De la Hoya expects Cotto v Canelo to hit 1.5 million numbers.

It would be great to see, but I think he is reaching a little high.

I do think this fight could hit the million. I think I originally predicted 700-800k, but both guys have a good following and are on a decent run recently.

If it is a great fight like I expect it will be, then perhaps this could be a good boost for the sport next year.

As long as its a good fight, I dont really care. Id rather watch a good fight that does 100k buys than one which does 4 million buys where nothing happens. PPV is a blight on the sport.

It will be a good fight.

Originally picked Canelo, but am edging towards Cotto now. Lokking forward to it. It really is a pickem.

I make Alvarez a handy enough favourite. I think Cotto will be knocked out.

I think Alveraz could knock out Cotto, but I think Cotto will box well and use his expierence to edge a close decision.

Not got the Mexican v Puerto Rican buzz about it has it ?????

Not a Chavez v Rosario..Gomez v Pintor or Gomez v Sanchez......

Canelo lacks any personality and Cotto is probably too nice !!......

Canelo late but I wouldn't bet the house on it...........Canelo struggles with movement.

If both fighters had publicly stated they would unequivocally face Golovkin with no catchweight if victorious then that would have pushed sales imo.

Both seem to want to distance themselves from that fight and this fight is only happening now really because neither was willing to face the Kazakh. Not surprising therefore there's an absence of buzz about the fight. In light of this, 1.5m looks an ambitious forecast. Fans are t stupid, they know what's going on. Freddie Roach practically saying this week he's only prepared to lose to Golovkin for all the money.

Those fans being Mexican and Puerto Rican I doubt they care much if at all for Golovkin.

Don't think Herman gets the Mexican v PR rivalry......

You're right of course, that rivalry is quite something, but a big fight atmosphere this is so far lacking. Let's hope it picks up on the night.

You don't know how the atmosphere is going down where it matters..

This is probably the biggest fight in boxing at the moment from a cash perspective. Alvarez and Cotto have been showing that belts and weight classes dont count in the face of ppv revenue. Unhealthy for the sport but an increasing trend.

I have a feeling Cotto has been flattered in his recent performances against a cripple and weight drained opponent - neither whom looked in fighting condition. I think Alvarez will be too strong for Cotto to handle.

Could hit that to be fair, Cotto and Canelo have both held PPV's against inferior oppositions with decent enough success, plus the mexican-Puerto rican rivalry and the style of the 2, 1.5 could just be achieved

I have been torn between how I think it'll go, after seeing Canelo in training he's looking huge, massive. Can see him beating cotto up on the inside but cotto could be too sharp for him getting to his body and slowing him down, either Canelo by KO or Cotto by decision. Gonna go for Canelo KO

Back to talking viewing figures again? We should rename it the PPV forum.

There could be a PPV hall of fame.....

You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

You can always discuss boxing elsewhere Haz if you don't like it.

hazharrison wrote:Back to talking viewing figures again? We should rename it the PPV forum.

There could be a PPV hall of fame.....

When Oscar starts deliberately editing articles to make Floyd look bad and writing crap like..

10-1 "Murray is a great win for GGG"........"Manny is 3-1...It isn't worth watching !!"

"The win over Maidana shows 37yr old Mayweather isn't top 10 !!"...

I'll realise he's lost the plot !!..

Like all idiots you have no self awareness kid.....

You ooze bitterness..

Now run along..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Back to talking viewing figures again? We should rename it the PPV forum.

There could be a PPV hall of fame.....

When Oscar starts deliberately editing articles to make Floyd look bad and writing crap like..

10-1 "Murray is a great win for GGG"........"Manny is 3-1...It isn't worth watching !!"

"The win over Maidana shows 37yr old Mayweather isn't top 10 !!"...

I'll realise he's lost the plot !!..

Like all idiots you have no self awareness kid.....

You ooze bitterness..

Now run along..

Bitter? Na. If I was a bitter idiot I'd be spewing nonsensical insults all over the show. Hold on a sec.......

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

given his position and how close we are to the fight, you'd imagine oscar has a take on likely figures.

re the fight itself, its a tough call. Cotto looked done a few years back but has looked very sharp in his only two outings at middle. Large caveats over the state of the opposition, and it can hardly be the weight as, although the fights were arbitrarily at middle, he's essentially come in at light middle regardless. So the Freddie effect? something else? Or just flattered by the opponent?

