Canelo-Rhodes draws 36 million viewers in Mexico

I hate when Boxing people brag about ratings/PPV buys and sarcastically ask "Boxing is dead right?"

Boxing is dead in America. It's grown in other countries.

P.S. Dan eat a fuckin salad!

SlickMoney wrote:I hate when Boxing people brag about ratings/PPV buys and sarcastically ask "Boxing is dead right?"

Boxing is dead in America. It's grown in other countries.

I don't think it's dead in the US. Just the US fans get fucked over. Alverez's fight was on network TV in Mexico. In US, you have to have HBO, which as limited auidence.

Manny's fights are on free TV in his country. Yet got to pay 60 fucking bucks to see him fight in the US.

It's dead here dog. You can count on one hand the american born fighters who can sell tickets here. Nobody knows any fighters other than Manny and Floyd.

SlickMoney wrote:It's dead here dog. You can count on one hand the american born fighters who can sell tickets here. Nobody knows any fighters other than Manny and Floyd.

I know that. I'm just saying it's not popular in the US because people don't like boxing. Just boxing made itself a nich sport. Never going to grow a sport on premiuem channels and PPVs.

Mayweather and Pac become big names for fighting Oscar. Oscar become big when won Olympic medal on network TV, and fought in his early career on network TV.

All the fighters in other countries are big in their country because they fight on free TV there. The Klits, Kessler, ect, ect.

Why HBO branching out to TNT and TBS is long over-do. And hopefully CBS will put some fights on.

Is the network TV thing really still valid? Maybe if we're talking about regular TV vs. pay TV.
Other than that, isn't NFL the only sport on network TV anymore? You can see other sports on network, but by in large, even those sports are usually further down the dial now too.

ScottLevinson wrote:Is the network TV thing really still valid? Maybe if we're talking about regular TV vs. pay TV.
Other than that, isn't NFL the only sport on network TV anymore? You can see other sports on network, but by in large, even those sports are usually further down the dial now too.

it requires HBO and Showtime to see the bigger names and often on PPV. Anybody know what % of households have HBO/Showtime versus those with just basic cable.

ScottLevinson wrote:Is the network TV thing really still valid? Maybe if we're talking about regular TV vs. pay TV.
Other than that, isn't NFL the only sport on network TV anymore? You can see other sports on network, but by in large, even those sports are usually further down the dial now too.

Let's say network TV is free, basic cable is cheap, and premium cable is expensive. Football is always network, Basketball is network for big games and during playoffs and basic other than that. Baseball is similar. However, both those sports make sure fans in the area can watch big games. Hockey is basic, but on an obscure channel. NASCAR, horse racing, tennis and golf do network (big events) and basic. Boxing is premium and basic (small fights).

Boxing is not available to the same number of people as the other sports. If anything I'd compare it to soccer a few years ago before they started showing Champions League and Premiership games every once in a while on basic. All you could get was MLS. I'm not going to knock MLS but it's not at the same level as some of the other top leagues. It won't bring in new fans to the sport. The same way FNF or Solo Boxeo can't stack up to an HBO or Showtime card.

No, I realize that less people are even able to watch boxing.

I'm just saying that maybe basic cable can do the trick too. Anyone who has ABC, CBS, and NBC has ESPN, TNT, TBS, etc., right?

It would help for it to not be almost exclusively on either HBO, SHO, or PPV. Kinda works for UFC, though, doesn't it? I kinda think boxing fans get to see more top quality non-PPV matches from their sport than MMA fans.

But when anything is in the dumps, you can't make it overly exclusive. Boxing should bite the bullet and show some big fights for free. I remember when a simple HBO subscription, along with the networks, allowed me to see almost all the fights I ever wanted to see. And that was the 80's, which was the last golden era for the sport. They should try to duplicate that now.

Big difference between the 3 though - network, cable, and premium channels.

HBO has almost 29 million subscribers, Showtime 18 million

CBS reaches over 100 million homes.

ESPN's FNFs pulls in good #s pretty good compared to what HBO does and they get the shaft from their network from time to time. Preempted by tennis, college baseball, strong man competitions, etc, etc.

