May-Marquez slaughtered the corresponding UFC fight that night too. Dana White knows still not to go head to head with a big fight.
Another intellectually dishonest arguement? No, boxing isn’t an organization. A fighter’s promoter has to negotiate to get them fights, a lack of fights doesn’t prove anything. Look at Mayweather/Pacquiao.
And another intellectually dishonest argument. It’s been shown that UFC PPV doesn’t pull from HBO PPV buys, less shows doesn’t mean anything either. If you were able to calculate all boxing PPVs then revenue between the UFC and boxing would probably be similar or boxing could be greater, only HBO PPV buy information is used though. To have a HBO PPV fight that person will have to be one of the top fighters in the entire sport or have a huge draw, naturally there will be less HBO PPV events.
Another intellectually dishonest arguement? Nice! If you haven’t realized this yes boxing isn’t an organization and power ultimately rests in the hands of the promoters rather than whoever creates bouts for the UFC. If MMA didn’t rely on leauges do you think there’d be as many fights? A lack of fights can only possibly show that a great deal of big fights didn’t materialize. Shane Mosley alone had to wait about a year for the Berto fight.
Another intellectually dishonest argument. There’s more to boxing than the heavyweight division, using this as a way to prove popularity when the division is weak right now is just ridiculous. Welterweight is probably the most popular division right now, I wonder how many people know about Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, and Shane Mosley? Mosley/Margarito only broke the attendance record at the Staples Center.
[quote]Okay, let’s take this slowly, my assertion (one of them) is that boxing is fading because there is not enough talent to fill out the ranks (and of course that mma is taking dollars from boxing). That’s why I challenged you to ask people who the HW boxing champ is. While boxing has had a very colorful past with notables from almost every weight class everyone knew who the heavyweight champ was. Today you’d be lucky to find even one person out of 40 in the most important age group 18-39 year old males who knows who the HW boxing champ is. That says a lot to me regardless of who the middleweight UFC king is or even if there is a UFC.
Get it yet?
Boxing is and has been fading.
I’m not posting this because I don’t like boxing, I still like it, but they’re losing their audience my friend.
[/quote]
And another intellectually dishonest argument… Haven’t all your arguments been intellectually dishonest? I think you’ve set a record.
Popularity went from the HW division to a lower division, I bet a lot of people can name a welterweight champ too.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
May-Marquez slaughtered the corresponding UFC fight that night too. Dana White knows still not to go head to head with a big fight.[/quote]
I can’t believe a guy just coming out of retirement and a relatively unknown fighter killed the mighty UFC so bad Mr. White didn’t even want to release buy numbers.
^^Speaking of HW champs, Brock is back bitches!
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just looked at some interesting statistics from wikipedia relative to ppv and boxing:
“1999 differed radically from 2006. 1999 saw De La Hoya-Trinidad (1,400,000 buys), Holyfield-Lewis I (1,200,000), Holyfield-Lewis II (850,000), and De La Hoya-Quartey (570,000). By contrast, only one pay-per-view mega-fight took place in 2006: De La Hoya-Mayorga (925,000 buys). Rahman-Maskaev bombed with under 50,000. The other eight PPV cards last year.”
Where are the big names to replace Holyfield, De La Hoya, Lewis and the rest (not listed)?
[/quote]
Why are you so focused on the year 2006?[/quote]
I clicked onto Wikipedia and that happened to be the year that they highlighted.
I actually don’t have to make any argument relative to the rise of mma and the (current) stagnation (some would say faltering) of boxing as it is a fact. It’s a matter of how far each will go where there is some debate.
By the way still waiting for you to give me that nice long list of popular heavyweights. Did you stop and ask some people in the 18-39 age group who the heavyweight boxing champion of the world is yet? No, I guess you’re not interested in talking about those things, I understand.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just looked at some interesting statistics from wikipedia relative to ppv and boxing:
“1999 differed radically from 2006. 1999 saw De La Hoya-Trinidad (1,400,000 buys), Holyfield-Lewis I (1,200,000), Holyfield-Lewis II (850,000), and De La Hoya-Quartey (570,000). By contrast, only one pay-per-view mega-fight took place in 2006: De La Hoya-Mayorga (925,000 buys). Rahman-Maskaev bombed with under 50,000. The other eight PPV cards last year.”
Where are the big names to replace Holyfield, De La Hoya, Lewis and the rest (not listed)?
[/quote]
Why are you so focused on the year 2006?[/quote]
I clicked onto Wikipedia and that happened to be the year that they highlighted.
I actually don’t have to make any argument relative to the rise of mma and the (current) stagnation (some would say faltering) of boxing as it is a fact. It’s a matter of how far each will go where there is some debate.
