You might have noticed a new widget on our right sidebar from TiqIQ, and I wanted to take a moment to explain why it's there and what good it can do for you.

TiqIQ is a tool that scans ticket retailers like StubHub, eBay, TicketsNow, etc., and helps you find the best price on the secondary ticket market. Those of you who have tried probably know very well that it's not easy to land a ticket to a big fight like Pacquiao vs Marquez in November or Mayweather vs Ortiz in September, or UFC events if you're also a UFC fan, and hopefully those interested will find this useful. TiqIQ can help you decide whether or not a price on the secondary market is a good or bad deal with a simple, color-coded system.

The other upside for you loyal BLH readers is that if you do buy a ticket this way, I get a little change in my pocket and pay those nasty cable bills a bit easier.

If you have a philosophical disagreement with the entire secondary ticket market, that's OK, don't use it or feel like you have to if you're ticket hunting. It's simply a tool that has worked well for a lot of people and has proven to be on the up-and-up.

Hopefully in time more fights will be available, and I hope some of you get some use out of the widget. For now, Mayweather vs Ortiz and Pacquiao vs Marquez are available, and you can look around and see if any of the prices fit your bill. If you have a complaint or a comment, feel free and I'll try to do my best to answer.

Dan Rafael reported a few days ago that the Manny Pacquiao vs Shane Mosley fight from May 7 did at least 1.3 million buys on pay-per-view, confirming the event as Pacquiao's biggest-ever PPV fight.

"We know we have a little over 1.3 million," [Bob] Arum said. "What we don't have are some of the smaller cable systems. What I'm saying is I know we go to the bank counting a little over a 1.3 million. I know we'll go up from there. How much up, I have no experience in this. This was all done for us in the past by HBO, which had experience, charts and all kinds of data from past fights to compare the fight to. Showtime can't do it because they haven't done this in so long. They don't have the database that you need, but I'm feeling very, very happy because I know I've done at least 1.3 million."

What is somewhat astonishing about this is that Manny did this number against an opponent that most analysts felt would be outclassed, and was too old. Mosley did have some mild support for his punching power, but at best was given the old "puncher's chance" by the vast majority, with Pacquiao a massive betting favorite going in.

So in essence, Top Rank sold a fight that was a mismatch, and sold it well, and at the end of the day, you can say that the fight delivered was about what should have been expected, boring and one-sided as it was. Sure, Top Rank fluffed it up as a competitive matchup, but if you're buying what promoters say in press conferences, that's your own doing, not theirs.

The gate in Nevada was $8,882,600, the 14th-highest revenue from attendance in the state's history for boxing, meaning it was also a big live success as well as on pay-per-view.

Arum also says that Showtime, like they do with Miguel Cotto's next fight, has the right to first negotiation for the November 12 fight between Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez.

Pacquiao's previous biggest PPV events came against Oscar de la Hoya in December 2008, and Miguel Cotto in November 2009. Both fights did 1.25 million buys.

ESPN.com's Dan Rafael posted the purses for tonight's Sebastian Zbik vs Julio Cesar Chavez Jr card at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Here's what the lot pulled in:

About as expected for everyone. Chavez is already paid quite well, but is well on his way to being a really serious money player, for at least a few fights. Eventually he'll have to take what probably amounts to an unwinnable fight, but they'll do that the smart way, too, and get major money out of it.  If they can get that fight with Miguel Cotto this September, Top Rank is in basically a no-lose business situation. Everyone will make good money, the fight will sell, and they come out of it either with Chavez knocking off a well-known, very popular fighter, or young Chavez loses to the veteran and they are able to say, "He lost to a great fighter, so what?"

Top Rank chief Bob Arum tells The New York Times that early estimates have pay-per-view buys up for the May 7 fight between Manny Pacquiao and Shane Mosley, as compared to the November fight between Pacquiao and Antonio Margarito.

From the NYT:

Bob Arum, the chairman of Top Rank boxing, said he believed the pay-per-view buys from Manny Pacquiao’s defense of his welterweight title fight against Shane Mosley last Saturday would match or exceed the roughly 1.2 million buys for Pacquiao’s previous fight, against Antonio Margarito.

This is significant because the fight, distributed by Showtime Pay-Per-View, was promoted heavily by CBS, in what Arum viewed as the first step toward returning boxing to terrestrial television. A number around 1.4 million to 1.5 million, Arum said, would highlight the effect of the promotion on the buy rate. Arum said he expected to know the exact number by the end of the week.

A note before we proceed: Boxing promoters always reach high on early estimates, so absolutely do not expect 1.4 or 1.5 million. 1.1-1.2 is likely closer to the final number.