Boxing was regularly on Wide World of Sports on ABC, Tuesday Night Fights had a strong run on USA, and even club fighters like Gomez, Manfredo, Mora, made a name for themselves on NBC's Contender.

Be a huge boost for the sport if it was able to get back to that and not with shows like Solo Boxeo, Fight Night Club, or Top Rank Live (been ok this year).

If the fight with Alvarez and Chavez Jr. happens in Mexico, it will probably double that amount. Wow.

ScottLevinson wrote:Is the network TV thing really still valid? Maybe if we're talking about regular TV vs. pay TV.
Other than that, isn't NFL the only sport on network TV anymore? You can see other sports on network, but by in large, even those sports are usually further down the dial now too.

And rating for those sports are down as well. College sports are on network TV and they still do great numbers like pro football. Cable subscriptions makes cable sports networks money and allows them breathing room after footing the bill for the TV rights. Boxing is as rare as the NFL, say 16 big fights a year or so and three blockbusters that could serve as super bowls if you will. Marketed right I believe that there would be big revenue in boxing and a renewed interest in the sport. Decent boxing is now associated with PPV and that's what's killed the public's interest in the sport, not belts, organizations or any of the other things we bitch about. 60 dollars to watch people fight for anywhere from one punch to 48 minutes is too much money, especially when the possibility of a shitty fight looms. 60 dollars is a big risk. Tournament style fights like the current bantam weight one on network TV would do wonders for the sport.

Gumby wrote:

ScottLevinson wrote:Is the network TV thing really still valid? Maybe if we're talking about regular TV vs. pay TV.
Other than that, isn't NFL the only sport on network TV anymore? You can see other sports on network, but by in large, even those sports are usually further down the dial now too.

Let's say network TV is free, basic cable is cheap, and premium cable is expensive. Football is always network, Basketball is network for big games and during playoffs and basic other than that. Baseball is similar. However, both those sports make sure fans in the area can watch big games. Hockey is basic, but on an obscure channel. NASCAR, horse racing, tennis and golf do network (big events) and basic. Boxing is premium and basic (small fights).

Boxing is not available to the same number of people as the other sports. If anything I'd compare it to soccer a few years ago before they started showing Champions League and Premiership games every once in a while on basic. All you could get was MLS. I'm not going to knock MLS but it's not at the same level as some of the other top leagues. It won't bring in new fans to the sport. The same way FNF or Solo Boxeo can't stack up to an HBO or Showtime card.

good post. I agree. The fights we get on basic cable are for hardcore fans like us, not the type of fights that will win over general sports fans. ESPN has shown Premiership and la liga games and a few of my friends who watch sports (and previously said MLS games aren't their thing), have watched premiership games and said while they don't save the date for them, they would watch again when it is on.

Agreed. Clarity is also needed. Boxing makes it impossible for casual fans and new fans to know what the fuck is going on. Shit, even hardcore fans it's hard to figure out all the ABC bullshit madness.

I think comparing boxing to soccer is a bad comparison because soccer was never popular here in the states. I'd say a better comparison would be hockey. The casual fan could care less about the belts, the best need to fight the best three times a year and people would be interested.

hardcorebee24 wrote:I think comparing boxing to soccer is a bad comparison because soccer was never popular here in the states. I'd say a better comparison would be hockey. The casual fan could care less about the belts, the best need to fight the best three times a year and people would be interested.

Completely agree, imagine if Pac fought 3-4 times year instead of 1 or 2

gomez1012 wrote: Completely agree, imagine if Pac fought 3-4 times year instead of 1 or 2

Shit, at this point, I'd settle for him having atleast one fight a year on regular free TV, instead 60 bucks PPV

GrantZilla wrote:

gomez1012 wrote: Completely agree, imagine if Pac fought 3-4 times year instead of 1 or 2

Shit, at this point, I'd settle for him having atleast one fight a year on regular free TV, instead 60 bucks PPV

I agree and treat it like the superbowl. People would watch and clamor for more. The beauty of boxing is that there are multiple weight classes and promoters, networks and fighters could exploit this. They choose not to. They chooses not to because of the money that PPv's generate for the fighter's and promoters. There is too much pressure from a very disgruntled, demanding and stingy third party (the networks) so the King's, Arum's and Warren's of the world found a way around it and went the cable and PPV route.