正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

UFC Version

kai_1031_'s profile picture

朝倉 海 Kai Asakura

452,044 subscribers

1,074,790 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

体育新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Elonov 🇦🇺 的头像
Elonov 🇦🇺1 年前

Please save us from Pantoja 🙏

ᑑ ƕㄘ員🇮🇪🍀 的头像
ᑑ ƕㄘ員🇮🇪🍀1 年前

怪我するなよ

Knockout of the day 的头像
Knockout of the day1 年前

How he got the title fight:

🌸miki🌸 的头像
🌸miki🌸1 年前

海くん💖 かっこいい(⑅︎ ॣ•͈૦•͈ ॣ)꒳ᵒ꒳ᵎᵎᵎ

hita 的头像
hita1 年前

こう見ると他のUFC参戦してる日本人よりビジュアル的にもスター性感じるよなー

たけそん 的头像
たけそん1 年前

そっか、タイトルだからいきなり黄金グローブか。

ひらそる 的头像
ひらそる1 年前

これが12月7日にT-Mobile Arenaの会場に響きわたるかと思うと、感無量です。入場から泣いてしまいそう

ナオト 的头像
ナオト1 年前

ヤバい🔥カッコよすぎる🔥 これはもう勝ち確定🔥

Su-mi 的头像
Su-mi1 年前

WA・O! カッコイイ🎙️👍

文 的头像
文1 年前

カッコイイ🤩

相关视频

Rocky 4 UFC version goes down Tomorrow
0:33

Rocky 4 UFC version goes down Tomorrow

Benny P 🇦🇺

161,629 次观看 • 9 个月前

PISTONS VS HORNETS GETS UGLY! MALICE AT THE PALACE ROAD VERSION! UFC NBA CROSSOVER!
1:02

PISTONS VS HORNETS GETS UGLY! MALICE AT THE PALACE ROAD VERSION! UFC NBA CROSSOVER!

Stuart Feiner

147,980 次观看 • 7 个月前

The next version of Volk 😤 @AlexVolkanovski is ready to get his belt back at #UFC314 🗣️ [ Watch NOW: ]
1:00

The next version of Volk 😤 @AlexVolkanovski is ready to get his belt back at #UFC314 🗣️ [ Watch NOW: ]

UFC

120,787 次观看 • 1 年前

Dana White says Trump always gets cheered at UFC events even in NY. Joe Rogan vehemently disagrees with Dana White’s version of events
1:16

Dana White says Trump always gets cheered at UFC events even in NY. Joe Rogan vehemently disagrees with Dana White’s version of events

MMA Joey

88,164 次观看 • 8 个月前

The UFC fight on the White House lawn is Trump's version of a gladiator fight, but it's less bread and circus and more Monster Energy drink and circus
1:50

The UFC fight on the White House lawn is Trump's version of a gladiator fight, but it's less bread and circus and more Monster Energy drink and circus

The Daily Show

91,358 次观看 • 2 个月前

🇷🇺 🇮🇪 "Khabib protege vs. Mcgregor protege." Ian Garry says his fight with Islam Makhachev is the better version of Khabib Nurmagomedov vs. Conor Mcgregor fight. 🎥 UFC
1:12

🇷🇺 🇮🇪 "Khabib protege vs. Mcgregor protege." Ian Garry says his fight with Islam Makhachev is the better version of Khabib Nurmagomedov vs. Conor Mcgregor fight. 🎥 UFC

Home of Fight

610,480 次观看 • 9 个月前

John Kavanagh discusses Conor McGregor's health going into UFC 329: "We've been super careful this training camp. He has not a niggle on him, not a bump, not a bruise. 100%. We'll get to see the best version of him."
0:40

John Kavanagh discusses Conor McGregor's health going into UFC 329: "We've been super careful this training camp. He has not a niggle on him, not a bump, not a bruise. 100%. We'll get to see the best version of him."