By the way still waiting for you to give me that nice long list of popular heavyweights. Did you stop and ask some people in the 18-39 age group who the heavyweight boxing champion of the world is yet? No, I guess you’re not interested in talking about those things, I understand.
[/quote]
This is your grand rebuttal? Nice.
OK, I’ll do it if I pick one of the least popular UFC weightclasses[domestically] and you ask people in that demographic who the champ is.
Hey ZEB- you’re full of shit, because every white trash jerkoff that watches MMA STILL knows who the Klitscho brothers are. And everyone thinks Vitali is tougher. So enough with your fuckin bullshit. Kindly go back to bashing gays on the politics forum, thanks.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just looked at some interesting statistics from wikipedia relative to ppv and boxing:
“1999 differed radically from 2006. 1999 saw De La Hoya-Trinidad (1,400,000 buys), Holyfield-Lewis I (1,200,000), Holyfield-Lewis II (850,000), and De La Hoya-Quartey (570,000). By contrast, only one pay-per-view mega-fight took place in 2006: De La Hoya-Mayorga (925,000 buys). Rahman-Maskaev bombed with under 50,000. The other eight PPV cards last year.”
Where are the big names to replace Holyfield, De La Hoya, Lewis and the rest (not listed)?
[/quote]
Why are you so focused on the year 2006?[/quote]
I clicked onto Wikipedia and that happened to be the year that they highlighted.
I actually don’t have to make any argument relative to the rise of mma and the (current) stagnation (some would say faltering) of boxing as it is a fact. It’s a matter of how far each will go where there is some debate.
By the way still waiting for you to give me that nice long list of popular heavyweights. Did you stop and ask some people in the 18-39 age group who the heavyweight boxing champion of the world is yet? No, I guess you’re not interested in talking about those things, I understand.
[/quote]
This is your grand rebuttal? Nice.
OK, I’ll do it if I pick one of the least popular UFC weightclasses[domestically] and you ask people in that demographic who the champ is.[/quote]
We’re discussing MMA aren’t we, might as well go for WEC bantamweight title holder 
ZEB appears to be a brick wall, no point in trying
And as far as bad heavyweights and boxing dying:
[i]
In the professional game there are so few genuine fighters that promoters find it almost impossible to make enough attractive matches to fill their boxing dates.
At this writing, lack of worthwhile talent in the heavyweight division is particularly appalling. It’s almost unbelievable that the heavy division should have declined so far since the days when I was fighting my way up in 1917, 1918 and 1919. The class was jammed with good men then.
Jess Willard was champion. On his trail were Carl Morris, Frank Moran, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, Fred Fulton, Homer Smith, Gunboat Smith, Jim Flynn and Porky Flynn. And there were Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Tommy Gibbons and Willie Meehan. With the exception of fat Meehan, any one of those top-fighters could knock your brains out if you made a mistake while facing him. Meehan, although a slapper, threw so much leather and was so rugged that he and I broke even in our three four-round bouts. I won, we drew, and I lost.
Lack of top-notchers in the heavy division and in most other divisions today reflects the scarcity of good instructors and trainers everywhere. There are a few good ones lingering on, but they are notable exceptions.[/i]
- Jack Dempsey, Championship Fighting , 1950
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hey ZEB- you’re full of shit,[/quote]
This is about as articulate as I’ve seen you on this forum.
Very nice job of stereotyping, excellent.
Oh darn, you’re going to have to pay better attention. My assertion was that the typical 18-39 year old male doesn’t know who the heavyweight boxing champ is. R E A D I N G is fundamental.
More totally irrelevant information.
Back to your native language I see.
I know the subject of homosexuality is very near and dear to you Irish, but you’re going to have to give it a rest this is the combat forum.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh darn, you’re going to have to pay better attention. My assertion was that the typical 18-39 year old male doesn’t know who the heavyweight boxing champ is. R E A D I N G is fundamental.
[/quote]
That’s MY POINT you illiterate fucking prick- the Klitschos are the heavyweight boxing champs.
What a fucking douche.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
My assertion is that boxing does not have enough popular talent to put on more shows than they do. How do I know this? If they had the talent and the interest was there you’d see more shows. This really isn’t that hard to figure is it? It’s a matter of supply and demand. Do you understand this?
boxing isn’t an organization.[/quote]
Where did I say that boxing had one unified organization?
I’m sorry but the free market system doesn’t stop working for boxing. If there is talent that talent is on display (sold if you will) and people pay to see such talent. That boxing has failed to put on more fights (and in fact less ppv over the years) means that boxing has less talent. Attempting to cloud the issue by claiming that every new, or upcoming fighter has poor talent promotion just smacks of, let’s see how about intellectual dishonesty? Yes that’s the phrase.
