UFC Co-Promote Boxing?

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

I think we agree on this. That’s why they need big names to make it sell and boxing has no depth. In other words the big names in boxing sell tickets, but there are only a few.

That’s how boxing has always been. Even in league sports, do people care about the average player? No, people care about the super star player on teams. The only difference is the league can attract attention to itself as a league, individuals can only attract attention to themselves.[/quote]

I agree that’s one more reason boxing is not in a good position. But as everyone knows there were many more boxing stars in days gone past with a thriving heavy weight division as well.

[quote]I disagree, if money could be made with more boxing matches (at any level ppv wise) they would put them on. The fact is, as I’ve repeatedly said, there are only a handful of boxers who can sell tickets so they are “super fights”. MMA has far more depth of talent right now which allows them to put on many more of fights per year.

You’re completely overlooking that HBO hasn’t put on a PPV that hasn’t had at least 1,000,000 buys for the past few years. How many UFC PPVs do at least 1,000,000 buys per year? The standards are higher and HBO doesn’t rely heavily on PPV revenue. Rather than put on a PPV that sells modestly they air the fight for free.[/quote]

Total what the UFC has made vs what boxing has made on ppv. I agree that boxing has bigger shows but they do that because they only have a few stars at this point. UFC on the other hand can continue to have many more shows and make more total dollars. In fact, look at the top 10 shows that ppv put on in 09’ I posted it earlier UFC had 8 of the top 10, that’s pretty significant I think, and most people would agree.

They could be putting on more PPVs as it’s, rather than making the fight a PPV they air it for free though.

They do so because there are not enough people who will pay to see it. Think supply and demand once again.

[quote]That’s nonsense. You are claiming because a Mayweather fight is able to out draw a UFC that boxing is not hurt by the UFC being on the same night. That simply isn’t true. There are many who would pay to see a boxing super fight if there were no UFC. They do in fact share the same demographic as I’ve pointed out it’s the 18-39 male age group.
There hasn’t been a disparity in HBO PPVs buys since the UFC came around and it’s been shown that conflicting UFC PPVs don’t have any negative impact on HBO PPVs.[/quote]

I’d like to see the data on that claim. You are essentially stating that the UFC and mma in general have had zero impact on boxing ppv dollars and I don’t believe that. In your earlier post you admitted that they shared fans.

[quote]But who the champions are will rely on the depth of the sport. If when Mayweather retires there isn’t a person of equal stature to take his place (at some weight class) then boxing suffers, simple economics.

That’s assuming it doesn’t happen[/quote]

Well then tell me who replaced Holyfield or Lewis? Who replaced DeLahoya? Who will replace Mayweather when he retires yet again? Where is the depth of talent? Everyone knows that boxing has a lack of depth and that’s one of the reasons it’s not as strong as it once was.

[quote]I agree, but that still hurts boxing in America.

Not when you take into consideration that boxing has been ruled by a handful of fighters except for the 1950s. Welterweight and middleweight have been competing with the heavyweight division for years, the only thing that has changed is the welterweight is winning right now.[/quote]

But that competition you speak of is good for boxing. And now that there are only a few fighters who can draw enough dollars to have super fights boxing has taken a bit of a slide.

[quote]I agree, that’s one more thing that harms boxing. The promoter doesn’t always have the fighters best interest at heart. People like Don King or Bob Arum have harmed boxing.

It started way before Don King and Bob Arum.[/quote]

I agree, but that doesn’t mean that Arum and King didn’t hurt boxing.

To be honest I’d say the big problem in boxing is the number of belts and lack of tournaments to unify the belts. That and the NFL, boxing has probably lost a lot of future heavyweights to the NFL lol.

I have to agree with you on both points especially the many belts, it’s just ridiculous.

[goldengloves]

Come on, man. I’m not going to perpetually reiterate my arguments.

I agree that’s one more reason boxing is not in a good position. But as everyone knows there were many more boxing stars in days gone past with a thriving heavy weight division as well.