I guess you can wonder whether or not this fight is a success, with unprecedented promotion for a pay-per-view event that included heavy promotion by CBS and Showtime, a very heavy push for an online presence, and just an overall very fan-friendly approach coming from everything after the actual selection of Shane Mosley as Manny Pacquiao's opponent.

Continue reading this post »

The New York Times has a really interesting piece up on Manny Pacquiao's long inability to find suitable endorsements in the United States, and the woman who is saving his brand name.

Lucia McKelvey was hired by Top Rank to sort out the brand name of Manny Pacquiao, and recently we've seen Pacquiao signed to an endorsement deal with Hewlett-Packard, with, reportedly, more major and respectable deals on the way (including, apparently, some type fighting video game).

At one point, the article says, "30 to 50 friends" were all claiming to represent Pacquiao, and would often make cold calls (sometimes to the same company). In time, Pacquiao's credibility with advertisers including Gatorade and EA Sports suffered dramatically, before McKelvey stepped in to essentially save the day once hired by Top Rank.

Pacquiao's portfolio in North America has never matched his popularity. He ended 2010 as the most searched athlete on Yahoo, ahead of Tiger Woods. In the Philippines, he endorsed McDonald's and San Miguel beer, among other major partners. Yet while his Davie-Brown Index rating, which measures a celebrity's influence on consumers, ranks above all current boxers, McKelvey said the deals he had here and the way they were structured were comparable to a lesser-known L.P.G.A. golfer.

Really think about the amount of money Pacquiao has been leaving on the table for the last few years with terrible endorsement management when you read this article. Manny makes more than enough to survive (his guaranteed $20 million on Saturday should tide him over for a bit alone), but it's staggering to think of how mismanaged his career has been from this end.

For those interested in everything Manny Pacquiao (which is a lot of people), here's an update on Manny's out-of-ring activities.

The Filipino superstar, who has tons of endorsement deals at home but not so many here, has signed on to endorse Hewlett-Packard's new tablet computer.

From Bill King of Street & Smith's Sports Business Journal:

Working through agency William Morris, Top Rank submitted Pacquiao to HP when it learned the brand was looking for a select group of high-profile entertainers and athletes to feature in the campaign, which will include television, radio, print, outdoor and billboard components, all of which will feature the fighter and run globally.

Because of its broad line of products - including the tablet, PCs, printers and smartphones - HP struggled to find attractive endorsers who didn't have conflicting deals. Many, such as NBA stars Dwyane Wade and Kobe Bryant, did. Because almost all of his contracts have been limited to the Philippines, Pacquiao was able to make the broadly structured HP deal work.

Top Rank would not discuss financials of the deal, other than to say it included HP products and a cash contribution toward charities of Pacquiao's choice. The deal was attractive because of the level of credible exposure.

"The brand alignment, to us, is unparalleled," said Lucia McKelvey, executive vice president of marketing for Top Rank. "It's exactly what we're looking for and the kind of deal we want. We hope by executing and doing this one well, others will buy into it."

Pacquiao has also signed a three-year contract to endorse San Antonio-based State Street Produce, which grows in Mexico and distributes to restaurants across the United States. The line will be renamed "Pacquiao's Produce," and will expand to retail outlets. Pacquiao's likeness will be seen on bags, boxes and delivery trucks, so you might get to see a Manny Pacquiao vegetable truck on the interstate sometime.

King says that for years, there has been mass confusion in the States over who really represents Pacquiao in these endeavors, and finally he recently named Top Rank as his official representative, which has led to credible brands coming knocking.

Non-fans keep asking me why anyone should care about the May 7 fight between Manny Pacquiao and Shane Mosley, and frankly I'm quick to admit that there is an exceptionally strong chance that the fight is no more competitive than any of Pacquiao's recent fights. That Mosley is too old. That the matchup is more "event" than it is "fight."

But Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports posted a terrific article about the reality of this fight today, and I strongly recommend everyone read it. Through Manny Pacquiao, and this fight, boxing is making a serious push to get back on network television.

From the advent of television through the mid-1980s, boxing was one of network TV’s staples. But then HBO and Showtime came along and, desperate for programming to supplement their movie offerings, began to broadcast boxing.

They began to wave large license fees at promoters for the rights to broadcast their fights. And promoters eagerly accepted the inflated fees. But to [Top Rank executive Todd] duBoef, it didn’t feel right.