Alvarez looks better against guys who come to him. Cotto's hardly a slick runner but he's not going to have his head buried on his shoulder either.

Interesting match up. Not one I'd bet on. When in doubt i normally go with youth, i have splinters on this one though.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

You're full of contradictions......

You really are...

We've had to listen to how popular GGG is compared to Mayweather ad nauseum on here......Now he's got 700,000 less buys it's all about being good.....

Not even as good as Mayweather anyway !!

Give it up Son..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

You're full of contradictions......

You really are...

We've had to listen to how popular GGG is compared to Mayweather ad nauseum on here......Now he's got 700,000 less buys it's all about being good.....

Not even as good as Mayweather anyway !!

Give it up Son..

I haven't seen anyone argue he's more popular. More likeable, more exciting for sure, but he obviously doesn't draw as well.

It is hilarious how GGG has become the Floydette's bogeyman!! Keeps me chuckling that.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

you slagging off one erection haz?

The hagler leonard stuff i can cope with, but no-one disses 1D while i'm on here.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

Great is better than good.

Floyd at 33=great

GGG at=Good

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

You're full of contradictions......

You really are...

We've had to listen to how popular GGG is compared to Mayweather ad nauseum on here......Now he's got 700,000 less buys it's all about being good.....

Not even as good as Mayweather anyway !!

Give it up Son..

I haven't seen anyone argue he's more popular. More likeable, more exciting for sure, but he obviously doesn't draw as well.

It is hilarious how GGG has become the Floydette's bogeyman!! Keeps me chuckling that.

Sorry kid...There is a journalist in backwater Boise, Idaho that agrees with...

I'll print HALF his article in a minute !!

so I'm right !!

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky. Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum. What was your point?

He's smokescreening...........After telling us how boring and unpopular Floyd is he's now changing tack after the figures have come out...

It's all about selling out the MSG now apparently.............

Forgetting that NY has areas like Bay Ridge, Gravesend, South Beach and plenty more which are predominantly Russian-American communities...That's before you chuck in the Polish......

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

you slagging off one erection haz?

The hagler leonard stuff i can cope with, but no-one disses 1D while i'm on here.

Sorry pal - no offence intended (Milky is Grimmy.....who knew?)

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He's smokescreening...........After telling us how boring and unpopular Floyd is he's now changing tack after the figures have come out...

It's all about selling out the MSG now apparently.............

Forgetting that NY has areas like Bay Ridge, Gravesend, South Beach and plenty more which are predominantly Russian-American communities...That's before you chuck in the Polish......

Floyd is boring. I've never claimed he was unpopular (although I can't quite fathom how he drew such large numbers in a global recession with such a dull style against fighters who had no hope of beating him).

Golovkin also draws along the West Coast. What's your point?

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

This is very true!

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

Not particularly true for boxing. Where demographics and other factors play a massive part in a fighters earnings.

AdamT wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

This is very true!

There have been all manner of popular fighters who earned more than fighters who were better than them (and in some cases beat them). Pazienza, Camacho, Mancini, Hamed etc. Of course the best fighters will pick up the best purses but a PPV hit rate is misleading: it's usually the quality of the match rather than the fighter that does big numbers.

Like having D4 back on here.....

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

Not particularly true for boxing. Where demographics and other factors play a massive part in a fighters earnings.

Not exactly true but true, otherwise we may as well say we could throw any Mexican an PR into the ring and it would sell well. This is Cotto and Canelo. Two fighters at the top of the game in the same weight class with the added advantage of fortunate demographics and other factors.

typical popularity factors:
- nationality: US (preferably with irish, italian or latin blood), mexican, puerto rican, british, german
- propensity to lead with the face,
- propensity to punch hard,
- likelihood to be in spectacular ko or long gruelling bloody fight
- man of the people personality


unpopularity factors:
- non favourable nationality
- displaying an annoying capacity to not not get hit
- pattercake punching
- likelihood to be in a boring defensive, backfoot masterclass lacking in action
- cocky upstart

There's a difference between popularity and marketability though. With the exception of being american, albeit not one of a preferential blood line, mayweather fits quite firmly in the 'unpopular' target group. Yet he has had the greatest volume of people tuning in. Just goes to show the power of the mouth and the pantomime villain. The marketability of being unpopular.

