This article from The Roar claims UFC destroys the farce that is boxing and compares UFC132 to the heavyweight boxing title fight. http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/07/06/ufc-132-vs-boxing-article-title-required/ From the article -: The UFC card was headlined by a bantamweight title fight, with the combatants having one fight between the two of them. They weren’t well known by the casual fans. The UFC basically brought a knife to a gun fight, but they won easily.
The stadium wasn't sold out, the security was horrendous, the undercard was pathetic and neither fighter had any incentive to really win or finish the fight.
Really? You mean you didn't like Afolabi's KO? Or Sexton and Robinson? That said in terms of value it was poor. But you have to blame Haye and Wlad for that. Anyway how is this being quantified? Are the numbers out of PPV for Wlad Haye? Or the attendance numbers? Or the revenue it generated? Sounds very much like the usual boring digs by UFC fans at boxing.
Such bias and nonsense belongs in a garbage bag.To suggest that the UFC outdrawed the Boxing event this past Sat. is utterly ridiculous.Check out the attendance and PPV figures and tell me it's not true.:deal
There were over 50,000 in attendance for Haye Klit compared to the 13,000 that turned up for UFC 132. Im not sure what the PPV buys or the gate consists of but taking into account there was a 40m pot - Although i don't know if that is Pounds or Dollars - either way it blows away revenue wise what UFC 132 did. So i fail to understand this comparison or its validity.
Afolabi vs Dunstan was a great ko but a shite match up. Same for Sexton fight which was domestic. The UFC really shits on boxing, most of MMA does but the UFC in particular. Boxing still has a place in the average/mainstream mind and thats why it can penetrate the market with stuff like Pac vs Floyd but in terms of consistence and being true to the sport, boxing can't compete with MMA. Too corrupt and too many ****s like Arum and King.
bull****, at the end of the day haye klit was watched by far many more people worldwide, prob done more ppv buys and defo generated more revenue, as an event the UFC was far better to watch but i knew over 100 people who watched the boxing and i know of about 5 who watched the ufc
At the end of the day, you gotta ask yourself, do you like watchin two guys roll around the ground like a pair of homosexuals or the sweet science? That's all it comes down to.
Can anyone make a thread about how smaller rings would make the sport of boxing more entertaining. If you take a look at Louis vs Carnera for instance, the ring was much smaller which allowed Louis to get Carnera against the ropes. If you want more ACTION in boxing, DECREASE the ring size. People will never want to watch two men in their panties wrestling like homosexuals ever again. Imagine if Marquez had a smaller ring against Mayweather for instance. Or Pac had a smaller ring against Mosley. Marquez vs Mayweather perhaps may have been more competitive, and Pac would have finished Mosley. That's how you make FAN FRIENDLY fights.
He's talking about ring size, so that's a yes. The smaller the better right Hendo what's your views on Haye dropping to his knees infront of Wlad like a homosexual? This content is protected
I thought that article would cause a bit of a stir. I don't necessarily agree with it all by the way. But it does make some interesting observations.