Affliction + Golden Boy = Boon for Boxing Fans?
This experiment isn’t for me, or for you -- it’s for a generation of ruddy-faced boxing purists who would sooner eat a boiled leather glove before sitting down for an evening staring at the Spike network, crude home of the human cockfight.
Atencio and Co. strapping themselves, Yoda-like, on the back of Golden Boy is a move designed to attract an entirely new demographic to the sport, one that hasn’t yet had the UFC logo practically seared into their brains with a branding iron. It’s a market that has yet to be directly appealed to despite their proven willingness to spend gobs of money when properly solicited. (The May 2007 Oscar De La Hoya/Floyd Mayweather snotbuster yielded 2.4 million viewers, over double that of the UFC’s biggest single-night earner.)
These fans have disposable cash and they like when athletes get punched in the face. An unholy marriage this isn’t.
I tend to think this outlook is correct, but still deeply fraught with peril.
For starters, most MMA fans cry about the need for competition and look to Affliction and EliteXC to prop up parallel universes of MMA. But by mixing top boxers and top fighters, there will be less room on these mixed cards for fighters without name power or very, vert strong prestige. No matter how you slice it, Bernard Hopkins is worth more than Dan Lauzon any day of the week. To think, then, that Affliction will be doing anything more for the sport of MMA in terms of competition requires intellectual strain and squinting.
But what of MMA fans? What will this do to them? It's a little premature to suggest they'll walk or not pay attention at all. But it isn't an understatement to say the vast majority of MMA fans are not the least bit interested in boxing if not outright hostile to the sweet science. One has to think they will not be an integral component of pay-per-view purchases in an era of monthly mega-UFC events. UFC events, mind you, that don't feature any boxing.
And no one is saying this yet, but Affliction is no longer really competition to the UFC. I'm sorry, but they are not. Affliction realized they needed something more to go head to head with the premier MMA organization in the world and so they decided upon a bold strategy to compete: add boxing. Just think about that for a second. This is quiet concession on their part that on purely MMA terms, they cannot compete. And given that the aforementioned hostile-to-boxing-loyal-to-MMA fanbase MMA promoters are dealing with, this is in no way a challenge to the notion that the UFC is the NFL of MMA.
Personally, I love both boxing and MMA. I will be watching this first event. I am quite certain very few of my MMA brethern will be joining me. The question is, will the boxing crowd stick around, too?
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Comments
Affliction + Golden Boy = Boon for Boxing Fans?
If the article on East Side Boxing is a example of how boxing fans are viewing this then I doubt this angle is going to get much traction either. Their article is downright hostile towards this.
by who me on Sep 15, 2008 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is a death roll
in my opinion. Affliction will not last in the long term with this strategy, and shows me that they would have crumbled already without this move, which is both mind-boggling and scary. I will be very surprised if there is a 3rd event.
At the end of the day, there will be the UFC, and then regional promotions. No one in america can challenge for the market. And if there is a fighter’s union created, there won’t be a need for competition. The Union will keep the UFC honest and pay scales legit. I know I am grasping at straws, but this seems to be the easiest way to make all this work. Just my two cents.
by Nick Travaglini on Sep 15, 2008 11:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2.4 million views?
is that the same as buys? I would think that views and buys are diffrent from a rating perspective. 2.4 million buys is a lot, but 2.4 million views is not nearly as impressive. Seeing as when I watch the UFC shows that are always 3-5 people there and sometimes more.
by szucconi on Sep 15, 2008 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It was 2.4 million buys. Mayweather/De La Hoya’s live gate was also over $20,000,000.
by D.Capitated on Sep 15, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what I thought, but I wanted to point out the error. ratings and buys are diffrent metrics to judge an event. They are related, but should not be confused as the same thing.
by szucconi on Sep 15, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the majority of boxing websites don’t use Meltzerian english, its because they’re too busy doing interviews and analyzing fights to sit around all day and talk about what will pop a buyrate or DA BIZ.
by D.Capitated on Sep 15, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meltzerian english? I was speaking from more of a nielsen ratings perspective. When Nielsen says viewers they are counting the people in the seats and not just the TVs that are tuned in. At least to the best of there ability. They try to make the families record who is watching which programs. Along with demographic information about the people watching. I personally think buy rate is a stupid way to talk about it, but it is likely the most accurate. It is also likely to be misleading. You don’t get demographics from buy rate. You get a more raw number. Viewers is a better metric and you can derive more info out of it, but its harder to get.