We’ve been over this but it’s also covered in ECO 101. Take a course and then get back to me. Maybe then you’ll be able to explain how a thriving business that is in high demand sells less product (and not more) through the years.
Please show me this data if you have it, otherwise it’s certainly just wishful thinking on your part, but you’ve done that through this entire debate haven’t you? You’re a big boxing fan so you WANT boxing to be a certain way. Not very interesting but very typical.
[quote]That’s still irrelevant, if there was plenty of rising talent, and a desire to see that talent, there would be more shows. How is it that you don’t understand this?
Another intellectually dishonest arguement?[/quote]
Did you just learn that phrase today? You should have also learned to apply it correctly. If one’s argument is wrong that doesn’t neccessarily mean that it is dishonest. But of course my argument is correct so it is neither dishonest or wrong.
There you go again blaming the promoter. But, let’s just say that you are right on track with that line of thinking. Then the promoters who are controlling the fights are doing a lousy job and harming boxing right? Either way there is less interest and less money being spent on boxing. Do I care who is doing it? You seem to be making my point.
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter why boxing is failing (for our purposes) nor does it matter why mma is succeeding. The point is that each is doing what it’s doing.
And another intellectually dishonest argument.[/quote]
I’d almost be willing to pay you to keep this up, I’ve rarely had this sort of laugh from one of these debates. Honestly thank you 
[quote] I bet a lot of people can name a welterweight champ too.
[/quote]
Then prove it, just ask the next 10 or 20 people you see in the important 18-39 male age group who the HW or welterweight champ is. I bet not one of them will know and more importantly THEY DON’T CARE.
95% of all your posts on T Nation are on boxing threads, I get it you’re a big fan. But debating with your heart instead of facts just doesn’t make sense.
I’ll restate this one last time for you, if you can’t refute each of these then I think it’s time you gave it a rest:
-
The Heavy Weight Boxing Division is a joke. Most people don’t know who the champ is and couldn’t care less. There are only a small handful of recognizable names in the entire sport.
-
MMA is growing, as in taking in more ppv dollars each year, as boxing has been taking in less over the past 10-12 years. You say mma money is coming from wrestling, I think it’s obviously coming from boxing as well as other places. Is it just a coincidence that as mma has gained in popularity boxing has been losing?
-
Boxing fans are typically older (that isn’t to say boxing is void of younger fans). The most important demographic group to combat sports is the all important 18-39 age group. Most of this group has been attracted to mma. Boxing fans are older and as they die out the interest in boxing may die with it, unless boxing does something different to rise again.
-
I’ve posted links to prove that nation wide in sports bars the new combat sport is mma. Where they used to show boxing to attract their young patrons they now show mma fights.
I know you’re a big boxing fan but that has nothing to do with the facts. Nothing.
I think the concept of an event mixing boxing and mma is a no go for most mma and boxing fans… in the US, that is.
Somehow, and no small part by all the bizness machinery that milks money out of both combat sports, US boxing fans and US mma fans (in particular those who have never even tried either) have become polarized to the point of stupidity. I really don’t fucking know why. If you appreciate and understand combat sports, you can appreciate ANY COMBAT SPORTS. Period.
I’ve seen live a MMA event (the defunc AFC) that have had a boxing match. That was good to watch. I’ve also been at a kickboxing one that had IIRC two grappling demonstration matches. In this one, almost everyone enjoyed that diversity - but then again, it was a small show and most of the audience were training in one facility or another.
A good boxing card is a good boxing card. A good mma card is a good mma card. A pretty well mixed card would be a delightful thing to watch. But that’s not going to happen in the US. Certainly not within the UFC/WEC or with the Boxing Promoting God$ That Be.
I just came back from Japan, and the sporting spirit is quite different. It was really nice to watch DREAM Dynamite!! 2009 on new years eve. A good mixed card including MMA bouts, K-1 bouts and even a couple of kickboxing matches on the 17-year old category. And right the week after it was Sumo season, televising the sekitori-level fighters going at it from 3-6, every day all week long.
Over there, a combat sports is a combat sports, one to be appreciated. A good mixed card would be something good to watch, but over here, forget it, it ain’t gonna happen.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And as far as bad heavyweights and boxing dying:
[i]
In the professional game there are so few genuine fighters that promoters find it almost impossible to make enough attractive matches to fill their boxing dates.
At this writing, lack of worthwhile talent in the heavyweight division is particularly appalling. It’s almost unbelievable that the heavy division should have declined so far since the days when I was fighting my way up in 1917, 1918 and 1919. The class was jammed with good men then.
