All PPV cards should have a title fight.

[marksmen]

13 divisions in the UFC and active champs fight 2-3 times a year. I think every PPV should be headlined by a title fight or two depending on the card. Does Boxing have any PPV's without a title fight?

Title fights are in most part the fights the fans want to see. Cut down on PPV's, have a title fight headline every PPV and stack the main cards and promote the shit out of them. Do this and I think numbers would improve slightly.

Thoughts?

Edit: Promote your damn champions!

 

[Stan]

They should all have 2 or 3 title fights just like Bellator 180.

 

[Sonny Qc]

No

But they need at least one Just bleed fight

 

[Bubzeh]

Every division should have 2 or 3 interim titles and that way each PPV can have 4-5 title fights. Epic bro.

 

[007]

Min 1 title fight but if CHampions are defending there should be 2 on each PPV

 

[Sakuraba7]

They should just cut the number of PPVs. They're making $100 mill/year from FOX, and charging $10/month for Fight Pass. Why are fans expected to fork up another $60 per PPV per month?

Boxing is on subscription, HBO and SHO. And the WWE left the PPV market to concentrate on their WWE Network, and they were the leader in pay-per-view. If the UFC cut down their PPVs to just 4 or 5 cards a year, maybe their sales would spike as well. Either way, they're charging the fans out the ass.

 

[Michael Wetzel]

Money fights are much more important than titles these days. Just ask Conor, Bisping, Woodley, GSP, Nate.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Hard to do when 80% of the champions don't want to defend

 

[VVarhead]

Yes, every PPV should have a title-fight, but UFC continues to put 2 or 3 title-fights on one card and following this card we get 1-2 watered-down PPVs with some interim belt.

This is so annoying.

 

[Duck Dodgers]

In the last four years there have only been two PPVs without one (183 and 202), so I'm not sure what prompted this thread.

 

[FrankieNYC]

And the WWE left the PPV market to concentrate on their WWE Network, and they were the leader in pay-per-view.

If WWE were doing UFC's PPV numbers they would have never left the distribution model
They were not leaders in PPV for years prior to the network

 

[Sapp]

Isn't that already the case?

 

[Sakuraba7]

If WWE were doing UFC's PPV numbers they would have never left the distribution model
They were not leaders in PPV for years prior to the network

I mean the WWE single-handidly pioneered the PPV model that the UFC uses. It started with the In Your House! series. Then eventually made it a monthly thing. The UFC simply copied that model.

 

[Maripucci]

I think Pppvs should have 4 title fights. All other fights should be free. We have 11champs they should he defend min 2 Times a year. We can have A PPV every other month not every month.

 

[JayPettryMMA]

In the last four years there have only been two PPVs without one (183 and 202), so I'm not sure what prompted this thread.

Beat me to it, exactly this. It's not like Evans vs Henderson is fresh on everyone's mind, but amusingly enough UFC 161 (with no belt) sold better than 215 (with one belt). And yes, I remember that there was originally a belt on the line at 161 that was pulled a few weeks before the card and they said screw it and made Rashad vs Hendo the 3-round ME but whatever.