Boxing:does it need PPV?

**El Gamo** · 11-01-2007 09:42 PM

I was just wondering:

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?

2.) why did it start?

3.) what are it's benefits

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?WHat other repurcussions would there be?

**Preme** · 11-01-2007 09:48 PM

PPV is ok for mega fights, but to many are ppv now

**killersheep** · 11-01-2007 10:05 PM

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?
I think and I am not sure about this but Holyfield-Foreman in 1991

2.) why did it start?
The same reason anyone starts a business to make money

3.) what are it's benefits
Benefits to the consumer are few, an excuse to have friends over etc. etc.
Benefits to the promoter are many, bigger paycheck for everyone involved

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?WHat other repurcussions would there be?
At this point there would be repercussions, it's all about the dollars and pounds look at how unwilling fighters are to fight each other on the top level UNLESS the money is right, you and I would surely like to see fewer if any PPVs remain, however it is a case of spoiling and in this case the spoiled child is corporate boxing.

**El Gamo** · 11-01-2007 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by killersheep

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?
I think and I am not sure about this but Holyfield-Foreman in 1991

2.) why did it start?
The same reason anyone starts a business to make money

3.) what are it's benefits
Benefits to the consumer are few, an excuse to have friends over etc. etc.
Benefits to the promoter are many, bigger paycheck for everyone involved

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?WHat other repurcussions would there be?
At this point there would be repercussions, it's all about the dollars and pounds look at how unwilling fighters are to fight each other on the top level UNLESS the money is right, you and I would surely like to see fewer if any PPVs remain, however it is a case of spoiling and in this case the spoiled child is corporate boxing.

CCfor an awesome response. Wouldn't boxing be better off without it? Sure there would be less money generated from PPV but they could have MUCH bigger crowds etc! Has boxing waned a bit over the last few years because of PPV?

**LEGION** · 11-01-2007 10:12 PM

Right now it needs PPV, just because it's the only time people other than die hard fans hear about it. People sure don't get there boxing info from FNF's, and the sport doesn't grow from that show, mainly because here in the states FNF and WNF are the only shows on, and that's only what, 6 months out of the year

We need a boxing channel, because stations like espn don't report boxing 24/7 like other sports. What we need is boxing as part of school athletics, so kids get acquainted at a young age with this sport. Pretty stupid I know;and I could just see the p.e. teachers shelling out knowledge on the "Sweet Science"

We need something dammit':mad

**Violent Demise** · 11-01-2007 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by El Gamo

Originally Posted by killersheep

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?
I think and I am not sure about this but Holyfield-Foreman in 1991

2.) why did it start?
The same reason anyone starts a business to make money

3.) what are it's benefits
Benefits to the consumer are few, an excuse to have friends over etc. etc.
Benefits to the promoter are many, bigger paycheck for everyone involved

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?WHat other repurcussions would there be?
At this point there would be repercussions, it's all about the dollars and pounds look at how unwilling fighters are to fight each other on the top level UNLESS the money is right, you and I would surely like to see fewer if any PPVs remain, however it is a case of spoiling and in this case the spoiled child is corporate boxing.

CCfor an awesome response. Wouldn't boxing be better off without it? Sure there would be less money generated from PPV but they could have MUCH bigger crowds etc! Has boxing waned a bit over the last few years because of PPV?

With WWE and MMA all making money off PPV. Boxing needs PPV. It's not going anywhere

**Mar** · 11-01-2007 10:32 PM

Depends on where you sit...as a fan maybe not as much, but as a fighter or promoter hell yea we do

**Spicoli** · 11-01-2007 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by El Gamo

I was just wondering:

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?

2.) why did it start?

3.) what are it's benefits

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?WHat other repurcussions would there be?

