Would you pay $100 to see the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight on Pay-Per-View?

That's how much AT&T U-verse is charging. It comes with a three-hour pre-show before the fight.

I would like to see it, but I think $100 is pretty pricey to watch it at home on TV. I would only be willing to pay that much for a nosebleed seat in person.

FYI, the fight is on Saturday night, May 2, at 9pm EDT/6pm PDT.

I will watch it on PPV and don't really care about it being $100. It is worth it to have an evening with friends and watch a 12 round fight where Money will finally silence his critics, albeit 5-8 years too late.

$100 for actually being able to see the fight is far better to me than a nosebleed seat.

Not a chance in hell.
I'd wait a couple of hours, then watch the highlights on utoob! :shrug

If I really wanted to watch it I'd pay it. Hell, I've payed more for seats for hockey games. it's really not that expensive in N.Y...but these guys are not in their prime. An acquaintance invited me over to see this..but the apt. is crowded and infested with vermin so I'm not going.
I watch boxing, but i just don't care enough here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RallyCola

I will watch it on PPV and don't really care about it being $100. It is worth it to have an evening with friends and watch a 12 round fight where Money will finally silence his critics, albeit 5-8 years too late.

$100 for actually being able to see the fight is far better to me than a nosebleed seat.

---

Im splitting it with a buddy of mine, and we having a BBQ, drinks with our ladies. Just h0pe it goes at least 8 rounds.... will be a shame if one of them gets caught early with some nasty uppercut!!! Damn.....

Most folks I know are having "house parties" where they are splitting the cost..

I'm paying for it and having family and friends over. I'm not as excited as I would have been in 2009, but I've always been a boxing fan and I'm genuinely curious about what will happen (I think Mayweather will probably win although I am a Pacquiao fan).

If I really want to see a match I'd pay more than that (I've seen Roy Jones, Shane Mosley, and ODLH fight live). I think the ppvs have been over 50 dollars for a while now, so the promoters really just understand the marketplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LI SEAN08

will be a shame if one of them gets caught early with some nasty uppercut!!! Damn.....

---

I always find it more exciting to see a legit early knockout than a boring twelve round fight. Of course, if it's like Tyson Seldon way back in the 90s where Seldon went down from a punch to the hair, then it's no fun.

it's only $20 if you split it five ways. My buddy's got a 60" screen in his basement. It would have been even cheaper if we charged wives, parents, and kids but I was overruled on that.

Better to go to a bar and jus pay the entrance fee

big fat N-O

My biggest concern is paying the $100 and the fight ends in a KO during Round 1.

Anybody remember the Muhammad Ali-Duane Bobbick fight in the late 1970s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Putin

My biggest concern is paying the $100 and the fight ends in a KO during Round 1.

Anybody remember the Muhammad Ali-Duane Bobbick fight in the late 1970s?

---

Muhammad Ali did not fight Bobick, that was Ken Norton who beat him in the first round in 1977, officially the fight lasted 58 seconds.
I was going to add something about Boxing's historic links to organised crime, the criminal records of Sonny Liston and Don King-to name just two nasty individuals- and shameful moments like the 'Rumble in the Jungle' where the two boxers fought in a ring in a stadium under which the President of Zaire, Joseph Mobutu imprisoned without trial opponents of his regime, having stolen money from the population -some of the poorest people in the world- to pay the boxers -but it probably isn't worth the effort. I think boxing stinks, it is not a sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Muhammad Ali did not fight Bobick, that was Ken Norton who beat him in the first round in 1977, officially the fight lasted 58 seconds.
I was going to add something about Boxing's historic links to organised crime, the criminal records of Sonny Liston and Don King-to name just two nasty individuals- and shameful moments like the 'Rumble in the Jungle' where the two boxers fought in a ring in a stadium under which the President of Zaire, Joseph Mobutu imprisoned without trial opponents of his regime, having stolen money from the population -some of the poorest people in the world- to pay the boxers -but it probably isn't worth the effort. I think boxing stinks, it is not a sport.

---

Boxing isn't a sport? Do explain?

That's right it was Ken Norton. My memory is not so good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Muhammad Ali did not fight Bobick, that was Ken Norton who beat him in the first round in 1977, officially the fight lasted 58 seconds.
I was going to add something about Boxing's historic links to organised crime, the criminal records of Sonny Liston and Don King-to name just two nasty individuals- and shameful moments like the 'Rumble in the Jungle' where the two boxers fought in a ring in a stadium under which the President of Zaire, Joseph Mobutu imprisoned without trial opponents of his regime, having stolen money from the population -some of the poorest people in the world- to pay the boxers -but it probably isn't worth the effort. I think boxing stinks, it is not a sport.

