    So the UFC numbers are only a speculation now? HAHAHA. All the sources have reported UFC 251, Adesanya x Costa and Adesanya x Jan as worldwide sales. Complain with the people responsible for collecting this info, not to me. The info I have, based on what was reported, it's that UFC 251 sold 1.3 mi worldwide, being 900k in the US (Still amazing number) and 400k international sales. That's the same info you got and that you used to make the point UFC was in better shape than boxing, until I exposed your argument, that actually those reportings are giving you worldwide projections, unlike boxing, who gives US projections.


    I agree with you. My theory, now that's speculation, is that Dana White wanted to pump up the numbers to give the hardcore fanbase and maybe the investors the sense UFC was outperforming itself during the pandemic, especially because, as I point out, if not for Conor, UFC hasn't really anyone capable to bring 1mi+ ppv regularly, like boxing have with Canelo and others.
    My guess is that, if UFC follows that trend, very soon boxing promoters will start to give worldwide numbers as well.

    Let me point out something - You've been comparing 2020/2021 numbers with 2009 numbers, forgetting that between those dates there's an entire decade of ppv sales with varying performances. 2017, for example, was the worst year in ppv sales in the recent history of the UFC.
    If you look to the situation UFC had in 2009, they were at the height of their popularity in the US (Tapout t-shirts everywhere), they had very established legends fighting regularly, like GSP, Liddell and Anderson Silva + Brock Lesnar bringing WWE fans.
    Unlike 2009, UFC has one big attraction (Media clown McGregor) and none legendary fighters bringing in the numbers, unless you consider Adesanya or Masvidal big attractions.
    1) The international fanbase indeed increase. 2) The american fanbase hasn't decreased, but there's no one right now that can truly caught their attention. Probably, the only guy that could do so is Jon Jones. You can see by his numbers that he's able to bring GSP-like numbers when he fights, which seems to be about the double of what Adesanya is actually doing in the US. 3) Those are worldwide numbers, as reported. If the report is incorrect about that, we must start discuss the legitimacy of the report itself. If the report cannot be trusted, we cannot use the numbers they give, because they may very well be incorrect as well. The problem is that you're so desperate to create a reality where MMA is truly outworking boxing that you want to establish another double standard: The part of the report that fits my argument, it's true. The part that doesn't, it's incorrect.
    Stop the nonsense. Stop the double standard.

    Again, read the article I've posted here. The promotion for the rematch was way more aggressive. The fighters had way more TV time. There was a joint promotion between Fox and ESPN, now under the same Disney banner, to make this fight massive. The reason is probably the fact Wilder, if had won, could be the next big thing in America's ppv, especially because the next fight would be against Anthony Joshua. The growth from 325k to 1.2m was so justified by the aggressive investment in making the fight big by two of the America's biggest networks + UK investment from BT sports.
    Because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. Again, you're applying double standards. Somewhat, UFC 251 numbers, between Usman x Masvidal, are believable, but Fury vs Wilder II is not, because you don't feel like it. Because it doesn't fit your argument. Shameful.

    Wait... HAHAHA. You started the post complaining about the report of UFC 251 being unclear, now you're saying UFC's ppv numbers are official. If they're official, why there was a report? How UFC skillfully present their numbers, but you're saying you can't know if the numbers are worldwide or not because you don't believe in the report (Again, because it doesn't fit your argument).
    Boxing doesn't underreport their ppv numbers, they simply use a different criteria when disclosing the numbers. Instead of reporting worldwide numbers, they only disclose US-based numbers. The problem is, for comparative reasons, you have to establish the same criteria. You cannot compare worldwide numbers to US numbers, because that's a double standard. You compare US numbers with US numbers or you compare worldwide numbers to worldwide numbers.

    I do not take as irrelevant. What I said, and it's true, is that it cannot be used alone to indicate the popularity of something. As every single company on the planet knows, social media trends are only one of the many factors involved in measure popularity.
     
  9. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    There are more factors involved in it. Boxing is a decentralized sport. That means if you want to release a boxing videogame, like the one that's coming, you need to negotiate with every single fighter and heir of past fighters to use their public image. In comparison, and that's something that has been talked about by Big John, UFC owns the right of image from his fighters, so they can do it at will and not even pay them peanuts for it, so the process of actually making a video game is much easier, because you need to negotiate with only one part and that part is the most interested in having the videogame, because it's a way to promote their brand.

    Here's the video if you want to know more about how UFC works, including the videogame part -
    It's only 5 minutes and worth every second. The videogame part starts at 3 minute mark.
     
    TMLT87 likes this.
  10. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    Yeah yeah, we know. Official PPV numbers dont matter, easily checkable social media numbers dont matter, the biggest sports game publisher dropping boxing for the UFC doesnt matter. The only thing that matters is your own made up PPV numbers.
     