No, most of the time the success of fighters depended on the star at the time. If it wasn’t for Muhammad Ali Joe Frazier wouldn’t of been the star he was, neither would George Foreman. If it wasn’t for Mike Tyson then there would be countless guys that wouldn’t have turned into super stars. Once you get to the late 1960s boxing started depending on the big names.

Total what the UFC has made vs what boxing has made on ppv. I agree that boxing has bigger shows but they do that because they only have a few stars at this point. UFC on the other hand can continue to have many more shows and make more total dollars. In fact, look at the top 10 shows that ppv put on in 09’ I posted it earlier UFC had 8 of the top 10, that’s pretty significant I think, and most people would agree.

Well for one thing you don’t know how many buys the UFC generates, you’ve an estimate of how many buys they generate. To know how many buys they generate you’d have to audit the company or talk to Dana White while he’s under oath.

And another thing, UFC puts on five times more PPVs. If the UFC couldn’t generate more revenue than HBO PPV with 10-15 fights to HBO PPV’s 2-3 fights it’d just be sad. The UFC puts on so many PPVs because it depends on them, not all of them sell well either. The UFC could put on 15 shows that generate 500,000 buys and they’d have 7,500,000 buys for the year, HBO PPV would have to generate 2,500,000 buys in the three fights to match that.

The UFC putting on more shows doesn’t mean they’ve more stars, you’ve still yet to even name the UFC stars.

[quote]They do so because there are not enough people who will pay to see it. Think supply and demand once again.
[/quote]

No, you’re trying to compare a cable network that does PPVs as a business venture to a company that depends primarily on PPVs. Even if there’s a demand for a fight, if HBO doesn’t feel there’s a great enough demand they’ll air it for free. Mosley/Berto could have easily been a PPV but that was going to be aired for free.

Well then tell me who replaced Holyfield or Lewis? Who replaced DeLahoya? Who will replace Mayweather when he retires yet again? Where is the depth of talent? Everyone knows that boxing has a lack of depth and that’s one of the reasons it’s not as strong as it once was.

I think you’re confusing lack of depth with lack of knowledge. There are a lot of good fighters out there, they just haven’t transcended the sport. Unless the general populace has knowledge of you chances are your PPVs wont do well, or well enough to have a fight on HBO PPV. A lot of that has to do with the business aspect of boxing, a promoter can only market a fighter so much.

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Come on, man. I’m not going to perpetually reiterate my arguments.[/quote]

You have a long way to go before you catch me in that department.

[quote]I agree that’s one more reason boxing is not in a good position. But as everyone knows there were many more boxing stars in days gone past with a thriving heavy weight division as well.

No, most of the time the success of fighters depended on the star at the time. If it wasn’t for Muhammad Ali Joe Frazier wouldn’t of been the star he was, neither would George Foreman.[/quote]

Great fights are made by great fighters. I agree that Frazier and Foreman both raised their stature by fighting Ali. However, Frazier and Foreman both would have been stars had there been no Ali, they were that good. Forget Ali (who was perhaps the greatest) where are the Fraziers and Foremans of today? Even the Ken Nortons, Larry Holmes and Spink brothers? Where are the good heavy weights? Boxing is not in good shape because of many things not the least of which is a weak heavy weight division.

Once you get to the late 1960s boxing started depending on the big names.

They depended on big names as far back as there was boxing. As I’ve already stated John L. Sullivan was known far and wide back in the late 1800’s. Almost everyone knew who he was, and that was in the days before Internet, TV and even radio! He was huge. As were many, many heavy weights after him. Names such as Corbett, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Patterson, Liston. And many, many others. It seems that every era of boxing was better than this one and not just in the heavy weight division. Remember Sugar Ray Robinson, Tony Zale, Rocky Graciano, Jake LaMotto? They were all big in a time when the heavy weights were also popular.

Stop pretending that boxing isn’t hurting right now you look like you’re in denial.

