Bermane Stiverne Vs Deontay Wilder - January 17 (OFFICIAL DISCUSSION)

I wrote Charles Farrell earlier and he did not think the Wilder-Stiverne fight was fixed. Why do a 12-round decision and not a 'spectacular KO' if it is fixed?

I also can't see Haymon, etc., risking a big fight with Klitschko for one with Fury, who is not as well known outside the UK. Klitschko-Fury does far less in the US than Klitschko-Wilder, and not enough in the UK to make up for it.

Actually, Mauricio claims WBC will work for unified championships with WBA and IBF, and also have VADA drug testing. We shall see.

In any case, this is all far more interesting and compelling than the failing Zuffa stuff.

In actual boxing news, Steve Cunningham is fighting Vyacheslav Glazkov on March 14, in what looks to be a superb match up. Glazkov is an exciting up and comer from Ukraine, who has a great amateur background. Given Cunningham's technical boxing abilities, I think Glazkov is going to be in against someone the likes of which he has never seen before. They are both 6'3, and Glazkov is not a giant heavyweight, by any means. It looks to be an excellent match up.

And as it were, the fight is an IBF eliminator for the #1 spot. Presumably the winner should get a shot at Klitschko.

(I'm not saying any of this for Eddie's benefit of course. Mostly I'm just saying it to purge the evil spirits from this thread. That is a real fight, between real professional fighters, with an eventual shot at the real championship on the line. Also, I really recommend the fight, to anyone else reading. I for one can't wait for it already.)

Yes, I interviewed Steve also a few days ago, as well as Kovalev and Pascal. They fight March 14 in Montreal. Ooo la la!

nhbnews wrote:I wrote Charles Farrell earlier and he did not think the Wilder-Stiverne fight was fixed. Why do a 12-round decision and not a 'spectacular KO' if it is fixed?

I also can't see Haymon, etc., risking a big fight with Klitschko for one with Fury, who is not as well known outside the UK. Klitschko-Fury does far less in the US than Klitschko-Wilder, and not enough in the UK to make up for it.

Actually, Mauricio claims WBC will work for unified championships with WBA and IBF, and also have VADA drug testing. We shall see.

In any case, this is all far more interesting and compelling than the failing Zuffa stuff.

Perhaps that is so. I just don't see Wilder as any match for Klitschko, whatsoever. I could envision a match between Fury and Wilder, with the caveat (spoken or not) that the winner will go on to fight Klitschko. It's conceivable that this could happen with the backers of either side getting a slice.

I guess I can see the argument that a Wilder fight with Klitschko is worth too much to let go. But actually, I don't see it that way. Klitschko is not a draw in the US. And I don't believe anyone knows who Wilder is. A good proportion of casual boxing fans are pleased that there is now a supposed "American heavyweight champion". Most people don't even know and don't even care. Wilder just won a paper title off of a Haitian that most Americans have surely never heard of, on a premium cable network. I'm pretty sure no one knew who Wilder was before. A nominal few more know who he is now than did before; and the casual boxing fans now know who he is.

The casual boxing fans also know who Klitschko is. And most of them don't like him and find him boring. Klitschko is not going to play a heel, either. I actually think that Wilder-Fury is a more marketable fight to the casual boxing fans. As for the general public, I don't think they care one bit. As for Wilder and NBC, I do not think Wilder is ready for Prime Time at all, and I truly hope that the people behind the new NBC venture can see that (that is, if we presume--for the sake of argument--that I am right he's not ready for primetime. Alternatively, he may be ready for primetime, and that may be a platform to build him up. I don't see it at all. I see Wilder as a bill of goods.)

And by the way, I do consider Wilder a true champion. As an amateur, he was a US Champion, a National Golden Gloves Champion, and an Olympic Trials Champion.

His amateur success, culminating in the bronze medal, was quite remarkable, given his miniscule experience. So, he is a true champion of USA Amateur boxing.

Heavyweight champion of the world? You must be joking.

I think that when he got the bronze medal, the leaches were just all over him from the word go.

I overlooked your comment that Klitchko-Wilder is a bigger fight in the US, and that Klitchko-Fury in the UK doesn't make up for it.

You mentioned that Wilder-Fury is potentially in the cards though.