Ali wasn't exactly your typical popular boxer. SRL and oscar also had glittering amateur careers and pretty boy looks that give them large followings and large detractor groups. The really big box office draws are often universally loved, but just as often divide opinion and are watched by those who want them to win and those who want them to lose.

milkyboy wrote:typical popularity factors:
- nationality: US (preferably with irish, italian or latin blood), mexican, puerto rican, british, german
- propensity to lead with the face,
- propensity to punch hard,
- likelihood to be in spectacular ko or long gruelling bloody fight
- man of the people personality


unpopularity factors:
- non favourable nationality
- displaying an annoying capacity to not not get hit
- pattercake punching
- likelihood to be in a boring defensive, backfoot masterclass lacking in action
- cocky upstart

There's a difference between popularity and marketability though. With the exception of being american, albeit not one of a preferential blood line, mayweather fits quite firmly in the 'unpopular' target group. Yet he has had the greatest volume of people tuning in. Just goes to show the power of the mouth and the pantomime villain. The marketability of being unpopular.

Ali wasn't exactly your typical popular boxer. SRL and oscar also had glittering amateur careers and pretty boy looks that give them large followings and large detractor groups. The really big box office draws are often universally loved, but just as often divide opinion and are watched by those who want them to win and those who want them to lose.

Good break-down Milky.

The reality is that no boxer, regardless of any other factor, will earn the very best money and get the very best PPV figures unless they are at the very very top of the sport = top 0.001%. OK, there are other factors that come into play with just how big those PPV figures are, on this forum we only really talk about a tiny fraction of the boxers out there that make TV, of that tiny fraction there are another small percentage that headline PPV's, of that another small few make big PPV numbers.  Of those that do achieve that the consensus tends to be that they are amongst the true elite in the sport. There are anomalies, AJ makes PPV as a young unproven fighter with BIG expectations and may do big numbers.  Bellow v Clev did well on the basis of not liking each other.  Hatton was face first man of the people, Floyd was a cautious fighter that went 12 rounds without really being in any danger or creating those out of your seat moments.  First and foremost they were proven winners, better than almost all they had faced, and even Ricky was at the top of the sport for a while.

Hatton was British....exciting to watch.... a p4per and a man of the people..

More to Hatton than people give credit for.....

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

Not particularly true for boxing. Where demographics and other factors play a massive part in a fighters earnings.

Not exactly true but true, otherwise we may as well say we could throw any Mexican an PR into the ring and it would sell well.  This is Cotto and Canelo.  Two fighters at the top of the game in the same weight class with the added advantage of fortunate demographics and other factors.

Its true at fundemental level, but would dispute it being true as a general rule as there are too many other factors at play and too many examples of exceptions to the rule. Of course a fight between journeyman level Mexicans and Peurto Ricans will not earn the same as a championship level fight by virute of dempgraphics alone. I dont think anyone was arguing that point. But with the top level of boxing, demographics, weight class, style of fighter and other factors quite often trump who the better boxer is. When you look at top level boxing, its not a case of the best boxers simply earn the most.

Golovkin is a great example of how something as simple as not having a natural partisan fan base can cause a fighter major setbacks. If Golovkin was Mexican, he would already be a major ppv attraction.

Mayweather enjoyed a meticulously strategic career mapping combined with a near perfect storm of other factors to reach the status he got to. He had the ability to win the fights, he operated in era where the talent and appeal in the divisions above (especially heavyweight) were at an all time low which allowed focus to go to the lower weights. He had the rights fights at the right time to advance and then had a pretty steady stream of fighters that fit the right demographics and fanbases to keep him at the top.

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

Not particularly true for boxing. Where demographics and other factors play a massive part in a fighters earnings.

Not exactly true but true, otherwise we may as well say we could throw any Mexican an PR into the ring and it would sell well.  This is Cotto and Canelo.  Two fighters at the top of the game in the same weight class with the added advantage of fortunate demographics and other factors.

Its true at fundemental level, but would dispute it being true as a general rule as there are too many other factors at play and too many examples of exceptions to the rule. Of course a fight between journeyman level Mexicans and Peurto Ricans will not earn the same as a championship level fight by virute of dempgraphics alone. I dont think anyone was arguing that point. But with the top level of boxing, demographics, weight class, style of fighter and other factors quite often trump who the better boxer is. When you look at top level boxing, its not a case of the best boxers simply earn the most.

Golovkin is a great example of how something as simple as not having a natural partisan fan base can cause a fighter major setbacks. If Golovkin was Mexican, he would already be a major ppv attraction.