Well for one thing you don’t know how many buys the UFC generates, you’ve an estimate of how many buys they generate. To know how many buys they generate you’d have to audit the company or talk to Dana White while he’s under oath.

But I do know that 8 of the 10 biggest shows on PPV were UFC’s. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? Maybe just a tiny bit of information? Come on now.

And another thing, UFC puts on five times more PPVs. If the UFC couldn’t generate more revenue than HBO PPV with 10-15 fights to HBO PPV’s 2-3 fights it’d just be sad.

I agree, but the point is THEY HAVE MORE FIGHTS, because THEY ARE VERY POPULAR!

The UFC putting on more shows doesn’t mean they’ve more stars, you’ve still yet to even name the UFC stars.

Stars shmars, it doesn’t matter if they’re selling tickets that means that people want to see them whether they have stars or not. Back once again to supply and demand right?

[quote]Well then tell me who replaced Holyfield or Lewis? Who replaced DeLahoya? Who will replace Mayweather when he retires yet again? Where is the depth of talent? Everyone knows that boxing has a lack of depth and that’s one of the reasons it’s not as strong as it once was.

There are a lot of good fighters out there, they just haven’t transcended the sport.[/quote]

I’m not saying there are not good fighters out there. But if the key demographic (18-39 year old males) doesn’t know they’re out there what good does it do boxing?

Unless the general populace has knowledge of you chances are your PPVs wont do well

Exactly what I just stated above, and that hurts boxing.

A lot of that has to do with the business aspect of boxing, a promoter can only market a fighter so much.

We’re back to blaming the promoters again I see, and I think you’re right. But again that’s only one problem boxing has isn’t it?

You will never convince anyone that boxing is not in a dormant period by giving reasons why it’s in a dormant period.

Follow?

[goldengloves]

Great fights are made by great fighters. I agree that Frazier and Foreman both raised their stature by fighting Ali. However, Frazier and Foreman both would have been stars had there been no Ali, they were that good. Forget Ali (who was perhaps the greatest) where are the Fraziers and Foremans of today? Even the Ken Nortons, Larry Holmes and Spink brothers? Where are the good heavy weights? Boxing is not in good shape because of many things not the least of which is a weak heavy weight division.

Not the level of stars they were, Joe Frazier is remembered by those outside of boxing fans because of his fights with Ali. George Foreman is probably more popular for his grill than his boxing career anyway.

Saying “boxing is in bad shape” is a broad statement, you’re talking about boxing in America. The HW division isn’t weak, it’s dominated by two Europeans that primarily fight in Europe. That’s not going to appeal to American fans, that’s probably why American fans prefer fighters primarily fighting in or residing in America.

They depended on big names as far back as there was boxing.

Yeah, so what exactly is your point? Boxing is in bad shape because it depends on big names now but it wasn’t before? The biggest problems have been society changing, there are more popular sports then there once was. At one time America revolved around baseball, boxing, and horse racing. Now it has basketball, hockey, football, auto racing, and countless other sports people can become interested in.

You realize you’re essentially saying there has never been any “depth” in boxing, right? But no depth before meant it was thriving and now no depth means it’s “dead”.

But I do know that 8 of the 10 biggest shows on PPV were UFC’s. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? Maybe just a tiny bit of information? Come on now.

What year?

Well if you’re competing with two PPVs I suppose 8/10 is expected. Wouldn’t that mean you’ve 8/10 by default though?

I agree, but the point is THEY HAVE MORE FIGHTS, because THEY ARE VERY POPULAR!

How do you explain the mediocre sales? More PPVs doesn’t mean anything, the UFC is supposed to put on more PPVs since they depend on them for revenue. HBO doesn’t depend on PPVs, it wont even put on a PPV unless it can likely reach 1,000,000 buys. If the UFC were to do that they’d have a fraction of the PPVs.

Stars shmars, it doesn’t matter if they’re selling tickets that means that people want to see them whether they have stars or not. Back once again to supply and demand right?

The same goes for boxing.

