Froch - Kessler - Could be very bad news for Boxing!!

Manny-Hatton................Hatton-Mayweather.............Hearns-Leonard..........Hagler-Hearns...........Tyson v..................

All PPV and what do they all feature.....They all feature the best men in their division...........Transcending fighters. charismatic types .. legends!!!!

The fact two fighters are going on PPV who share none of these characteristics and despite who wins will still be number 2 in their weight class........For me sets a dangerous precedent.....

Should the numbers be good...........with guys like Burns, Groves, Brook, Barker in the Hearn stable I think we could be looking at the end of "free view" on SKY!!

After all the fighters I have mentioned don't come cheap especially on the same cards....

It'll be another blow to the sport..................Keeping Boxing away from more fans................... and another nail!!

Make no mistake Hearn will be looking closely at the figures...

None of these characteristics - put will probably put on a better show than the PPV king Mayweather usually delivers with his stinkers.

Not the point..............

Put Matthews-Crolla 3 on PPV then if that's the criteria. ..

Look PPV...Should be either to fcous a special talent and/or a fight that has some real meaning...........

These guys aren't world champions...............Paper champions.

Fight is meaningless as to who is the man at 168...

This fight isn't really a world wide event. It's a big European fight. It's a bit like Eubank fighting Benn, only people in Britain were really watching. I can't see too many American's buying this fight and it will possibly be tagged onto the package for some PPV event taking place in the US the same night.

All the sales will be in Britain and Denmark. It's a local windfall but as to it being a proper PPV world wide event it certainly isn't. I agree Sky are exploiting UK fans.

Question is... If the figures are good with so many big names in the stable..

Will they keep exploiting??

https://www.606v2.com/t41568-froch-v-kessler-ppv-what-a-joke

ZZZzzzzzzzz

You have already bored us with a PPV is bad (Ummkay) thread, Truss.

We already know your views on this, go and tell D4 on Not606 about them.

Cue angry bitchy retort.......................

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.....

Was hoping for more mature reflections on the thread though...after all it's a big fight for Brit Boxing's futue in my opinion..

In all respect I completely disagree. For me, the fights I anticipate most are those which are evenly matched and with fighters who have an entertaining style.

This fight has that including the history of their first fight plus it is a unification fight however you look at it. No problem with it being PPV.

I have Sky Sports already so obviously don't want to pay extra but understand why it's PPV.

I'd rather pay to watch Rios/Alvarado 3 or Matthysse/Garcia for example, than Floyd, Pac, Ward etc against undermatched opponants. The former fighters are not on the same level but I know what fights will give me value for my money spent.

You're entitled to disagree.................As for PPV I wish it wasn't around at all..

Luckily we had HBO...........

For me however It should be for special fights or special fighters..

Am no great fan of PPV but it is part and parcel of boxing currently so I will view every fight or card on its merits and decide then if I am willing to shell out for it. Am not in the country at the time but if I was would pay for this as the first fight suggests it will be a decent match up and I like both fighters.

Have no doubt Hearn will be watching the figures but genuinely get the impression both him and Sky have learned from mistakes in the past and will be conscious not to over egg the PPV pudding or foist undeserving match ups on there. To be honest as I said at the time anyone who thought Sky were out of the PPV game when they said they were was being naïve at best, they were only ever out for as long as they did not have anyone who could carry such a card.

Hope you're right Rowley but with only a certain amount of dates..........and a lot of names to satisfy one wonders how he will pay the purses of these stars.....

After all they will be sharing plenty of bills together..

Never thought Hearn acquiring all these names from Boxnation was a good thing..

Should also add to pick up on Valero’s point if it is a choice between watching two very good fighters in a match up that has the potential to be a cracker or watching a truly special fighter bowling over some over matched guy who has not a snowball in hells chance the former is much the preferable option to my mind.

TopHat24/7 wrote:None of these characteristics - put will probably put on a better show than the PPV king Mayweather usually delivers with his stinkers.

He rarely puts on a stinker of a ppv fight

You don't think you earn the right to go on PPV??????????

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.....

Was hoping for more mature reflections on the thread though...after all it's a big fight for Brit Boxing's futue in my opinion..