Mayweather enjoyed a meticulously strategic career mapping combined with a near perfect storm of other factors to reach the status he got to. He had the ability to win the fights, he operated in era where the talent and appeal in the divisions above (especially heavyweight) were at an all time low which allowed focus to go to the lower weights. He had the rights fights at the right time to advance and then had a pretty steady stream of fighters that fit the right demographics and fanbases to keep him at the top.

I acknowledge your points Catchy. I wasn't rally arguing anyone would suggest it was all about being a Mexican v PR, all I am saying is that Cotto and Canelo may be luckier than GGG in that sense, but we want ALL 3 to fight each other because we think ALL 3 are class... and we will tune in and pay for it. Cotto and Canelo are two top class fighters facing off against each other in a fight seen as pretty evenly matched, and that is key. If the winner then stepped in with Quillin would the numbers be huge? I suspect not. But if the winner then stepped in with GGG they could be bigger than Cotto v Canelo. GGG can't get the big fights, if he could his PPV numbers would increase significantly. I like GGG but as yet he hasn't fought in a fight anyone considers remotely even in ability, there are no big names on his CV, so it's hard to say he suffers as significantly as it first appears for any other reason than that. He hits hard which we like but we don't want him to go in against someone that we think can't take it, we want him in a proper test.

In general I agree on the luxury of being a Heavyweight as well, they do better numbers and get better pay just because they are heavyweights. However, Wlad v Fury won't do the same PPV numbers because outside the UK most just see this as yet another Wlad win due to him being a massive favourite. Much like GGG v Murray or Geale, one elite fighter on their own does OK and pays the bills but it's the matchups that really make the PPV numbers and the money roll in.

I guess my point is, in most cases if you are that good and you fight others of a similar level/status in even match ups, you do big business. Most of the time the only reason 'better' fighters do significantly worse in boxing ( I stress significantly ) is because they don't have the same level of foes to generate the interest and capture the imagination.

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

catchweight wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

DuransHorse wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You might not like it Haz, but figures show if a fighter has made it big.

Big?

Popular!

One Direction are popular. Katie Price is popular. Good's better than big, surely?

One Direction are good if you are a girl born after 1998... or Milky.  Katie Price is good at working the media to the extent that she is even used as an example of a financially successful person on a boxing forum.  What was your point?

That we're debating fighters' popularity rather than their quality.

Although it's not an exact science there does tend to be a direct relationship between popularity/earnings and being good at what ever it is you do or sell.

Not particularly true for boxing. Where demographics and other factors play a massive part in a fighters earnings.

Not exactly true but true, otherwise we may as well say we could throw any Mexican an PR into the ring and it would sell well.  This is Cotto and Canelo.  Two fighters at the top of the game in the same weight class with the added advantage of fortunate demographics and other factors.

Its true at fundemental level, but would dispute it being true as a general rule as there are too many other factors at play and too many examples of exceptions to the rule. Of course a fight between journeyman level Mexicans and Peurto Ricans will not earn the same as a championship level fight by virute of dempgraphics alone. I dont think anyone was arguing that point. But with the top level of boxing, demographics, weight class, style of fighter and other factors quite often trump who the better boxer is. When you look at top level boxing, its not a case of the best boxers simply earn the most.

Golovkin is a great example of how something as simple as not having a natural partisan fan base can cause a fighter major setbacks. If Golovkin was Mexican, he would already be a major ppv attraction.

Mayweather enjoyed a meticulously strategic career mapping combined with a near perfect storm of other factors to reach the status he got to. He had the ability to win the fights, he operated in era where the talent and appeal in the divisions above (especially heavyweight) were at an all time low which allowed focus to go to the lower weights. He had the rights fights at the right time to advance and then had a pretty steady stream of fighters that fit the right demographics and fanbases to keep him at the top.

I acknowledge your points Catchy.  I wasn't rally arguing anyone would suggest it was all about being a Mexican v PR, all I am saying is that Cotto and Canelo may be luckier than GGG in that sense, but we want ALL 3 to fight each other because we think ALL 3 are class... and we will tune in and pay for it.  Cotto and Canelo are two top class fighters facing off against each other in a fight seen as pretty evenly matched, and that is key.  If the winner then stepped in with Quillin would the numbers be huge? I suspect not.  But if the winner then stepped in with GGG they could be bigger than Cotto v Canelo.  GGG can't get the big fights, if he could his PPV numbers would increase significantly.  I like GGG but as yet he hasn't fought in a fight anyone considers remotely even in ability, there are no big names on his CV, so it's hard to say he suffers as significantly as it first appears for any other reason than that.  He hits hard which we like but we don't want him to go in against someone that we think can't take it, we want him in a proper test.

