GGG vs Jacobs ppv buys

Apparently the fight has reached 170k. Up 20k from his last ppv in the states.

I know many on here don't care, but that is a very low number for a supposed superstar. I think we need Joshua to crush Wlad and build some serious hype in the states. I understand the States isn't the be all, but it's a major market and boxing would do well to stay relevant there.

I don't know what quantifies a good or bad buy anymore, has anyone got any averages not involving Manny or Floyd. I'd look but I can't be bothered as the interwebs is pants onboard yet again.

I think GGG has to step up again in his next fight either that or rematch Jacobs and Krush him as some of his aura has been lost at the minute (although that might do well to get him the other beltholders)

Floyd and Manny, 400k is really low for them. Even Canelo hits far bigger numbers. Boxing needs a superstar and I hope it's Joshua. I think he will eventually take America by storm

I mean crawford postol did 50k don't think we will see mega numbers post Floyd Pacquiao

The price was far too high

$60 is a lot for one fight card

If they made it $30 would be interesting to see the numbers

It's not terrible and it's not great

Gives ol fishnets a chance to make more excuses and he said he was going to make the offer worse

Oscar acting like canelo is the one with all the belts the lineal champ and actually fought a middleweight

GGG is not a ppv star, Canelo is.

He needs to take a smaller cut and hope he beats him. Then he might crossover.

Floyd had to do the same with Oscar.

Isn't that the normal price for PPV over there though? I do wonder why they don't knock the price down a little to more what it is over here. As much as it's annoying to pay for the fights and I really don't agree with it, even the big fights are 15 - 20 quid which isn't that much.

Why can't they have a look. see what buys Canelo did, see what buys GGG did and work out the percentage from there (just for PPV not the overall bout)

Well canelo did 330k against smith

Obviously facing chavez Jr will skew the results because he is fighting another star

I don't understand why it can't be a percentage split

It's thr risks you take

If the fight tanks 15 million could be good

What if it makes 100 million

Then 15 is a terrible offer

Well Canelo has double the numbers, so should he get at least 70%? I think so.

Because why should the bigger star take the smaller cut. Whilst I do agree with you on this i'd prefer it was a 35/35 split with the last 30 going to the winner, it's never going to happen.

as much as we hate it, it's a business and if a guys going to get punced in the face (very very hard off GGG) then if he's bringing more money to the table then he's going to ask for more and alas, if there's a queue of people willing to take him on for less they're going to take it.

It's sh*te but that's boxing.

I think 70/30 is a fair spit. Canelo might make 40/45 million. GGG will get 15 million. This isn't a 100 million fight imo.

In fairness to Golovkin once you put aside Long Island and some areas in Chicago...He is struggling to find a US market..

Hispanic market is huge..

Canelo should get more of the pie if he is the bigger money maker of the two..

When Bruno had the title against Tyson...He got 6 million to Tyson's 21..

Just the way it is...But if you get a hefty lesser slice of something huge it is better than a big slice of Diddley..Diddley..Doo.

It's a business.

Billy Jo Saunders "I've been waiting for Golovkin to hit 35"..

Been saying this all along....It's okay being older at the higher weights where speed and reflexes aren't paramount. Though 40 plus is pushing it..

Canelo I imagine is happy to keep Golovkin waiting..Time is on his side.

If you're popular and can make top money then it's a smart move...He doesn't need him.

Take him when you think you can.. like Leonard v Hagler..

In fairness credit to Brook for taking on Spence...Not sure that is smart.

No bigger indictment of today's fighters/fans than this thread. Crediting fighters for "being smart" and avoiding challenges.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter trying to maximise earnings with minimum risk - just don't then tell me they're great fighters. It's a trade off.

hazharrison wrote:No bigger indictment of today's fighters/fans than this thread. Crediting fighters for "being smart" and avoiding challenges.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter trying to maximise earnings with minimum risk - just don't then tell me they're great fighters. It's a trade off.

Define a great fighter of todays era and reasons?

There's some partial agreement their Haz but you've also got to look at fighters that are genuinely pricing themselves out of the big fights. It's okay you saying you want to fight the best but then asking for more money than the other (much bigger financially) is daft as well.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:No bigger indictment of today's fighters/fans than this thread. Crediting fighters for "being smart" and avoiding challenges.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter trying to maximise earnings with minimum risk - just don't then tell me they're great fighters. It's a trade off.

Define a great fighter of todays era and reasons?

Andre Ward.
Roman Gonzalez.
Manny Pacquiao.

There's an argument for Cotto (but he's borderline) and one for Sergey Kovalev.

