Potentially Bad For Boxing?
+11
horizontalhero
ONETWOFOREVER
Derbymanc
Coxy001
hampo17
Soldier_Of_Fortune
Strongback
hazharrison
Steffan
Hammersmith harrier
3fingers
15 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 1 of 1
Potentially Bad For Boxing?
I just want to throw this out there...
Mayweather vs Manny is bad for boxing.
The highest grossing fight in history could be a dud. The fight is years too late. There will be loads of casuals consumed by the hype who will buy the fight, who, ultimately. maybe underwhelmed by the fight. Mayweather might make this a stinker. A huge casual audience, sucked in by the hype, may think once bitten twice shy. Short term the promoters, TV networks and fighters benefit, but long term it could be drastic.
To secure boxing's future they need fights like prov v mathyesse on the undercard.
Mayweather vs Manny is bad for boxing.
The highest grossing fight in history could be a dud. The fight is years too late. There will be loads of casuals consumed by the hype who will buy the fight, who, ultimately. maybe underwhelmed by the fight. Mayweather might make this a stinker. A huge casual audience, sucked in by the hype, may think once bitten twice shy. Short term the promoters, TV networks and fighters benefit, but long term it could be drastic.
To secure boxing's future they need fights like prov v mathyesse on the undercard.
3fingers- Posts : 1482
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Won't make an ounce of difference, a fair few of the highest watched fights of the past 25 years have been duds;
Trinidad vs De La Hoya
Mayweather vs De La Hoya and Alvarez
Lewis vs Tyson and Holyfield
Holyfield vs Foreman and Holmes
etc. etc.
Trinidad vs De La Hoya
Mayweather vs De La Hoya and Alvarez
Lewis vs Tyson and Holyfield
Holyfield vs Foreman and Holmes
etc. etc.
Hammersmith harrier- Posts : 12060
Join date : 2013-09-26
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
The fight will indeed be stinker with the Pooch getting slapped around by Floyd for 12 rounds
Agree that it doesn't help that the fight didn't happen 5-6 years ago when Panny and Floyd were in their prime
Personally I think the whole Poochio v Kentucky Fried Mayweather thing has been bad for boxing already what with the 6 year delay in a fight, roid accusations and to be honest the crap fight will just be the nail in the coffin of this whole slur on the name of boxing
Agree that it doesn't help that the fight didn't happen 5-6 years ago when Panny and Floyd were in their prime
Personally I think the whole Poochio v Kentucky Fried Mayweather thing has been bad for boxing already what with the 6 year delay in a fight, roid accusations and to be honest the crap fight will just be the nail in the coffin of this whole slur on the name of boxing
Steffan- Posts : 7856
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 43
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Haye/Klitschko was bad for boxing and people still cough up, Haye/Harrison was bad for boxing and people still cough up. Cleverley/Bellew II was bad for boxing, Mayweather/Mosley/Ortiz/Guerrero etc were bad for boxing.........people still cough up.
Because there'll always be a Groves/Froch to make them think that next time might just be the one that makes the previous stinker worthwhile.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Because there'll always be a Groves/Froch to make them think that next time might just be the one that makes the previous stinker worthwhile.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Aye, I guess it's all about potentials dave. People live in hope. I for one hope it's a cracker. Based on the distant past all logic says Meatherweather wins, however, judging by maidana fights his legs seem to have gone. It's all well and good mayweather saying it's a purposeful ploy to create an entertaining fight but how much of that is true? Personally, I feel as though that tactic was necessity.
Maidana was on busy on the front foot and made it difficult for mayweather; manny is just as busy, faster and more accurate, albeit without the natural size endorsed thudding power, that, for me at least, makes it Interesting.
Maidana was on busy on the front foot and made it difficult for mayweather; manny is just as busy, faster and more accurate, albeit without the natural size endorsed thudding power, that, for me at least, makes it Interesting.