In general I agree on the luxury of being a Heavyweight as well, they do better numbers and get better pay just because they are heavyweights.  However, Wlad v Fury won't do the same PPV numbers because outside the UK most just see this as yet another Wlad win due to him being a massive favourite. Much like GGG v Murray or Geale, one elite fighter on their own does OK and pays the bills but it's the matchups that really make the PPV numbers and the money roll in.  

I guess my point is, in most cases if you are that good and you fight others of a similar level/status in even match ups, you do big business. Most of the time the only reason 'better' fighters do significantly worse in boxing ( I stress significantly ) is because they don't have the same level of foes to generate the interest and capture the imagination.

My counter point, is that being good isnt enough (sometimes its a disadvantage). Rigondeaux for instance, hasnt been able to get a decent fight since he beat Donaire.

Its debateable whether Mayweather for instance was a better fighter than Pernell Whitaker but there is about 500 million seperating their career earnings.

Golovkin hasnt been able land the commercial fights so far. Not for lack of ability (more likely the opposite) and because those commercially big named fighters havent wanted to take him on.

Ward wanted to fight him.

So Ward says. When did he want to fight him? 2022 in Oakland at Super middleweight after his 10 tune up fights?

Ok mate. Ward avoided him as well.

probably catchy, knowing ward.

But then team golovkin have said they'll fight anyone from 154-175. But wanted ward at 164 if I recall correctly and don't want to fight for the all new 'Caneloweight' belt at 155.

Not saying I blame them... But They don't seem quite as 'any time, any place any weight' as they have previously professed.

Who said anything about Ward avoiding him? The arent even in the same division. Ward has moaned from the sidelines about fights while he hasnt even been able to fight. When he finally did come back to fight again he has gone about fighting nobodies. From calling out all these fighters while he was conveniently wrapped up in a contractual dispute making him unable to follow up on fighting them, he eventually decided to fight again and selected Paul Smith. After that his next opponent was so obscure that Nevada actually refused to sanction the about. He then went and chose the next most obscure guy he could find before pulling out, keeping up his impressive inactivity. It was put to him recently about taking on Kovalev (who has already pre-agreed the fight) and this is what he had to say:

During an interview with HBO’s Michelle Beadle as part of a new episode of “The Fight Game with Jim Lampley” that debuted Wednesday night, Ward was honest about when he thinks a fight against Kovalev will take place. Beadle asked about facing Kovalev because that light heavyweight fight reportedly is part of the new deal Ward signed recently with HBO, the premium-cable network that also employs the undefeated WBA “super” super middleweight champion as a broadcaster.

“That’s easy for people to say who aren’t getting hit,” Ward replied after Beadle asked why Ward-Kovalev can’t occur sooner rather than later. “That’s very easy to say. But my question is, what’s the rush? Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, they didn’t fight when everybody wanted them to fight. They fought and, regardless of how people feel about the actual fight, the monetary outcome and the numbers that that fight did, it shattered the box-office ratings. And, I mean, that’s gonna be a great fight between Sergey Kovalev and myself, if and when it happens, and great fights need to be built up. And that’s what we’re gonna do.”

Sounds like hes really motivated to make things happen. When he was sidelined with legal disputes, he was happy to say he wanted these fights. No hes getting paid a couple of mil to fight Paul Smiths, its whats the rush?"

In the period while Ward has been in contracts disputes, fighting Paul Smiths and targetting opponents who cant get sanctioned, Golovkin has tried to target fights with Chavez and Froch (which they passed on) and has been hunting Cotto and Alvarez. Because these guys all represent the biggest commercial fights available to him.

I guess in your world though, Golovkin doesnt want any big fights because he thinks Cotto and Alvarez would kick his ass and he prefers to make less money angainst smaller name fighters so he can wind up earning less money for when he retires.

I'd argue Rigo makes the case I talked of, catchy. Frampton v Quigg are to Rigo what Cotto v Canelo are to GGG. Win, lose or draw Rigo and GGG will be left out in the cold. One difference is that neither Frampton nor Quigg are up there with Cotto or Canelo as potential rivals for Rigo yet, they are more logical fights. Since Donaire Rigo has been left in the cold.

As I say, no exact science and anomolies do occur but can we name an elite fighter around the same weight that clearly wants to climb in the ring with either GGG or Rigo at the moment?