---

I agree with some of what you said but not everything…however I don't want to argue. But I thought of you when I read this article. An interesting piece about one journalist's futile attempts to get Las Vegas police (and the prosecutor) to release evidence of Floyd Mayweather's abuse of women. Often fighters are the victims of corruption in boxing, but when it comes to making sure a city gets the economic benefits that come from big money fights, they will run interference to ensure repeat business.

http://deadspin.com/this-is-how-las-...her-1699848463

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreamon

Boxing isn't a sport? Do explain?

---

Let's be honest, because of the sums of money involved, most sports are prone to corruption -soccer is ruled by the global 'charity' called FIFA, an organisation so corrupt when you read the details your eyes bleed -how else did FIFA award the World Cup to Qatar if not for the bribes? Horse Racing has been so mired in dirty business few except gambling addicts bet on anything other than the major classics because they assume the small races are fixed. Money laundering is the key to much of this corruption, in horse racing and boxing, Kevin Mitchell's book 'Jacob's Beach' documents the extent to which Boxing became part of organised crime in the US at least until the late 1950s when it took on the law and the law won. Since then any number of decisions in major fights has been questioned, because unlike in games where the result is an obvious score and the only controversy is on whether or not a line call was right or on a disallowed goal or penalty decision, boxing results are decided by judges awarding points which are, as happened last night, called into question by experts who say they got it wrong. Sport is also about attitude, and playing fair which is why you don't hear one tennis player verbally abusing his -or her- opponent during a match. Football players do it routinely, but it is not considered sportsmanlike behaviour, yet when Ali vebally abused an opponent during a match it becomes part of 'boxing folk-lore'. In some parts of town you can stand outside a bar and watch two men knocking seven bells out of each other, and it isn't sport. Put them in a ring with gloves on and it's a sport. How many international bodies are there to decide who is a World Champion? Why did Pacquio get a smaller fee than Mayweather? Can you imagine Roger Federer getting beaten by Tony Nomark at the US Open but Federer gets more prize money? And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

But I thought of you when I read this article.

http://deadspin.com/this-is-how-las-...her-1699848463

---

Not sure what to say, a lot of sportsmen beat up their wives, it is up to the law in Nevada to deal with it.

So if boxing were organized differently it would be a sport? It has all of the athletic qualities required of a sport and a set of rules that are enforced by the officials; this is the case despite scurrilous accusations that fights are fixed every time somebody's favorite fighter loses a close decision. It can't be helped if the scoring has a subjective component, as many Olympic sports do as well.

As for prize money, there are plenty of sports that pay money as a reward for past performance (really as a prediction of future performance based on past results). In team sports, players sign contracts that are not contingent upon their individual or team success. A boxer is not paid based on whether he wins or loses in the present fight, but if he's lost all his previous fights he won't be paid much.

With regards to sportsmanship, there were plenty of people who thought Ali showed poor sportsmanship throughout his career and he was actually accused of racism for comments he made about Joe Frazier, and cruelty for his behavior in the Ernie Terrell "say my name" fight. Meanwhile, when Jimmy Connors called a referee an abortion during the 1991 U.S. Open it was the fact that an old man got to the semifinals that warranted everyone's attention. John McEnroe spent two decades berating referees and the only grand slam he was disqualified from was the Australian Open for telling an umpire to go fuck his mother in front of the tournament director. It took quite a lot for the powers that be in tennis to do anything about the bad behavior of their prima donnas. Yet there have been plenty of boxers who did have excellent sportsmanship. Max Schmelling? Joe Louis? Wladimir Klistchko?

I also don't understand what boxing's past ties to the mob say about the current crop of fighters? If they are getting in the ring and competing under a recognized set of rules then why should they carry the stigma of Frankie Carbo and Blinky Palermo or any other mafioso who held sway over the sport in past decades? Anyhow, I thought you were going to argue that boxing presents a fairly unique set of neurological risks or that combat sports are the only sports that involve intention to harm as the ultimate objective. I am only convinced you have various reasons not to like boxing…but fail to see how that makes it less of a sport.

Anyhow, as a postscript to the fight, it was not an exciting match. It wasn't particularly close either. Mayweather was able to attack when he wanted to and avoid Pacquiao when he wanted to as well. He landed nearly twice as many punches and landed them more cleanly. All around it was a disappointing night for Pacquiao fans and for those who wanted to see a bit more drama.

I paid it regretted it and lost 10 k cus I had it on pac but I went to pechanga and won my money back and sum lol Attachment 849340

And as both my mother and I are pretty avid gamblers her being pretty structured and well taken care of she had 4 j row seating she watched it their and she just kept quenching at me that all pac wanted to do was knock the dude out and may just played it smart got his points and got his win .. Dudes smart or shall I say smarter then pac , just a shame cus I hate the dude and he's gonna never go down and retire lol just my 2 cents or shall I say a rack ;)

No but id pay $100 to see Anthony Joshua kick Tyson Furys ass!!!