Stretching after that but there are a few with potential (Crawford, Lomachenko etc.).

You think Ward is great? I obviously do, but surprised with the inclusion.

I won't argue with the other two. Imo Kovalev is great.

Why haven't you included Marquez??

I understand you don't rate Floyd as great, no point going over old ground.

Floyd is a great fighter. Marquez is bordeline (with more of a claim than Cotto) but both are retired.

hazharrison wrote:Floyd is a great fighter. Marquez is bordeline (with more of a claim than Cotto) but both are retired.  

Fair enough.

AdamT wrote:You think Ward is great? I obviously do, but surprised with the inclusion.

I won't argue with the other two. Imo Kovalev is great.

Why haven't you included Marquez??

I understand you don't rate Floyd as great, no point going over old ground.

Saying that, Ward's not a patch on the great fighters from the 80s. He's not someone you'd label a legendary fighter like Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Chavez etc. Those guys didn't just look to win, they put in great performances while doing it. Chalk and cheese.

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You think Ward is great? I obviously do, but surprised with the inclusion.

I won't argue with the other two. Imo Kovalev is great.

Why haven't you included Marquez??

I understand you don't rate Floyd as great, no point going over old ground.

Saying that, Ward's not a patch on the great fighters from the 80s. He's not someone you'd label a legendary fighter like Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Chavez etc. Those guys didn't just look to win, they put in great performances while doing it. Chalk and cheese.

Fair point. I think Floyd and Manny belong in that list, many disagree and that's fine.

Duran and Ali are the two best fighters in the last 60 years imo.

And Michael Sprott

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:You think Ward is great? I obviously do, but surprised with the inclusion.

I won't argue with the other two. Imo Kovalev is great.

Why haven't you included Marquez??

I understand you don't rate Floyd as great, no point going over old ground.

Saying that, Ward's not a patch on the great fighters from the 80s. He's not someone you'd label a legendary fighter like Hagler, Duran, Leonard, Chavez etc. Those guys didn't just look to win, they put in great performances while doing it. Chalk and cheese.

Fair point. I think Floyd and Manny belong in that list, many disagree and that's fine.

Duran and Ali are the two best fighters in the last 60 years imo.

Yep, but only one of them managed to put glass eyes to sleep when he fought.

obviously you mean Floyd.

Yeah, the only boring performer from that list.

Wasn't always boring though, was he??

It's all relative to the level of the opposition.

I find GGG boring just like Wlad because their opposition hasn't been great but I thoroughly enjoyed Floyds victories over Alvarez, Corrales and Marquez just like I did watching Chavez dismantle Rosario or Duran against Moore.

AdamT wrote:Wasn't always boring though, was he??

Lol. Just winding you up. I used to think he was magic to watch but that was years ago.

The Pacquiao fight was the biggest damp squib in boxing history (and the Alvarez fight wasn't much better).

hazharrison wrote:

AdamT wrote:Wasn't always boring though, was he??

Lol. Just winding you up. I used to think he was magic to watch but that was years ago.

The Pacquiao fight was the biggest damp squib in boxing history (and the Alvarez fight wasn't much better).

Since he became a welter weight he has been more cautious in his style. Hatton and Cotto were exciting fights and perhaps Maidana the first time around.

I guess that has more to do with the opponent.

Nobody is allowed to troll me!!!!!

On the subject, I think Floyd looked sensational when he battered Gatti.

Gatti might not be a supreme elite fighter, but he really was made look a complete novice. It was weird watching Floyd throwing 5 and 6 punch combinations.

He hasn't fought anything like that in years, other than the later rounds vs Hatton.

Oscar looked sensational against Gatti.

Gatti wasn't at that level.

Gatti's reputation for being in entertaining fights far outstrips his actual ability, the Oscar and Floyd fights were both painful to watch.

hazharrison wrote:No bigger indictment of today's fighters/fans than this thread. Crediting fighters for "being smart" and avoiding challenges.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter trying to maximise earnings with minimum risk - just don't then tell me they're great fighters. It's a trade off.

Unfortunately when Oscar types take on the best people like you puke on them anyway.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:No bigger indictment of today's fighters/fans than this thread. Crediting fighters for "being smart" and avoiding challenges.

There's nothing wrong with a fighter trying to maximise earnings with minimum risk - just don't then tell me they're great fighters. It's a trade off.

Unfortunately when Oscar types take on the best people like you puke on them anyway.

Yeah but he lost most of them. So, credit for taking on top challenges but you still have to win them (or if you think he did nickthem, you need to separate yourself from the opponent more clearly).

I'd love to see the top fights but why turn down easy money ??