3fingers- Posts : 1482
Join date : 2013-10-15
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
With no desire to face Khan (who would be a hard night but not an impossible obstacle for him to overcome) and with the likes of Thurman and Brook not generating enough money for him to buy gold plated stair rods or whatever the f*ck he spends his money on, it appears Mayweather is out of viable options or most accurately options that the paying public will readily swallow.
Yes it's a gamble for him but because of that I think Mayweather will be even more cautious than normal.
Yes it's a gamble for him but because of that I think Mayweather will be even more cautious than normal.
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Graham Houston - almost imperious at picking winners - has plumped for Pacquiao. A Pacquiao victory would be immense for the sport.
hazharrison- Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
hazharrison wrote:Graham Houston - almost imperious at picking winners - has plumped for Pacquiao. A Pacquiao victory would be immense for the sport.
What does "almost imperious at picking winners" actually mean?
Strongback- Posts : 6529
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Matchroom Sports Head Office
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Strongback wrote:hazharrison wrote:Graham Houston - almost imperious at picking winners - has plumped for Pacquiao. A Pacquiao victory would be immense for the sport.
What does "almost imperious at picking winners" actually mean?
He invariably picks the winner in the majority of boxing matches. What is this, grammar school?
hazharrison- Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
hazharrison wrote:Strongback wrote:hazharrison wrote:Graham Houston - almost imperious at picking winners - has plumped for Pacquiao. A Pacquiao victory would be immense for the sport.
What does "almost imperious at picking winners" actually mean?
He invariably picks the winner in the majority of boxing matches. What is this, grammar school?
No offense meant but I was thinking waffle school. What I was getting at was how "almost imperious" relates to hard data. I take imperious as meaning commanding.
Strongback- Posts : 6529
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Matchroom Sports Head Office
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
I am swaying towards a Manny victory
And I don't know why.....
And I don't know why.....
Soldier_Of_Fortune- Posts : 4420
Join date : 2011-03-14
Location : Liverpool JFT96 YNWA
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Is it because, like many, you'd dearly love to see that oafish twunt Mayweather get the kicking he so richly f*cking deserves?Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:I am swaying towards a Manny victory
And I don't know why.....
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
If Manny wins, D4 wins. I just can't stomach that
hampo17- Admin
- Posts : 9108
Join date : 2011-02-24
Age : 35
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Bear in mind that if Manny wins, D4 sp*nks himself to death so we all winhampo171 wrote:If Manny wins, D4 wins. I just can't stomach that
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
hampo171 wrote:If Manny wins, D4 wins. I just can't stomach that
If Manny wins he'll most likely retire, which would then mean D4 will either a) stop following boxing.. or more likely b) kill himself due to his "life" being empty
Win win all round for boxing fans.
Coxy001- Posts : 1816
Join date : 2014-11-10
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
D4 would do neither, instead starting posting constant articles about a Manny being better than anyone to ever lace the gloves up, sadly the world will never be rid of D4.
hampo17- Admin
- Posts : 9108
Join date : 2011-02-24
Age : 35
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Shame none of us knows a bloke with a van with blacked out windows who enjoys abduction, torture and mutilation and more importantly, happy to do it for free.hampo171 wrote:D4 would do neither, instead starting posting constant articles about a Manny being better than anyone to ever lace the gloves up, sadly the world will never be rid of D4.
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
DAVE667 wrote:Shame none of us knows a bloke with a van with blacked out windows who enjoys abduction, torture and mutilation and more importantly, happy to do it for free.hampo171 wrote:D4 would do neither, instead starting posting constant articles about a Manny being better than anyone to ever lace the gloves up, sadly the world will never be rid of D4.
Would you pay to watch though?!
Coxy001- Posts : 1816
Join date : 2014-11-10
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
hampo171 wrote:D4 would do neither, instead starting posting constant articles about a Manny being better than anyone to ever lace the gloves up, sadly the world will never be rid of D4.
He does that now
Derbymanc- Posts : 4008
Join date : 2013-10-14
Location : Manchester
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Mayweather does not do DUDS he does CLINICS.