[quote]I’m not saying there are not good fighters out there. But if the key demographic (18-39 year old males) doesn’t know they’re out there what good does it do boxing?
[/quote]

Well generally the public becomes aware of them. You know, it’s only been happening for 50 years.

[quote]
Exactly what I just stated above, and that hurts boxing. [/quote]

It hurts the UFC too, that’s quite evident in their PPV numbers.

[quote]We’re back to blaming the promoters again I see, and I think you’re right. But again that’s only one problem boxing has isn’t it?

You will never convince anyone that boxing is not in a dormant period by giving reasons why it’s in a dormant period.

Follow? [/quote]

I’ve never said it wasn’t, you’ve been doing far more than suggesting boxing is “dormant” though. Why are you even trying to make it seem like you’ve just been arguing boxing isn’t as popular as it once was? You’ve been suggesting it lost popularity because of the UFC and wont be able to compete with the UFC in the future.

[Amiright]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
I’ve never said it wasn’t, you’ve been doing far more than suggesting boxing is “dormant” though. Why are you even trying to make it seem like you’ve just been arguing boxing isn’t as popular as it once was? You’ve been suggesting it lost popularity because of the UFC and wont be able to compete with the UFC in the future.[/quote]

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier

[ZEB]

[quote]Amiright wrote:

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier [/quote]

I’m glad that you’re a boxing fan, so am I, but I’ve been very consistent through out this debate. I’ve changed my opinion on nothing. If you feel that I have please post where and be specific otherwise, I’ll just have to look at you as another boxing fan who is not willing to admit that boxing has seen better days.

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
Great fights are made by great fighters. I agree that Frazier and Foreman both raised their stature by fighting Ali. However, Frazier and Foreman both would have been stars had there been no Ali, they were that good. Forget Ali (who was perhaps the greatest) where are the Fraziers and Foremans of today? Even the Ken Nortons, Larry Holmes and Spink brothers? Where are the good heavy weights? Boxing is not in good shape because of many things not the least of which is a weak heavy weight division.

Not the level of stars they were, Joe Frazier is remembered by those outside of boxing fans because of his fights with Ali. George Foreman is probably more popular for his grill than his boxing career anyway.[/quote]

I agree with both statements, but neither statement means that the fighters in question were not really good on their own. What’s the point of arguing this anyway? The point is back then the heavy weight rank was full of really solid fighters that people were aware of, not the case today.

Saying “boxing is in bad shape” is a broad statement, you’re talking about boxing in America. The HW division isn’t weak, it’s dominated by two Europeans that primarily fight in Europe. That’s not going to appeal to American fans, that’s probably why American fans prefer fighters primarily fighting in or residing in America.

I am talking about America and I think I made that clear earlier as that’s where the big bucks poor into the fight game. Not to say that big money isn’t spent elsewhere.

The biggest problems have been society changing, there are more popular sports then there once was. At one time America revolved around baseball, boxing, and horse racing. Now it has basketball, hockey, football, auto racing, and countless other sports people can become interested in.

Thank you once again for proving my point. I agree, of course, the times have changed and boxing needs to change with them or continue to stagnate, or worse.

You realize you’re essentially saying there has never been any “depth” in boxing

There was depth and there were big names. Why does one have to be exclusive of the other? This is the era where there is no depth and only a few big names. And of course not a popular HW division.

[quote]
But I do know that 8 of the 10 biggest shows on PPV were UFC’s. Does that tell you anything? Anything at all? Maybe just a tiny bit of information? Come on now.

What year?[/quote]

I posted 2008, I also believe that 2009 had similar stats. The trend is not toward boxing, at least not right now. The trend is toward MMA. You can hate it, you can love it, matters not.

[quote]I agree, but the point is THEY HAVE MORE FIGHTS, because THEY ARE VERY POPULAR!

How do you explain the mediocre sales?[/quote]

I asked you to prove your assertion that the UFC sales are mediocre. To my knowledge they were quite good. Show me the data. Do you think 500,000 to 1,000,000 buys is mediocre? I don’t.