by szucconi on Sep 15, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I’m saying is that when you see people from other sports not talking about “buyrate” or “smart business” or whatever, its because they don’t talk about those sorts of things. Rather than talk about how they wish Dawson/Tarver was on HBO or that Abner Mares would get a bigger push they talk about how those fights will go.
by D.Capitated on Sep 15, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear them talk about world series ratings and how the NFL has a big push to reach out to latinos or women, but thats not my point. Who care if they talk about it or not. I just wanted to point out the possible error in calling viewers and buys equal. They are diffrent units. It would be like apple to oranges. Outside of that, I don’t care.
by szucconi on Sep 15, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ESPN doesn’t load up its front page with “HOW WILL TOM BRADY’S INJURY AFFECT MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL IN WEEK 5” or whatever. There’s a big difference.
by D.Capitated on Sep 15, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that I care, but the NFL is well established. MMA is not in the same boat. If Jim Thorpe or Red Grange would have gotten hurt in the same way some teams may have folded back in the early lean days of football. also, people tune in to see the pat’s and just so happen to like watching Brady. Again you are looking at apples and oranges.
by szucconi on Sep 15, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mostly because they’re established sports that don’t face a serious risk of completely disappearing off TV. Surely you understand this?
In ten years, hopefully that stuff won’t matter, but for now the existence of MMA depends on companies figuring out a way to avoid going out of business. Those that run companies as fans of the sport first without looking at the business side just end up hurting the athletes in the long run, and damaging the sport in the eyes of investors and TV executives that could carry the sport in the future.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To say
that MMA fans won’t watch because there’s boxing on is completely unfounded, and completely absurd. Affliction are creating what was missing for the MMA fighters who cannot/ will not go ino the UFC.
In short, one cannot compete with the UFC because it is essentially a league, fed by Ultimate Fighter graduates on long, cheap, and water-tight contracts. If someone does okay but isn’t happy with thier lot as a UFC fighter, they can fight in lots of other promotions all of them small. But if someone is a superstar and wants to earn Chuck money, there is no alternative to UFC. Until now.
With a system of putting on dream matches and paying huge fees (but paying the undercard nothing), this will mirror the boxing model, and will work perfectly well. Tito and Hatton on a card one month, Mayweather and Fedor fighting another.
It’s a fantastic and logical solution to Affliction & Golden Boys problems.
by 813278 on Sep 15, 2008 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There’s a huge amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that MMA fans do not want boxing mixed with MMA and it’s completely absurd of you to suggest otherwise. I can say without a doubt that there’s no way I would by a MMA/boxing mixed PPV, ever. I don’t have a single friend that’s into MMA that could name more than 1 or 2 current boxing contenders. I cringe at the thought of having to watch a 12 round clinch and grab boxing decision in the middle of some MMA bouts. :(
by LiuLang on Sep 15, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same here.
Plus Affliction will probably have a heavy metal band perform – even more snooze.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Sep 15, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know I won’t buy a mixed event and neither will anyone I know personally. Now, that’s not a statistically significant sample or anything, but to suggest that the idea people will forgo purchasing a mixed event is unfounded is just silly.
by Richard Wade on Sep 15, 2008 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My hopes for this card are a completely boring boxing match and a super exciting, very technical mma fight.
"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"
by BJJDenver on Sep 15, 2008 12:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And what I mean by that, is that few people are mentioning, what a great opportunity this could be to display why mma is such an exploding sport.
Could you imagine Fedor/AA or Barnett followed by Hopkins/anyone? What a contrast in excitement levels that could be!
"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"
by BJJDenver on Sep 15, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See my comment post beofore the CBS deal:
“CBS lose lose”
Its the same thing here… if they are successful in converting Boxing fans into MMA fans what then?
They are holding 4 events per year… Zuffa has mma programming every week on multiple channels.
At the end they are feeding Zuffa Fans.
When people get into boxing via espn classics or fight nights the buyers migrate to HBO because that’s where the most big fights happen.
by mmalogic on Sep 15, 2008 4:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I see your point. I have a friend who just recently started watching TUF then Fight Nights, now she watches WEC and Tapout as well. I don’t know if Tapout really counts, but she is pretty much watching all Zuffa programming and is able to see thru EXC – she just started watching in May.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Sep 16, 2008 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 














