marvelous article about the current state of HBO Boxing

HBO does have most of the best things going in boxing in terms of excitement

Cotto, Pavlik, Pac. If they could sign Haye they would have all the most watchable fighters.

 

They aren't twisting his arm. He has no where else to put them.

 

:nut :nut :nut that **** was hella long

 

Great post!

 

Gatti fits right in with the Jersey crowd. He speaks the language, looks the part, and acts the part. Look where he did most of his fights. Boardwalk hall.

 

It's all the promoters, not just Golden Boy.

 

Thank you, sir.

 

The thing is: we need more shows like the latest BAD... 3 great fights on paper, 2 turned out to be very good (one great) and one quick KO - Angulo, Gamboa and Kirkland are exciting non-GBP names HBO needs to build up, and do it with the same kind of fights: exciting and contender level competition... next stop should be Gamboa-Juarez and Kirkland-Angulo on BAD... there's no need to protect the two JMWs, in fact, having two good names is bad, the audience need one BIG: let them fight for the 'HBO fighter' status, and the loser will still have time to bounce back...



The Hauser article is spot on the PPV sh!t. PPV is supposed to be a big event, and I mean BIG, a fight that everyone is talking about therefore everyone buys it. The logic of the PPV is simple: big event = big names in a big (exciting) fight. One of the 2 criteria is not enough - both needed, because it's not enough to get the attention of the audience to buy the PPV - they will buy - but in the end, you need the great fight to earn the trust of the audience, otherwise, after 5 mediocre PPV events, they will stop buying it... Only the biggest fights should be on PPV, and believe me, 4 big PPV shows would generate much larger numbers and audience than 8 small one...

If the event is big, everyone buys anyway, so HBO won't lose it's audience. But making small fights PPV at the same price (no really BIG names for the average HBO subscriber or big name vs. no-hoper/dull fight - Barrera-Fana, Cotto-Margarito or Pavlik-Taylor) is a terrible choice, in fact, clearly a bad business decision... these fights produce low PPV numbers, and if you put your very exciting, but not yet well known (not BIG name) fighters on PPV, you are in a vicious circle: 250.000 buy is still good to make good money, but at the same time, it prevents your fighters to become big, because the large audience never gets a chance to see them in a big fight for free...

Cotto-Margarito PPV is killing the chances of a Mayweather-Cotto big event, because Cotto is not yet big enough, and no matter how big, great, terrific FOTY stuff he'll put on vs. Margarito, the average audience, the 80% who's imagination is needed to create a Mayweather-Cotto mega event will miss the show, won't earn Cotto's name, because it's on PPV... that's a horrible choice just to make a few bucks in a very short time...

 

QUOTE=NickBarker]The problem, as the article aptly indicates, is that there are convincing accounts of how PPV fights are more profitable for both parties, i.e., HBO and the promoter, in the short run. While the plans that have been proposed have the potential to increase future value, many parties are too risk averse to forgo current revenue in order to invest that way.

If one were to look at the sort of business model that the industry, as a whole, is pursuing now and applied it to a more typical market, the problems would be much more readily apparent. Boxing is booming financially in the short run, despite its lack of mainstream popularity. However, it is doing this largely by cannibalizing its buyer base. Instead of attempting to maximize future value by reinvesting revenue into development of fighters and expansion of the fanbase, it is milking the current, die hard types for all they are worth.

I'm unsure what to think of the prospect of GBP monopolizing the industry, which is only really foreseeable after Bob Arum dies (assuming Top Rank does not have a smooth transition), but it could do some very good things for the sport. As it stands, the promoters may be in a prisoner's dilemma insofar as it would be in their collective interest to forgo the PPV fights and take current losses in order to more widely expose their product. However, if one promoter does this, the others may outearn him and secure more television dates in the immediate present. This not only puts them at a more secure financial vantage, but also may attract young talent to them who are also interested in the short-term (they are more justifiably so given the duration of their careers). If GBP can come along and control an overwhelming portion of the market, they may come to hold the leverage and wield it in a manner that HBO used to.

Just a few rants there.[/QUOTE]

You provided some interesting viewpoints in your analysis. :good
I agree with your thoughts on expanding the fan base but that ugly thing called greed is always in the way, that short term fast money. I don't know much about Schaefer's philosophy but Oscar has shown greed throughout his career always putting himself first. If Oscars camp takes control of the industry it will not be in the best interest for the fans. It will be all Oscar as usual.
Again Nick, a great post.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You're telling me Pac-vs Diaz or Cotto vs Judah could not have been made for WCB? I find that hard to believe.

 

The big problem with both HBO and GBP that they both have the influential power, the money and the relationship with the right companies, sponsors and boxing people - and they are 'wasting' crazy amount money on 'big' events that on one hand are getting all the media and the audience attention , are selling good in ticket and PPV numbers, but on the other hand, producing into dull fights.

Imagine the Vazquez-Marquez trilogy on HBO, 3 countdown shows, maybe a 24/7, and promoted by GBP! That would've been HUGE! And in the end, people wouldn't have walked away from the sport after spending $55 on a crap (Floyd-DLH) but instead they would've turned into boxing fans... But HBO and GBP are spending the money on the 'names' only and not on making exciting fights...

Everything is right what Schaefer says: they ARE bringing in the sponsors, the audience, the spectators, all the Hollywood and sport stars to watch live - they are doing a fantastic job in marketing hype, HBO Countdowns and 24/7s are masterpieces, the press conferances and weigh-ins are very entertaining, the ticket sells and PPV numbers are high... but in between, these 'big' fights are total crap. The last 3 fights with the biggest media attention were the very boring DLH-Mayweather fight/sparring session, the ugly but at least exciting Mayweather-Hatton fight and the sparring session of DLH-Forbes - and the non-hardcore 80% only saw those 3 fights - and now probaply thinks that 'boxing sucks, why should I even think about buying this Cotto-Margarito crap - they aren't even 'names'!

So on the biggest stage, when everyone is watching, when all the hype is gone and it's fight time, HBO and GBP fails to bring the excitement to the sport that boxing really needs...

 

No, they probably could have. But if the TV slots aren't available, what's a promoter to do?

 

It's one thing to say Cotto-Malignaggi couldn't have been made for HBO since HBO were already doing the Hopkins-Tarver PPV, but HBO wouldn't have any problem making a slot for Cotto-Judah. They can push back the premiere of The Family Stone by a week.

 

ok and this has been business as normal for many, many years. What you dont think they had guys fighting bums back in the 80's? please.