PPV in and of it self has been around for decades,smaller venues would do "closed circuit" cards for a fee.It was not the obnoxious monster it is now.
It was not Foreman vs. Holyfield ...That was the initial TVKO card premier,an arm of Time Warner company.They debuted with a 34.95 fee which at the time was very high.Previous PPVs averaged 19.95 and were kept in check because of so many regular basic cable and network cards.
PPV only works with mega stars with cross over appeal (as headliners) and more and more the Co-features are Mediocre.Ive come to the conclusion its a necessary evil in boxing though.The Basic networks have not featured boxing in 4 or 5(

) years and show no interest whatsoever.As for ESPN ,Theyve lost their dedication in my opinion and have conceded to the NFL and now offer less and less annual card and a "hybrid" show ,Contender, that looks to make mega stars plugging for title fights out of OK guys that would have been co-features or walk out bouts Years ago.

**SweetPea** · 11-02-2007 12:06 AM

PPV is way older than Holyfield-Foreman, at least in the US. It goes at least as far back as fights like Ali-Frazier, at least.

PPV is fine for the big fights. Fights like Mayweather-DLH, or Pacquiao-Barrera II, Mayweather-Hatton, it's fine to put those fights on PPV.

Fights like Cotto-Judah, Vargas-Mayorga, or the original Marquez-Barrios should be not be on PPV. A wider audience can get exposed to up and coming fighters like a Cotto if it's on regular TV. And those others I listed just aren't elite fights.

**Body Puncher** · 11-02-2007 01:11 AM

was just wondering:

1.) When did PPV start in boxing?

Actually PPV got it's start or should I say the concept came from the 1970's and the first Ali/Frazier fight. They used the old felt forum I think it was called to use as the overflow for fans that could not be fit into the Garden and threw them in the form to watch the fight live at a fraction of the price also it helped offset the expenses of the purses and advertising cost

2.) why did it start?

As boxing became more popular venues could not seat all the ticket request for mega fights, the only other option would be an arena like one for football or something but promoters would not chance paying over a million dollars in hopes people would travel that far, or if something should happen to cancel the fight. There would be no refund on the rental and with everything else that would already set them back ticket refunds would ruin not just the fight but them period. Cable TV had become almost the normal in everyones home in America so the closed circut feed seemed the best way to go, if the fight was canceled the cable company and the promotion company would not be out a dime.

3.) what are it's benefits

Well this one speaks for itself, you have a choice spend the money to travel to the fight if you can get tickets, miss work, pay for a hotel etc or sit at home and pay for the fight and see it live, Your only other option would be reading about the outcome the next day in the paper.

Everone involved is paid off for rights, video rights, live feed, the cable companies make out on it. Allowing boxers bigger purses and the promoters to pay less out of their pockets and put more in the bank

4.)ultimately,what would happen if there was no PPV,would boxing be more popular but smaller purses?What other repercussions would there be?

No PPV things go back to the old days, you find out who won in the mornings paper, wait months for a chance to catch it on DVD, less fights take place because the promoters can not afford the purses, live ticket prices go up etc

**Rican** · 11-02-2007 02:21 PM

I do not mind pay per view. I do mind that some "good" fights are put on pay per view when they clearly belong on one of the networks. If anything, there should be more pay per view opportunities if the networks are not going to televise some fights. For example, I am a big Cintron fan and I really wanted to see his fight with Suarez. Yet, that fight was nowhere. As a Puerto Rican, I also was interested in seeing Santos and Rivera recently, but that fight was not even televised by Showtime, even though it was on the undercard of the Peter/McCline fight!! I wouldn't have minded paying 14.99 or even 19.99 to watch each of those fights. If there were more pay per view opportunities in that price range, I think some money could be made and fans would be pleased.

But really, I want to see a boxing network established by somebody. Wouldn't it be nice to have the option of watch classic fights at any time of day, sort of like what ESPN does on ESPN Classic? Maybe this boxing network could even have Friday Night Fights like ESPN or even like Telefutura's weekly cards. Boxing simply needs to be on television more-I mean, not to the level of the NBA, MLB, or NFL, but it can definitely be on free TV more or more accessible to the rabid fans.