  11. BCS8

    BCS8 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,038
    29,822
    Aug 21, 2012
    Not while boxing judges make like the three blind mice and dole out stupid and obviously corrupt decisions.
     
    mirkofilipovic likes this.
  12. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    They all matter, but how much they matter to project the popularity of something is debatable.There's no question that UFC is successful and popular, but that's not what we were discussing. Our talk was about their level of popularity in relation to boxing. What a sucessfully showed you is:
    1) Your initial idea about UFC ppv were a little bit wrong, because the numbers had been slightly inflated by adding worldwide numbers, while boxing always use US-based numbers. When compared using the same standard, the sports are way more similar in numbers.
    2) UFC/MMA, unlike boxing, has never been able to produce a 1mi+ ppv fighter that could repeat those numbers regularly because of their fighting skills. Both fighters that were able to do so, Brock Lesnar and Conor McGregor, did that despite their MMA performances.
    3) Social media numbers are important to show the popularity of something, but are only one of the many factors in it. That means a fighter may not be as successful on social media, but is more popular in traditional media, like TV, that calls another public.
    4) UFC has videogames not just because they are popular and boxing isn't. While UFC almost robbed their fighters out of their image rights to make a videogame + as a company, they pushed for it to reach new young fans. Boxing has no central organization, which means making a videogame cost way more money and time than a UFC videogame, where you have to negotiate only with Dana White.

    So we can come to the conclusion boxing and UFC/MMA are pretty similar in popularity in the US, just trending different in different demographics. Internationally, boxing is way more popular. Boxing still is the sport able to produce the biggest fight events and biggest combat sports stars.
     
  13. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    The only numbers anyone can actually see say Conor is the biggest draw of the post Floyd/Pac era and Conor/Khabib is the biggest fight. As far as international popularity goes its apples to oranges somewhat and again, we dont really have any numbers to prove anything either way definitively. All I know is if you look up this weeks global schedule on Boxrec and this weeks MMA schedule on sherdog boxing has 39 events spread across 14 different countries while MMA has 41 across 18. So its not as cut and dry as people assume it is, imo.
     
  14. HUEwarrior

    HUEwarrior New Member Full Member

    35
    13
    May 23, 2021
    I do agree with you, but AGAIN, let's look beyond the numbers and see what they mean. Conor is, indeed, the biggest draw on combat sports in the US, no doubt about it, BUT his numbers are completely non-MMA related, just like Paul v. Askren are completely non-boxing related. Nobody buys the McGregor ppv because they want to see a good fight or because he's really good at it. Actually, it's quite the opposite, everybody knows he's bad and will probably lose, but they buy for the entertainment.
    About Conor/Khabib, it's indeed the biggest fight US saw post-2017. BUT it's important to point out the 2.4 mi buys it's also a worldwide number, as reported here -
    This content is protected


    "Because it’s a worldwide number, and boxing pay-per-view numbers released are only for North America, it’s impossible to make a direct comparison regarding where this ranks of all-time. It is definitely behind Mayweather vs. McGregor (August 26, 2017), Mayweather vs. Manny Pacquiao (May 2, 2015) and Mayweather vs. Oscar de la Hoya (May 5, 2007), and probably behind Mayweather vs. Canelo Alvarez (September 14, 2013). It is possible that, adding in the U.K. market, which didn’t air UFC 229 as a pay-per-view, that some of the big Mike Tyson fights may have also beaten this number worldwide, but would not have in the North American market."

    Still the biggest fight, though. Great accomplishment. That don't change the fact boxing has been doing equally or even better overall than UFC, vide all the analysis that I did in the last days.

    I disagree on that, heavily. Boxing is way more solidified international sport than MMA, has way more international stars who have way more influence. I can't think of ONE MMA fighter who is able to generate the type of engagement Canelo generates in Mexico or Pacquiao in the Phillipines. Canelo, for example, is the single biggest audience in mexican TV.

    AGAIN - having an event at some place doesn't mean the sport is popular there or influential. There's boxing events scheduled in Brazil almost every week, but almost nobody watches the sport here. There's almost no boxing events in Central Asia, but boxing is HUGE there. Being a global sport is not about having events in place x or y, it's about being popular with the overall population of several different nations in different continents.
     
  15. TMLT87

    TMLT87 New Member Full Member

    69
    58
    Feb 21, 2021
    Lol this is highly disingenuous.

    Aldo was unbeaten for 10 years, is still generally regarded as a top 10 ATG even after the loss, was on his 8th title defence and came into the UFC as the WEC champion when the UFC introduced a FW division. Conor was 6-0 in the UFC with only one fight going the distance, he was coming off of a win over the previous title challenger Mendes. Conor won that title fight in 13 seconds which turned him into a megastar. Conor/Alvarez was FW champ vs LW champ. Conor/Khabib was 10-0 in the UFC interim LW champ vs returning Conor who had left as the LW champ. Conor/Dustin 2 was the top ranked LW after Khabib retired vs a guy who had previously destroyed him in the first round.

    ..how are any of these things like Paul/Askren? they're all high level MMA fights between great fighters. The only thing even approaching a freakshow was the Diaz fights, which were two weight classes up with Nate coming in as a late replacement for RDA and ending up being a banana skin.

    Also are you saying Canelo being Mexican plays no part in his drawing potential? or that people wanting to see Floyd lose didnt play a part in his numbers? or Pac constantly fighting guys Floyd just fought didnt play a part in his?

    Well the next thing would be to look at some of the social media, YT etc numbers for these cards to gauge interest. But you would just shrug them off anyway.