Jess Willard was champion. On his trail were Carl Morris, Frank Moran, Bill Brennan, Billy Miske, Fred Fulton, Homer Smith, Gunboat Smith, Jim Flynn and Porky Flynn. And there were Sam Langford, Harry Wills, Tommy Gibbons and Willie Meehan. With the exception of fat Meehan, any one of those top-fighters could knock your brains out if you made a mistake while facing him. Meehan, although a slapper, threw so much leather and was so rugged that he and I broke even in our three four-round bouts. I won, we drew, and I lost.
Lack of top-notchers in the heavy division and in most other divisions today reflects the scarcity of good instructors and trainers everywhere. There are a few good ones lingering on, but they are notable exceptions.[/i]
- Jack Dempsey, Championship Fighting , 1950[/quote]
(shaking head), You win no points for logic here. You cannot prove that in 2010 the HW division is not the worst that it’s ever been by posting a statement from Jack Dempsey that in another era he thought the HW division was poor.
You have been kicked around this forum by plenty of people over the years Irish. I would have thought that you would have at least learned what a logical fallacy is, but no, no not you. No one can ever accuse you of learning as you get older.
Some people are just dumb and that’s that.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Oh darn, you’re going to have to pay better attention. My assertion was that the typical 18-39 year old male doesn’t know who the heavyweight boxing champ is. R E A D I N G is fundamental.
[/quote]
That’s MY POINT you illiterate fucking prick- the Klitschos are the heavyweight boxing champs.
What a fucking douche.[/quote]
It’s one thing to get caught in yet another one of your illogical meandering straw man arguments. It’s yet another thing to try to turn it around when you’re had.
Here’s what you posted:
And, I never once said that mma fans (not agreeing with your definition) didn’t know who the Klitscho brothers are. The only thing I ever said regarding this was that the vast majority of the most important demographic to combat sports, the 18-39 male age group don’t know who they are.
You should be really careful when responding to my posts Irish. I’ve been around this fourm a long time and I happen to know that you have a very limited capacity for logical argument. I’d ask you to pay better attention, but that would imply that you have the capacity to kick it up a notch and we both know that it just isn’t there.
Granted you’re a message board tough guy (to some) but in real life you’re an idiot Irish. An uneducated illiterate moron, and that’s a shame.
Brick wall people… brick wall! Who even has enough time to read that long of a rant
[quote]Amiright wrote:
Brick wall people… brick wall! Who even has enough time to read that long of a rant[/quote]
Haha. Oh I know. I don’t actually read much of what he says, only a phrase now and again… my eyes start bleeding and my brain shuts off if I read to much of his drivel
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t actually read much of what he says, only a phrase now and again… my eyes start bleeding and my brain shuts off if I read to much of his drivel[/quote]
It’s obvious that you don’t fully read my posts, the only problem is that you keep responding to them.
Zeb, your response wont really require me responding to every statement. Here’s my rebuttal:
Essentially your posts are just one huge fallacious argument. In fact you’ve blatantly made several intellectually dishonest statements, one of them being that UFC pulls from HBO Boxing PPVs when that’s patently false and if anything there’s evidence supporting the contrary. I can see why people liken you to a brick wall.
[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Zeb, your response wont really require me responding to every statement. Here’s my rebuttal:
Essentially your posts are just one huge fallacious argument.[/quote]
I can understand you giving up, but on the way out the door I don’t think it’s appropriate to lie. I’ve stated nothing that is false.
Here they are again, which one is false?
"1. The Heavy Weight Boxing Division is a joke. Most people don’t know who the champ is and couldn’t care less. There are only a small handful of recognizable names in the entire sport.
-
MMA is growing, as in taking in more ppv dollars each year, as boxing has been taking in less over the past 10-12 years. You say mma money is coming from wrestling, I think it’s obviously coming from boxing as well as other places. Is it just a coincidence that as mma has gained in popularity boxing has been losing?
-
Boxing fans are typically older (that isn’t to say boxing is void of younger fans). The most important demographic group to combat sports is the all important (male) 18-39 age group. Most of this group (those interested in combat sports) have been attracted to mma. Boxing fans are older and as they die out the interest in boxing may die with it, unless boxing does something different to rise again.
-
I’ve posted links to prove that nation wide in sports bars the new combat sport is mma. Where they used to show boxing to attract their young patrons they now show mma fights."
[quote]I can see why people liken you to a brick wall.
[/quote]
One boxing fan stated that, but, good use of hyperbole and very much expected. When you can’t refute the facts move to a personal attack.