I'm really not able to speculate on how Haymon thinks. I think you must be a lot better at it than me.

Part of my thinking was that I see Wilder-Klitschko as a case of amateur against pro. I see it as absolutely no contest whatsoever. I don't see how that would be good for anyone. I think it would be Klitschko's most one-sided fight since he fought Ray Austin.

I know that Klitschko is always lacking in the way of credible opponents. Even so. Would Klitschko's side even accept that fight? Given Wilder's obvious lack of preparedness? Say they did fight. And Wilder just got blown away like he was nothing at all. How would this be good for Hayman (etc.)? 

Wilder has fought exactly one credible opponent. Forget about the WBC belt; Wilder just made his first step up in class in his career. He passed the test. So, he's ready for the next step up. Or, that's how a fighter is suppose to be built up, anyway.

Wilder is no where near ready for Klitschko. A couple easy defenses (against the Manuel Chars, and perhaps Mike Perez's, or who nots, of the world) and he might be able to get ready for a fight with Tyson Fury.

I honestly can't see what Klitschko's side has to gain from taking such a fight though. Maybe they could hype an event out of it. But another Ray Austin affair? The bad publicity will make it not worth it in the end.

For Klitschko, it means better exposure in the US. The mainstream media here is buying into this American heavyweight champion stuff. It's rubbish, but sells tickets to people who don't know anything. And most of the boxing 'media' is trailing along, singing the same song. So why risk it with Fury?

nhbnews wrote:For Klitschko, it means better exposure in the US. The mainstream media here is buying into this American heavyweight champion stuff. It's rubbish, but sells tickets to people who don't know anything. And most of the boxing 'media' is trailing along, singing the same song. So why risk it with Fury?

You may be right. I'm also very far removed from the US. I've been there twice in the past five years (broke and busy. Yeah, that can be a bitch). So I have very little notion of what the scene is like in terms of media or public perception in the US, in particular with respect to the general public.

Frankly, I have a hard time seeing Klitschko ever getting on PPV in the US. Perhaps you were alluding to this, or maybe you outright said it and I missed it before, but I suppose it might be viable if they fought on NBC.

If it was a matter of premium television, Klitschko has been there and done that before, and been essentially cast out. HBO basically abandoned heavyweight boxing altogether, because of Klitschko (none of which I think was particularly fair to Klitschko, but what can you do).

I'm obviously ignorant of what it is that Klitschko's side might opt to do. But I see American exposure as pretty weak bate.

Are they going to offer him $10 million dollars for the fight? Yeah right, obviously. But money talks. Yeah, if they pay him enough he'll probably fight anyone. But I don't see how such a fight would in any way generate that kind of revenue.

I think abstract notions of American exposure are poor substitute, especially when Klitschko has frankly speaking been down that road before.


Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. I obviously don't know.

But my main point is that it takes two sides. Haymon might want the fight. But he still has to deal with Klitschko, who is the A-side in such a fight (pardon the expression).

If you pay them enough they might consider it. I don't see notions of publicity as a sufficient lure though.

And I'm not at all convinced that they would even be willing to fight an amateur fighter. As I mentioned, the Ray Austin debacle, in which Klitchko essentially came out, through a few left hooks, Austin folded, and everyone cried mismatch (correctly) springs to my mind. To borrow a technical business term, Klitchko lost a lot of "good will" as a result of the fight (though it wasn't his fault).

Excuse my approach. I have a pretty thorough grounding in economics. That's the contents of my analysis.

Not saying I'm right by any means. I'm just presenting some arguments.

Of course, in boxing, you never know what is going to end up happening when it comes to the dealing.

In due time, maybe. As of right now, I honestly can't even imagine Klitschko even accepting the fight

Showtime Sports garnered a peak audience of 1.34 million viewers for its boxing telecast on Saturday night headlined by newly minted WBC heavyweight world champion Deontay Wilder in his breakout win over Bermane Stiverne.


The main event ranks as the highest-rated fight on any premium network in the past 12 months while the entire three-fight telecast becomes the highest rated on Showtime in more than two years.



http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/wilder-stiverne-clash-draws-large-viewership-276855#more-276855

Heavyweights almost always are more popular and draw in the casual fans.

Good rating.