"I am getting a little tired of your using the “save boxing†story line every time you guys decide to cover the sport, as you did in your story on Kelly Pavlik. If boxing is dying, why did our 24/7 De La Hoya-Mayweather reality series average 4.7 million viewers a week over a four-week period? And how did the fight itself do 2.4 million buys? If boxing is dying, why is the anticipation for Calzaghe vs. Kessler, Cotto vs. Mosley, and Mayweather vs. Hatton so great? I think magazines and newspapers that characterize boxing as dying are trying to rationalize their stubbornness in not covering the sport. Boxing fans are out there in millions. You and others are just not serving their needs. We are. Ross Greenburg, President, HBO Sports" :bears:
Boxing is on a bit of an upswing. 2007 was a much better year fightwise then recent years. Hopefully that continues in 2008 and beyond. TFK
Fuck Ross Greenburg. He and his team are the ones that marketed Floyd-GLH from the angle that it was going to be the fight that saves boxing. Of course those who dont follow boxing are going to pick up on it, especially when one of its own is the one claiming the sport is dying. I don't disagree with what he wrote to SI, which is an absolute piece of shit of a magazine to begin with. But let's face it, HBO had fuck all going on this year up until Floyd-GLH, which means the first 4-5 months of 2007 was more of the same from 2005 and 2006, the latter regarded by many as the WORST year for the US boxing scene in quite a long time. HBO didn't start picking up the pace in their schedule until damn near ever major boxing writer took them to task. If Floyd-GLH were marketed as a fight simply to further exploit the industry rather than its saving grace, the nonsense of the sport being dead never would've come about. In fact, Muzse even said it best in mid-June - if Cotto-Judah was instead presented to the Floyd-GLH audience, boxing would be in a lot better shape. Ross can blame himself.
I blame YOU. If you were writing for FightBeat the sport would be in a better place. But since nobody can actually get to your articles thanks to a million pop-ups on that "other" site, than people have lost interest in the sport. So if boxing is dying it's ever since you quit :blobbox: I think I will hide for a week now because I know what's coming ::
I agree with the overall tone of Greenburg's letter "however" he needs to read between the lines to see the hypocrisy of his own words and numbers. If 4.7 million per week watched DLH/Mayweather 24/7 and 2.3 million LESS paid to watch the fight, how does he explain the almost 50% drop off in viewership? Three words...Pay Per View.
I agree! :bears: Somebody should start an "I blame Jake!" bandwagon. I suggest Jake himself takes the reins in this endeavor, for he is the only one impartial enough to be entrusted with such a responsibility.
HBO have been playing this "Save Boxing" thing for some time. Remember Hasim Rahman and his last stand against Oleg Maskaev?? Larrys rant about "Joe Louis Where Have You Gone" {into a hole in the ground you old geriatric drunkard} There there was the All American Boy Pavlik, and the Mayweather-Hoya thing. So I think Greenburg needs to get out of that, uh, Greenhouse before he throws anymore Yarmulkas at SI.
2.3 million buys - not 2.3 million viewers - it seems highly unlikely that everyone that bought it watched it alone.
Do you think everyone who watched 24/7 watched it alone? Works out the same if you think about it. 4.7 million homes watched 24/7, almost 50% fewer homes bought the fight. It's the same either way you look at it.
No but i think a lot more watched 24/7 alone than the PPV - how likely are you to get together with some friends to watch 24/7 compared to sharing a 50+$ PPV? I also think that a lot more would be interested in watching the actual fight, than the buildup program - especially among casual fans.
I think you're missing the point... Here's what Greenburg said... If boxing is dying, why did our 24/7 De La Hoya-Mayweather reality series average 4.7 million viewers a week over a four-week period? And how did the fight itself do 2.4 million buys? What I'm saying is, Greenburg switches his own terminology within the context of his own argument. He cites 4.7 million viewers when it's really 4.7 million homes. Just like you're saying 2.4 million BUYS doesn't equal 2.4 million viewers. At his rate, the 2.4 million simply doubled up and watched the PPV. He could have done a better job in constructing his argument.
Im not missing the point, and i know what Greenburg said. My point is that if you take the average stereotypical household with 1 husband one wife and 2 kids - your likely to get 1 viewer for 24/7 - Where it's EXTREMELY common for a bunch of guys to get together and share the PPV - thats all im saying. I dont know how the ratings are done in the US, but here it's X numbers of families that are randomly selected, that report in what they watch - that takes into account how many people were watching the actual program - not the # of households - With PPV they dont do that, they just record the number of buys, and release it if they see fit.
True that!! Hell,last year was the first year ever since I started watching boxing that I couldn't even find a fight worthy of FOTY:eeeek:
let's just hope there is no 24/7 if mayweather is pathetic enough to stick around another 5 or 6 years (getting knocked out a couple times along the way) and then fights Erik Morales on ppv. how depressing would that be?
Greenburg has been ripping of the boxing public with crummy PPV's for years, the guy has no room to be tlaking trash and act like he is defending the sport of boxing, which he was never involved in.
greenberg's never been in the ring, or put gloves on. he should refrain from commenting. nevermind that he's the head of HBO sports.
