"Floyd Mayweather sells more PPV's because he's American"

Yeah, brilliant work.

As if I couldn't go online and find separate definitions of "working class" and "lower middle class", but even though I enjoy toying with morons like you even I draw the line at doing something so pathetic on a boxing forum. :nono

By the way, who would sell more PPVs in the Philippines, Pacquiao or Mayweather? :huh Can't remember your answer to that one.

 

Yeah, since I've been thoroughly proven wrong then let's just change my point halfway through, and go forward from there, yes?

No wonder you're such a colossal joke on here.

 

ie, "I concede" :smoke

The UK is only one small neutral market. That gives us no indication how it would go in any number of other, bigger neutral markets.

 

How many PPV's have they been on in the UK? I can only come up with 1 PPV in the UK each, both against Hatton. After Hatton was beaten by Floyd his sales dipped as the casuals jumped off of his jock.

The fact that the Pacquiao fight sold less in the UK says more about Hatton's declining appeal after a loss that anything to do with Pacquiao or Mayweather.

Same thing will happen if Haye looses to Wlad next week and then fights Vitali later. Haye's sales would decline because he'd lost. Casual British fans tend to buy PPV fights based on the high profile of the British fighter involved. How else would you explain how Sky could sell Khan vs ***an, Kotelnik & Salita (none of whom are major PPV attractions).

Edit - I can't think of other PPV's either have been on in the UK, I concede defeat if they have. Usually Sky will only put fights on Sky Box Office (their PPV channel) if there is a major UK fighter involved.

 

Except obviously you have lost because the size of the UK's economy has absolutely nothing to do with how a Manny Pacquiao fight would sell in south America, Africa, Asia, or pretty much anywhere else.

Fail again, you legendary cretin. atschatschatsch

 

PPV's doesn't equate to who is more admired, who is more marketable and who is more popular. PAC has generated MORE PPV's than Floyd but he's also had more PPV fights. it can help gauge popularity on a very surface level...but it moreso just indicates how many fans are willing to pay for the event. So that has to be taken into consideration.

THere are PLENTY who shell out coin to watch boxings BIGGEST fights. You don't generate 400K in PPVs on the back of HARD CORE boxing fans kid. It's just not that popular of a sport to hit those kinds of numbers on the backs of AVID and HARDCORE fans.

Most of the BIG PPV's are generated by the casual fan who are just looking to watch the "HYPE" against two BIG names or even just ONE in the sport. You don't have to accept that but I'm only trying to help you out.

Of course Floyd's skills are respected... so is his dedication and determination to his preparations. No one can question just how specail Floyd is as a fighter. But PAC is just as remarkable if not MORE. Most would say MORE without question.

Unfortunately your lack of common sense and logic allows you to say things like "PAC's popularity falls SHORT" in comparision to Floyd.:roll: You don't get the EXTREME amounts of endorsements from MAJOR global corporations b/c you "fall short in popularity".

That would be like saying Fedor, Woods and Mike Jordon were not really popular but had a LOT of rabid fans that made up for it.:nut

 

Stupid argument.

emmanuel is more accepted by mainstream White America than Floyd is. He gets more exposure than Floyd but can't do as well.

If it was about being American, why did $ smack emmanuel 3 times when it came to UK PPV #s? emmanuel is supposedly this internationally renowned figure but lost horribly the one time international PPV #s actually mattered, 1.2mil vs 400K. Floyd even set a new record in another country.

Reason Floyd does better is because he has something Ali and Tyson had. We call it personality.

 

Do you wish you could go back now and "change your statement" about the meaning of the words "floored" and "inactive"???

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Your objectivity will be completely ignored by MW, who is crippled by ******ation and is now quite famous on here for this.

 

But Mayweather and Pacquiao haven't been on UK PPV three times? :huh

 

when a resource is considered to be limited or scarce its value will naturally go up.

Mayweather fights once every two years and that alone generates major publicity because hes positioned himself as a 'limited resource' in boxing, and if he fought as often as Pac his numbers would be a bit smaller (not saying they would be below Pac's, but they would naturally dip a bit).

As previously stated too, Pac and Mayweather's fans are completely different. Mayweather even moaned and cried about how he wished he had fans like Pac did. If that alone dosent show the main issue, i dont know what will.

A great number of people tune in to see Mayweather lose, while a great number of people tune in to see Pacquiao win.

Its only natural for a sports star to be a popular in his home country. So naturally May will have a big following here in the USA. Really tho, its all relative. Pac has nearly as big a following (and arguably many more loyal followers) as Mayweather in the USA but also has 90 million people backing him in The Phils. May dosent have even a fraction of that many people supporting him in the USA.

Also remember that boxing is a 'what have you done for me lately' business. So while May might turn out a big 'ol 1.6m+ ppv buy once every 2 years, Pac is churning out 1.1-1.4m ppv buys consistently throughout the years. If you had your hand in the pot and stood to make money off of these guys and their fights, which side would you want to be part of? the consistent big numbers, or the slightly bigger numbers then being laid off for over a year?