I think Reborn's point was we've already had this thread and discussed the issue ad nauseum already. Why do we need another thread, shouldn't they just be merged?

The only 2 PPV's I've bought so far are Khan-Prescott and Hatton-Pac so I'm not great fan of them either!! £30 for about 5 minutes of boxing!!

Time will tell Truss but think Sky have been stung in the past, there are rumours Khan’s first time against Prescott bearly broke 50,000 which for a company like Sky barely covers the advertising costs and the rumours are they were genuinely stung by the justified criticism around Haye Harrison so hopefully they will learn.

To be honest if PPV is the only way someone like Broner could be tempted to come over here to face Burns whilst we may not like it we may have to accept it is a necessary evil. There are loads of rumours Warren had to pay an absolute fortune to get Kostya over for Hatton, would seem likely he would not have been able to pay this without PPV revenue.

Diamond in the rough wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:None of these characteristics - put will probably put on a better show than the PPV king Mayweather usually delivers with his stinkers.

He rarely puts on a stinker of a ppv fight

Maybe I'm forgetting which of his fights were PPV and witch weren't (thought they all were pretty much), but he definitely puts on plenty of stinkers. Defensive mastery is admirable but doesn't make for much action or excitement.

You've posted three times on a thread that is irrelevant in your eyes...

Say's a lot about you..

Make that four times...

I'm not a fan of PPV Rowley.................Pazienza was never on it and he was in many good fights..

For me you earn the right..to be a PPV fighter.

I wont be buying them as there is a sports bar 5 minutes from me and they show boxing everytime its on, whether its PPV or not.

Atmosphere is a lot better than sitting at home in your underpants eating beans straight from the tin watching it.

Hearn has said publicly that they couldn't have afforded to stage this fight without PPV.

Which raises some questions about how much Sky are paying Matchroom and how much Matchroom are paying Froch and Kessler...

They've sold out the O2 (18,000 + floor seating) and couldn't afford to put the show on without PPV...

Think that may explain why Matchroom fighters aren't getting home title shots!

What Hearn say's publicly is what he thinks people want to hear...

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:
Atmosphere is a lot better than sitting at home in your underpants eating beans straight from the tin watching it.

Have you been spying on me again Reborn?

There's truth in that.
In this instance though I think he was being honest.

Cold beans is there anything worse..

Could never have been a cowboy.................

Rob I've done a lot of work for CEOs, Managing Directors etc and I know the type..........Two faced to hell...

I'm a cynical type though albeit handsome and engaging person with it...........

Maybe you're right..

Rowley wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:
Atmosphere is a lot better than sitting at home in your underpants eating beans straight from the tin watching it.

Have you been spying on me again Reborn?

Rowley wrote:Am no great fan of PPV but it is part and parcel of boxing currently so I will view every fight or card on its merits and decide then if I am willing to shell out for it. Am not in the country at the time but if I was would pay for this as the first fight suggests it will be a decent match up and I like both fighters.

Have no doubt Hearn will be watching the figures but genuinely get the impression both him and Sky have learned from mistakes in the past and will be conscious not to over egg the PPV pudding or foist undeserving match ups on there. To be honest as I said at the time anyone who thought Sky were out of the PPV game when they said they were was being naïve at best, they were only ever out for as long as they did not have anyone who could carry such a card.

Out of curiosity rowley, why would you draw the distinction between be willing to pay for ppv but refusing to pay for boxnation? I would consider ppv to be less fan friendly, less value for money and similarly damaging to boxings health.

My objections to boxnation are that long term it can only marginalize the sport as only hardcore fans will ever buy it and so long term there will not be a feed in of new fans to the sport. PPV is far from ideal but by its very nature fighters will only be on there after they have been exposed on more accessible channels, be they sky or terrestrial so I view the long term effects as less ruinous to the sport.

Rowley wrote:My objections to boxnation are that long term it can only marginalize the sport as only hardcore fans will ever buy it and so long term there will not be a feed in of new fans to the sport. PPV is far from ideal but by its very nature fighters will only be on there after they have been exposed on more accessible channels, be they sky or terrestrial so I view the long term effects as less ruinous to the sport.