"I looked at it as short-term gain ending in a long-term failure for the sport," he said.

duBoef made up his mind last year to try and make a major move:

The landscape began to shift in January 2010, when, after negotiations to make a match between Pacquiao and Mayweather fell through, Top Rank instead made a match for Pacquiao with Joshua Clottey.

It was being held on the same date, March 13, that the Mayweather-Pacquiao bout was to have been held, and HBO Pay-Per-View was going to distribute. But HBO Sports executives declined to do a "24/7" series around the fight, though they were going to do one had the show been Mayweather-Pacquiao.

Beginning with the De La Hoya-Mayweather fight in 2007, HBO’s "24/7" series had proven to be a hit with boxing fans and helped drive pay-per-view sales. When duBoef couldn’t convince HBO Pay-Per-View to do a "24/7" on Pacquiao-Clottey, he determined he would finally act on his instincts and shop for a television partner with wider distribution.

This has all resulted in Showtime becoming a major competitor to HBO, which has dominated the boxing landscape in the United States for the last decade, as the host network for Oscar de la Hoya, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Pacquiao, and basically all of boxing's biggest stars. By landing a Pacquiao fight, Showtime -- and their network partner under the Viacom banner, CBS -- made it clear that they had arrived on boxing's biggest stage.

So that's the biggest reason to care about this fight. I'm not suggesting everyone pay $54.95 to see it. But if the pay-per-view is successful, and the Fight Camp 360 episodes that air on CBS draw good ratings, then there is a chance that maybe, just maybe, we see a live, major boxing fight in front of a CBS viewership that reaches 115 million homes, instead of Showtime's 19 million or HBO's 29 million.

And if you've been wondering why many boxing fans are so keenly interested in Todd duBoef's ideas, this article presents a lot of reasons. Again, strongest recommendation to read for those interested in why this event is relevant, and the business of boxing in general.

Today at noon, the International Boxing Hall of Fame will announce this year's crop of inductees.  While this is the first year in a while that has several no-brainers, boxing's hall of fame has been more ridiculed than many due to a seemingly very high proportion of fighters with borderline accomplishments, or who seem like they were very good for a very long time but never truly great. To move the IBHOF closer to respectability, should it adopt a set of objective criteria?  Currently, voters just get a ballot without instruction, leaving infinite leeway for each person to vote as he or she chooses.

Nearly 25 years ago, baseball statistical pioneer Bill James developed a set of objective criteria for baseball hall of fame inductions.  He named it he Keltner Test, after Ken Keltner, a decent but not particularly great major leaguer who was inexplicably picking up significant support in his hall of fame campaign.  While the test was developed for baseball, the types of questions used have general application to hall of fame voting, simply because most of the questions revolve around the baseline for who is already in the hall of fame.  In fact, both the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Basketball Hall of Fame have instuted variations of the Keltner Test as part of their objective criteria that voters are supposed to use for inductions.

The original Keltner Test was as follows:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
2. Was he the best player on his team?
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

A little bit of tinkering could lead you to a similar test that might be applicable to boxing:

1. Was he ever regarded as the pound-for-pound best fighter in the sport? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best active pro boxer?
2. Was he the best fighter in his weight class in his era? 
3. Did he win any titles?  Any true championships?
4. Was he good enough to continue fighting at a high level when he was past his prime?
5. Is he the very best player in boxing history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
6. Are most fighters who have comparable records (accounting for the level of opponent) in the Hall of Fame?
7. Does the fighter's record and level of opposition meet Hall of Fame standards?
8. Is there any evidence to suggest that the fighter was significantly better or worse than his record?
9. Is he the best fighter in his weight class who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
10. How many all time greats did he defeat? If none, how many times was he close? Were there mitigating circumstances in his era?
11. How many champions and top 10 fighters did he defeat?  Did most of the other fighters who beat as many titlists and top 10 fighters go to the Hall of Fame?
12. Was the fighter ever considered to be one of the most exciting in the sport?  Was he a major fan favorite?
13. What impact did the fighter have on boxing history?  Did he change the sport in any way?
14. Did the fighter uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character worthy of the Hall of Fame?

Lucky for us, when they announce tomorrow's inductees, we're almost certain to see the names of Mike Tyson, Julio Cesar Chavez and Kostya Tszyu grace the halls.  All three of those guys meet most of the objective criteria above, but then again, almost everyone would agree that they all belong in the Hall.  

On the other hand, would adding more objective criteria downplay the spirit of the Hall of Fame?  In the most individual of all individual sports, where the rulebook can be fit on a few pages and it's just one man and his fists against another, should there be rules for election?  Or, for this sport more than others, does it make sense for the electorate to vote similar to the way most judges score fights - they know who won when they see it?