ONETWOFOREVER- Posts : 5510
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
I'm from Yorkshire, I'd pay for nowt if I had the chanceCoxy001 wrote:DAVE667 wrote:Shame none of us knows a bloke with a van with blacked out windows who enjoys abduction, torture and mutilation and more importantly, happy to do it for free.hampo171 wrote:D4 would do neither, instead starting posting constant articles about a Manny being better than anyone to ever lace the gloves up, sadly the world will never be rid of D4.
Would you pay to watch though?!
Guest- Guest
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Mike Tyson has picked Manny to win- his arguement being that unless Floyd seriously increases his punch output he simply won't land enough counters to off set the hundreds of shots that manny will be throwing at. He also pointed out that the only fighters that have bothered Manny also have high punch output, which floyd doesn't.
I think that this may be wishful thinking, bit would love for him to be right.
I think that this may be wishful thinking, bit would love for him to be right.
horizontalhero- Posts : 938
Join date : 2011-05-27
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
JMM has high punch output??
TopHat24/7- Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
TopHat24/7 wrote:JMM has high punch output??
Yeah I always thought he was around the 500 mark or so. Not exactly Margarito-esque at the 800+ range.
Coxy001- Posts : 1816
Join date : 2014-11-10
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=floyd-mayweather-juan-manuel-marquez-compubox
583 versus Floyd's 493 in their 12 rounder. So not that high or that marked a difference IMO.
Though the full report does make for dismal reading and confirms what a pitiful fight that really was.
583 versus Floyd's 493 in their 12 rounder. So not that high or that marked a difference IMO.
Though the full report does make for dismal reading and confirms what a pitiful fight that really was.
TopHat24/7- Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
JMM actually threw less in both Pac 1 and Pac 2 fights. Though his success rate was unsurprisingly higher.
He's a 500 a fight thrower. Floyd threw the same (505) in his masterclass decimation over Canelo.
Ergo Tyson is wrong, as we all know Floyd is just a much better version of the 1 boxer that's given Pac fits throughout his career.
He's a 500 a fight thrower. Floyd threw the same (505) in his masterclass decimation over Canelo.
Ergo Tyson is wrong, as we all know Floyd is just a much better version of the 1 boxer that's given Pac fits throughout his career.
TopHat24/7- Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
By startling comparison, check out Pac-Marg:
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-margarito-compubox
Almost 2 thousand punches thrown between them!!
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-margarito-compubox
Almost 2 thousand punches thrown between them!!
TopHat24/7- Posts : 17008
Join date : 2011-07-01
Age : 40
Location : London
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
TopHat24/7 wrote:By startling comparison, check out Pac-Marg:
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/view.php?pg=pacquiao-margarito-compubox
Almost 2 thousand punches thrown between them!!
Mindboggling.
Don't think we're going to quite witness what was a human punch bag session for 12 rounds when he fights FMJ though.
Coxy001- Posts : 1816
Join date : 2014-11-10
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
It is a cynically made, over expensive fight so if it stinks yeah, the knives will be out and it will be a black eye for boxing.
catchweight- Posts : 4326
Join date : 2013-09-18
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Strongback wrote:hazharrison wrote:Strongback wrote:hazharrison wrote:Graham Houston - almost imperious at picking winners - has plumped for Pacquiao. A Pacquiao victory would be immense for the sport.
What does "almost imperious at picking winners" actually mean?
He invariably picks the winner in the majority of boxing matches. What is this, grammar school?
No offense meant but I was thinking waffle school. What I was getting at was how "almost imperious" relates to hard data. I take imperious as meaning commanding.
Houston is astonishing in his accuracy. He used to run a betting tip site. I keep a close eye on this type of thing and he, along with Joseph Santiliquito are something else.
hazharrison- Posts : 7540
Join date : 2011-03-26
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
For the fight to be good for boxing iy needs to deliver. You are all right in saying that some of the most watched fights in recent times have been disappointing in the entertainment stakes. However, this isn't about whether the fight will be widely viewed or publicly visible, that's a given, it's about how this huge event resonates with the public conscience in its aftermath. We might assume a rough audience segmentation of:
a) hardcore fans of the sport, which would include many of the members of this forum
b) occasional fight fans, likely to be interested in sport more generally
and c) First time watchers or relatively new fans, likely to interested in sport more generally and drawn to the event more by curiosity around its well publicised historical significance as a the fight between arguably the two best athletes of their generation in their chosen sport. They might also just be fascinated by all those $$$$$.