More PPVs doesn’t mean anything,

Wrong, it means more people are watching and that is significant.

[quote]Stars shmars, it doesn’t matter if they’re selling tickets that means that people want to see them whether they have stars or not. Back once again to supply and demand right?

The same goes for boxing.[/quote]

I agree, the same does go for boxing, so why doesn’t boxing have 8 of the top 10 biggest sales on PPV? Could it be because many are not interested in boxers who are NOT stars?

[quote]We’re back to blaming the promoters again I see, and I think you’re right. But again that’s only one problem boxing has isn’t it?

You will never convince anyone that boxing is not in a dormant period by giving reasons why it’s in a dormant period.

Follow?

I’ve never said it wasn’t, you’ve been doing far more than suggesting boxing is “dormant” though. Why are you even trying to make it seem like you’ve just been arguing boxing isn’t as popular as it once was? You’ve been suggesting it lost popularity because of the UFC and wont be able to compete with the UFC in the future.[/quote]

First things first, a few facts:

From the beginning I’ve been very consistent. In my very first post I stated “the seemingly dying sport of boxing.” Dying? Yes, sure could be. What did you call it in an earlier post? Do you remember? You said something to the effect that it’s not what it once was and it never will be. Those are your words.

I’ve posted several articles by boxing writers who have claimed that boxing is dying. They even gave several reasons that you’ve also stated, bad promoters being one of them. Some have also said what I’ve contended that MMA is taking a good amount of the PPV dollars away from boxing. But again, that’s only one reason as I’ve said many times, boxing has multiple problems and YOU KNOW IT, as you have stated some of them yourself.

I’ve also posted statistics from 2008 which shows that the UFC had 8 of the top 10 PPV shows. Tell me where is the money coming from? And don’t say “wrestling”. Some of it certainly is but a good percentage is coming from boxing fans, especially young boxing fans who want to see the action of MMA.

I’ve pointed out consistently that boxing is in trouble for a number of reasons not the least of which is because of the depth of talent and the lack of good recognizable heavy weights.

It has further been my contention that the UFC IS more popular than boxing and demonstrated that popularity by showing numbers from two different years and also showing the difference in PPV sales over the past 12 years (or so). Again, do you think it coincidental that as the MMA numbers go up the boxing numbers go down?

I’ve also given you data which indicates that sports bars across the US are no longer showing boxing but now show MMA. One other poster commented on how he expected to see a boxing match at his favorite bar and instead walked into an MMA fight. Ask yourself why bar owners who really, really like making money would put MMA ahead of boxing. Hmm, hey I think I know.

Everyone, and I mean everyone who pays attention to combat sports knows that currently MMA is expanding and boxing is in trouble. I should say everyone except you and perhaps a few others. Most fans (like myself) see the trend accept it and hope for the best regarding boxing.

As I have repeatedly stated, if boxing doesn’t do something I would then have to agree with the various boxing writers articles that I’ve posted, boxing will eventually die. However, as I’ve also been consistanly saying, I hope that doesn’t occur because I am also a fan. But, the difference is I have my eyes wide open and am not debating with my heart, just the facts.

Okay, that was fun, let’s do it again.

[Amiright]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Amiright wrote:

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier [/quote]

I’m glad that you’re a boxing fan, so am I, but I’ve been very consistent through out this debate. I’ve changed my opinion on nothing. If you feel that I have please post where and be specific otherwise, I’ll just have to look at you as another boxing fan who is not willing to admit that boxing has seen better days.
[/quote]

No one here has disagreed that boxing has seen better days… and that wasn’t your argument. Your argument was that boxing is going to die just as wrestling had… and that MMA will reign over all. Everyone else Believes MMA and Boxing will coexist happily.

and I’m a Fan of both…

[goldengloves]

I’ve also posted statistics from 2008 which shows that the UFC had 8 of the top 10 PPV shows. Tell me where is the money coming from? And don’t say “wrestling”. Some of it certainly is but a good percentage is coming from boxing fans, especially young boxing fans who want to see the action of MMA.