Is boxnation not giving exposure to fighters that otherwise would not be exposed though? If you look at the fights they are showing, most are established fighters that they are offering at a much more reasonable rate than a standard 1 fight ppv card.

I see your point but where I would differ is that I see boxnation as actually putting fighters on tv where they would not otherwise be shown as opposed to taking fights away from mainstream tv.

Would not contest they are showing a lot of fights we would not otherwise see and even I would have to grudgingly admit they seem to do a cracking job of picking up the overseas action, but still maintain it is only really a boon for the already committed boxing fans as they are the only people who will subscribe.

Were the channel free to air and you got it as part of your sky subscription I would not have half of my issues with it, but that is not the case. My argument is not, and has never really been, what the channel means for current fans it is the long term effect on the sport, if they eat into the amount of boxing Sky picks up or shows (and it is a myth that sky never showed overseas action) then long term I struggle to see how the sport will attract new fans.

I had a lot of friends who are not hardcore boxing fans who said they would have paid for Mayweather Manny had that ever happened, why, because they had seen them enough and been exposed to them, if they are stuck away on a subscription only channel they would not have heard of these guys or seen them in the flesh enough to get excited about a potential match up.

Agree Sky have not always shown overseas fights, although they showed more than they got credit for, but boxnation comes across as defeatist to me. Feels almost like we are throwing our hands up and saying “the sport is marginalized already, so why worry about something that marginalizes it more, as long as I get to watch Donaire fights live”

Rowley wrote:Would not contest they are showing a lot of fights we would not otherwise see and even I would have to grudgingly admit they seem to do a cracking job of picking up the overseas action, but still maintain it is only really a boon for the already committed boxing fans as they are the only people who will subscribe.

Were the channel free to air and you got it as part of your sky subscription I would not have half of my issues with it, but that is not the case. My argument is not, and has never really been, what the channel means for current fans it is the long term effect on the sport, if they eat into the amount of boxing Sky picks up or shows (and it is a myth that sky never showed overseas action) then long term I struggle to see how the sport will attract new fans.

I had a lot of friends who are not hardcore boxing fans who said they would have paid for Mayweather Manny had that ever happened, why, because they had seen them enough and been exposed to them, if they are stuck away on a subscription only channel they would not have heard of these guys or seen them in the flesh enough to get excited about a potential match up.

Agree Sky have not always shown overseas fights, although they showed more than they got credit for, but boxnation comes across as defeatist to me. Feels almost like we are throwing our hands up and saying “the sport is marginalized already, so why worry about something that marginalizes it more, as long as I get to watch Donaire fights live”

Realistically though, its hard to see boxing becoming widespread on regular free to air television. It hasn’t really ever been like that. Even going back to the days before ppv you might get main event fights, which was good. But there was no exposure on tv for upcoming fighters or anything. The fraction of boxing being shown was always small. Before that there wasn’t even tv at all and the sport wasn’t diminished.

What would be ideal would be a pyramid style whereby the really big fights were shown terrestrial – thus getting maximum exposure. And then channels like Sky or Boxnation for the more hardcore fans. But even that doesn’t look to be particularly attainable with ppv being prominent. However it may well be the case that there is room for boxing on Sky and on boxnation. Before boxnation, there was just less boxing on tv. Its not like Sky calendar was big enough to show a large percentage of fights. You might get big ones shown but the kind of contests like Rios/Alvarada or even Rigondeaux/Donaire were unlikely to be ever be shown by Sky.

Looking at Sky now, its essentially become Hearns stable project so with or without boxnation the likelihood is if its not Hearn then its not on Sky. I also think you have to look at the alternative to boxnation. Is actually any better for the sport? I cant see how it is because its just going to mean less fights shown on tv again.

Froch - Kessler - Could be very bad news for Boxing!!

It's only bad news if it opens the floodgates for a bunch of meaningless fights that people are forced to shell out £15 for.

On the face of it, this is the recognised and generally accepted #2 & #3 SM in the World duking out again with, possibly, a view to earning a rematch with the #1 guy. The fact they're unlikely to beat him is neither here nor there, especially when the alternative would be for them to keep fighting absolutely anybody else bar Andre Ward. Froch/Kessler I was enjoyable and there's little to suggest the rematch won't be just as good

I think Froch and Kessler are getting a bit of uncalled for stick at the minute as if they seek a rematch with Ward, they're being told they'll never beat him and if they simply fight the other SM around, they're accused of lacking ambition.