Should the fight be rubbish, we can reasonably assume that the majority group a) will, after a solid period of whining, return to watching the sport they love. However, should groups b) and c) be treated to a disappointing contest, they are likely to question whether the sport is worth watching, and spend their capital on, than others that are currently more widely followed and easily accessible. "Is this the best boxing has to offer?" You might imagine them asking. If this fight sucks, after all the hoopla and publicity,this could turn off thousands of potential fans from getting more into the sport.
Ironically, I think this apparent medium term negative could yield a long term positive. If the fight is publicly considered a failure and it hans a tangible effect on the popularity of the sport as a whole, then it could bring about a decisive shift in the debate over whether it is really the most sustainable strategy to focus on one off premium events with high consumer end costs, and then just hoping to God they're good entertainment on the night. Promoters will make a killing on this fight, that's not in doubt, but with all of the publicity this fight has the potential to influence trends within the sport and business of boxing, either for better or worse.
a) hardcore fans of the sport, which would include many of the members of this forum
b) occasional fight fans, likely to be interested in sport more generally
and c) First time watchers or relatively new fans, likely to interested in sport more generally and drawn to the event more by curiosity around its well publicised historical significance as a the fight between arguably the two best athletes of their generation in their chosen sport. They might also just be fascinated by all those $$$$$.
Should the fight be rubbish, we can reasonably assume that the majority group a) will, after a solid period of whining, return to watching the sport they love. However, should groups b) and c) be treated to a disappointing contest, they are likely to question whether the sport is worth watching, and spend their capital on, than others that are currently more widely followed and easily accessible. "Is this the best boxing has to offer?" You might imagine them asking. If this fight sucks, after all the hoopla and publicity,this could turn off thousands of potential fans from getting more into the sport.
Ironically, I think this apparent medium term negative could yield a long term positive. If the fight is publicly considered a failure and it hans a tangible effect on the popularity of the sport as a whole, then it could bring about a decisive shift in the debate over whether it is really the most sustainable strategy to focus on one off premium events with high consumer end costs, and then just hoping to God they're good entertainment on the night. Promoters will make a killing on this fight, that's not in doubt, but with all of the publicity this fight has the potential to influence trends within the sport and business of boxing, either for better or worse.
sittingringside- Posts : 475
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Scotland/Cornwall
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
It could be good for boxing, but I don't think it will be bad. Simply put, barring a shocker of a fight, and and an even bigger shocker of a decision, most people who were boxing fans before the Never Ending will stay boxing fans. If it's a good fight, there may be new found fans. If it's a bad Fight, maybe the casuals don't come back, but there is no net loss.
So in essence, at worst, there is no displacement, at best there is positive displacement
So in essence, at worst, there is no displacement, at best there is positive displacement
kingraf- raf
- Posts : 16587
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 29
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
Now whether charging $100 for a PPV and taking five years to make a fight is good for boxing is a separate matter
kingraf- raf
- Posts : 16587
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 29
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?
Re: Potentially Bad For Boxing?
I think that unless the fight is a thriller it will never get away from the stink of it being way past its sell by date happening. Righfully so.
catchweight- Posts : 4326
Join date : 2013-09-18
Similar topics
» Boxing, boxing everywhere - British boxing in 1930 compare with now...
» International Boxing Organisation - why is not considered one of the better boxing organisations?
» Which position is potentially the loneliest in rugby?
» New Fantasy League to (potentially) run during the off season!
» Ricky Burns potentially struggling.
» International Boxing Organisation - why is not considered one of the better boxing organisations?
» Which position is potentially the loneliest in rugby?
» New Fantasy League to (potentially) run during the off season!
» Ricky Burns potentially struggling.
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|