You posted statistics?

Where the PPVs conflicting? If not, UFC PPVs can’t take money from a HBO PPV if there’s not even a conflicting HBO PPV. You don’t lose revenue when you’re not selling a product, you just don’t gain revenue. You’re insinuating that HBO PPV is losing buys to UFC PPV while not even having a PPV fight.

You can’t base success off of PPV numbers either, PPV isn’t a focus of HBO. If it weren’t for promoters and fighters insisting on PPV fights HBO probably wouldn’t put them on, HBO makes limited profits on PPVs and their profits are capped with PPV fights. You’re trying to compare a cable network putting on PPVs to please promoters and fighters and a organization that depends on PPVs. You can look at HBO giving fans good fights for free while the UFC is charging fans for PPVs to watch poor events though.

Also, what makes you feel that MMA is infinitely expanding? Crowd sizes has been similar, PPV buys have been similar with some exceptions, and they’ve constantly put on 10-15 shows.

[goldengloves]

[quote]Amiright wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
I’ve never said it wasn’t, you’ve been doing far more than suggesting boxing is “dormant” though. Why are you even trying to make it seem like you’ve just been arguing boxing isn’t as popular as it once was? You’ve been suggesting it lost popularity because of the UFC and wont be able to compete with the UFC in the future.[/quote]

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier [/quote]

That’s quite obvious, my posts only take a few minutes to type up so I can’t say I care.

[goldengloves]

LOL. I found your statistics; Thedailytexan article, right? Damn, man. Damn. Those statistics provided by a man calling local sports bars are overwhelming.

[ZEB]

[quote]Amiright wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Amiright wrote:

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier [/quote]

I’m glad that you’re a boxing fan, so am I, but I’ve been very consistent through out this debate. I’ve changed my opinion on nothing. If you feel that I have please post where and be specific otherwise, I’ll just have to look at you as another boxing fan who is not willing to admit that boxing has seen better days.
[/quote]

No one here has disagreed that boxing has seen better days… and that wasn’t your argument. Your argument was that boxing is going to die just as wrestling had… and that MMA will reign over all. Everyone else Believes MMA and Boxing will coexist happily.

and I’m a Fan of both…
[/quote]

Go back to my first post I said “boxing is seemingly dying”. Furthermore, I’ve maintained that With that boxing is in danger of becoming extinct if they don’t improve some of the things that I’ve been posting about, especially as MMA gains in popularity.

A simple thesis, no?

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Amiright wrote:

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
I’ve never said it wasn’t, you’ve been doing far more than suggesting boxing is “dormant” though. Why are you even trying to make it seem like you’ve just been arguing boxing isn’t as popular as it once was? You’ve been suggesting it lost popularity because of the UFC and wont be able to compete with the UFC in the future.[/quote]

Because he won’t admit defeat… he will argue until the thread dies… he will adjust what he says even if it doesn’t agree with what he said earlier [/quote]

That’s quite obvious, my posts only take a few minutes to type up so I can’t say I care.
[/quote]

If you didn’t care this would have ended long ago. How many people post page after page who don’t really care? Of course you care, you’re a die hard boxing fan who is having a difficult time accepting the reality of the situation.

[ZEB]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
LOL. I found your statistics; Thedailytexan article, right? Damn, man. Damn. Those statistics provided by a man calling local sports bars are overwhelming. [/quote]

Then all you have to do is call a few sports bars in your area. I know where I live they always show MMA, not boxing. I do believe that the tide has turned toward MMA away from boxing and I’ve tried to point that out in my many posts.

Let’s end with maybe three things we do agree on:

1. There are too many boxing organizations which greatly demean any title holders belt.

2. Boxing promoters have hurt boxing through the years, especially the two clowns who currently promote fights, Arum and King.

3. Not having an American heavy weight who is recognizable to the general public has hurt boxing.