DAVE667 wrote:

Froch - Kessler - Could be very bad news for Boxing!!

It's only bad news if it opens the floodgates for a bunch of meaningless fights that people are forced to shell out £15 for.

On the face of it, this is the recognised and generally accepted #2 & #3 SM in the World duking out again with, possibly, a view to earning a rematch with the #1 guy. The fact they're unlikely to beat him is neither here nor there, especially when the alternative would be for them to keep fighting absolutely anybody else bar Andre Ward. Froch/Kessler I was enjoyable and there's little to suggest the rematch won't be just as good

I think Froch and Kessler are getting a bit of uncalled for stick at the minute as if they seek a rematch with Ward, they're being told they'll never beat him and if they simply fight the other SM around, they're accused of lacking ambition.

Surely If you are duking it out to fight the number 1............

Then the fight with the number 1 is the big one..

Not when the #1 guy has beaten the other two so comprehensively. The fight with Ward is likely to be a one-sided affair whoever prevails between Froch and Kessler and that in itself almost makes a mockery of the idea that a fight with Ward should be PPV.

Would people really want to shell out £15 for a fight where the result is almost a forgone conclusion just because best SM in the World is fighting? I suppose Ward has his fanbase wh will pay to watch their man regardless, I'm just not sure this Army is bigger than, let's say, the Salvation Army.

So If two guys are so out of their depth ..why should they be PPv...

Becaue the fight between two of them will be far more exciting and competitive than a match with Ward. People would be more likely to get value for money...something I thought folk were interested in.

Why not stick Matthews - Crolla 3 on PPV then..

Price it accordingly and why not?

Froch/ Kessler £15, Matthews/Crolla £2.50

Giving Hearn ideas.............

Why not, his dad thought PPV darts would be a good idea and then Andy Fordham took poorly walking into the arena...the fat ****!!!!!!!

I'm not going to go into a huge debate on this as myself and Truss already had out disagreement on an earlier Hearn thread.

What I will say is that I agree with the consensus that I would rather pay for an evenly contensted match up than one where we all know who the winner will be...

Obviously this doesn't outstretch to none names who simply match up well. But the fact is that we all talk about the best in the boxing game avoiding each other...these 2 are not! Regardless of the fact neither are number 1 in the division...they are both very high operators within boxing. The fight itself will more than likely provide alot of entertainment.

I do agree that to an extent you should earn the right to PPV but then surely the 'requirements' of earning the right differ for everyone. Mayweather may be the best fighter in the world but I want my PPV to be entertaining and as has been mentioned not all of his contests are....the fact that it due to skill is neither here nor there. He has had fights where he could clearly outgun and probably stop his opponent but he is a defensive/counter fighter first and therefore has no interest in taking risks (this has changed lately).

Another thing which I hate is the idea that because one of the two best fighters are on a card promoters choose not to stack it and instead we are left with an undercard of prospects or even fringe world level fighters taking on tomato cans.

I don't think this whole PPV will become the norm for Hearn, having spoken to the guy himself he is all to aware of the mistakes in the past when it comes to SKY and PPV. By all accounts he is in talks to increase the number of dates with SKY...which given how well boxing has been doing since Hearn started with the company, one thinks he will get those dates.

Froch vs Kessler along with Tony Bellew (granted probably be drab), George Groves (usually in decent fights), and a selction of 3 of these Scotty Cardle, Callum Smith, Tom Stalker, John Ryder, Greg Proska, and maybe even Matthews v Crolla 3 .....I dare say there have been far worse PPV events for £15 than that!

Froch vs Kessler is everything that is right for boxing. Two world champions with skill sets doing battle. Two men who don't let politics get in the way. Two men that WANT to entertain, and sacrifice their HEALTH to do so.

TRUSS, don't be so American 'alien' tonight, please, it's unbecoming, friend. Just because the biggest fight of the year to date wont be at the MGM Grand, doesn't mean boxing on the skids.

Bromance, brother.