Like it or not....Boxing is risk v reward especially with all the belts these days.

BJS and Canelo are allowed to wait him out..Sad fact of life..

It sucks but it's smart business...

I agree but again, let's not start mistaking smart "businessmen" for ATG fighters who put it all on the line against other great fighters.

We need more Lomachenkos and less Stevensons.

Lomachenko is getting too much credit, he didn't dominate Featherweight and I doubt he'll do it at Super Feather either, he's a hit and run weight jumper.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Lomachenko is getting too much credit, he didn't dominate Featherweight and I doubt he'll do it at Super Feather either, he's a hit and run weight jumper.

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who didn't think Lomachenko's approach to taking fights/challenges wasn't refreshing. You don't get into the conversation of being the best fighter in boxing after eight fights unless you've take some major risks.

Aside from Russell jnr I don't think he's been fighting the real top fights; Martinez and Walters are both good fighters but nothing special. There's a difference between hanging around a weight needlessly and briefly skipping through.

Wonder how he would get on with Garcia? Doubt Arum will want that fight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Aside from Russell jnr I don't think he's been fighting the real top fights; Martinez and Walters are both good fighters but nothing special. There's a difference between hanging around a weight needlessly and briefly skipping through.

Let's compare to a couple of your favourites through their first eight fights:

After eight fights Floyd had fought three guys with winning record: Larry O'Shields (12-3-1), Bobby Giepert (19-8-0) and Jerry Cooper (6-3).
Hopkins had fought one: Percy Harris 8-0.

Heard of any of that lot? No, didn't think so

Lomachenko has fought Orlando Salido, Gary Russell Jr., Rocky Martinez and Nicholas Walters. Even Suriya Tatakhun was 52-1.

I don't think there's ever been a fighter in history who's taken on the level of competition Lomachenko has in his first eight fights.

Looking very promising with him leading the sport into a new era.

hazharrison wrote:I agree but again, let's not start mistaking smart "businessmen" for ATG fighters who put it all on the line against other great fighters.

We need more Lomachenkos and less Stevensons.  

Stevenson has more of a market..........Sad but some fighters have to fight top opposition to make good money and some don't....

Joshua is fighting Wlad.............Wlad looked past it against Tyson and I'm sure that is why they are fighting. Joshua can make huge money fighting stiffs.....

The more titles the more fighters can take the easy route...

Remember also that old time fighters didn't have this luxury....If they did they would be doing the same thing..

AdamT wrote:Wonder how he would get on with Garcia? Doubt Arum will want that fight.

Considering Garcia spent years breaking out of a contract with Top Rank, I don't imagine Arum will be the issue.

Lomachenko had much more amateur experience and much older. How many pro titles did Floyd hold by Lomachenko age.

Yes I bit, but he also has a loss already and he will be knocked out by Garcia, if that fight gets made.

AdamT wrote:Lomachenko had much more amateur experience and much older. How many pro titles did Floyd hold by Lomachenko age.

Yes I bit, but he also has a loss already and he will be knocked out by Garcia, if that fight gets made.

How do you imagine it gets made? Arum steps aside?

Lomachenko is a different breed. Do you imagine he'd have sat on a Pacquiao fight for five years?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:I agree but again, let's not start mistaking smart "businessmen" for ATG fighters who put it all on the line against other great fighters.

We need more Lomachenkos and less Stevensons.  

Stevenson has more of a market..........Sad but some fighters have to fight top opposition to make good money and some don't....

Joshua is fighting Wlad.............Wlad looked past it against Tyson and I'm sure that is why they are fighting.  Joshua can make huge money fighting stiffs.....

The more titles the more fighters can take the easy route...

Remember also that old time fighters didn't have this luxury....If they did they would be doing the same thing..

Maybe, maybe not. Fact is they didn't. They fought the fights.

Try as I might, I just don't see Ali fighting a bunch of stiffs because it was "smart".

If he knew it would make 300 million, he probably would.

Lomachenko wouldn't beat Pac either. Yeah he looks fast and flashy, but don't think he is as good a pro as Manny.

Garcia would time him and knock him out, if they fought.

AdamT wrote:If he knew it would make 300 million, he probably would.

Lomachenko wouldn't beat Pac either. Yeah he looks fast and flashy, but don't think he is as good a pro as Manny.

Garcia would time him and knock him out, if they fought.

All conjecture. Let's just stick to who they are fighting.

You can't ask for anything more from Loma. It would be great if he would stay at one weight and dominate. Aside from that, you can't fault him.

I'd take him over Garcia, for what it's worth. Great fight, though.