Ariel Helwani

160,487 次观看 • 2 个月前

Daniel Cormier believes Arman Tsarukyan should be fighting for some version of the lightweight title 🏆👏 "Weighing in as the backup fighter, fighting Dan Hooker - those are all steps toward regaining confidence in the organization to get him a title fight. I still believe that Arman should be fighting for some version of the UFC lightweight championship." (via Daniel Cormier )
0:57

Daniel Cormier believes Arman Tsarukyan should be fighting for some version of the lightweight title 🏆👏 "Weighing in as the backup fighter, fighting Dan Hooker - those are all steps toward regaining confidence in the organization to get him a title fight. I still believe that Arman should be fighting for some version of the UFC lightweight championship." (via Daniel Cormier )

Red Corner MMA

39,836 次观看 • 9 个月前

# BREAKING: Psaki: “…while Trump has been promoting this #UFC event, he also BOUGHT STOCK in the UFC’s parent company. Now, the White House likes to point out that Trump’s stocks are in a 3rd party trust, but the fact remains that what’s good for the UFC is quite literally and directly good for Trump’s pockets. And wouldn’t you know it, the Trump administration is being very good to the UFC. This week, UFC fighters have been at FBI headquarters training FBI agents in hand to hand combat, as part of a partnership between the UFC and the FBI’s Kash Patel…which is quite the BOON to the UFC’s brand legitimacy, isn’t it. Then today, Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a memorandum of understanding with the CEO of the UFC to create a public private partnership, a public private partnership between the State Department and the UFC to promote what Rubio called sports diplomacy, which is a thing, but this is kind of a weird version of it. “😳
1:27

# BREAKING: Psaki: “…while Trump has been promoting this #UFC event, he also BOUGHT STOCK in the UFC’s parent company. Now, the White House likes to point out that Trump’s stocks are in a 3rd party trust, but the fact remains that what’s good for the UFC is quite literally and directly good for Trump’s pockets. And wouldn’t you know it, the Trump administration is being very good to the UFC. This week, UFC fighters have been at FBI headquarters training FBI agents in hand to hand combat, as part of a partnership between the UFC and the FBI’s Kash Patel…which is quite the BOON to the UFC’s brand legitimacy, isn’t it. Then today, Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a memorandum of understanding with the CEO of the UFC to create a public private partnership, a public private partnership between the State Department and the UFC to promote what Rubio called sports diplomacy, which is a thing, but this is kind of a weird version of it. “😳

Emoluments Clause

83,198 次观看 • 2 个月前

Coach John Wood believes the best version of Petr Yan showed up at UFC 323: “I think there’s a version of Merab that beats that Petr all day long. There’s no doubt in my mind that Merab can beat Petr Yan in that fight. I think the third one is going to be a great fight. I think Merab will go out there and get that title back.”
1:50

Coach John Wood believes the best version of Petr Yan showed up at UFC 323: “I think there’s a version of Merab that beats that Petr all day long. There’s no doubt in my mind that Merab can beat Petr Yan in that fight. I think the third one is going to be a great fight. I think Merab will go out there and get that title back.”

Ariel Helwani

48,416 次观看 • 6 个月前

Khamzat Chimaev says Dricus du Plessis is "a bad version of me": "For me, [Dricus] is much more convenient than other fighters... we have the technique, wrestlng, counter-wrestling to take him down and hold him. And he knows it himself, that's why he's silent about me." 🎥 YT / Adam Zubayraev #UFC #MMA
0:38

Khamzat Chimaev says Dricus du Plessis is "a bad version of me": "For me, [Dricus] is much more convenient than other fighters... we have the technique, wrestlng, counter-wrestling to take him down and hold him. And he knows it himself, that's why he's silent about me." 🎥 YT / Adam Zubayraev #UFC #MMA

Championship Rounds

269,983 次观看 • 2 年前

After Shara pulled out I got some news…Somebody hurts in the main event so UFC called 📞 me to fighting an top5 in few weeks for 5 rounds. To be fair, I propose 3 rounds due short time and guess what, he said no for 3 rounds 😅. What heck! Cowards … gonna exposing them My Vintage version is back and people are scared 😱 🧃 Depois que Shara desistiu, recebi uma notícia... Alguém se machucou na luta principal, então o UFC me chamou para lutar contra um top 5 em poucas semanas por 5 rounds. Propus 3 rounds devido ao curto espaço de tempo e, adivinha, ele disse não por 3 rounds 😅. Que diabos! Covardes...
0:20

After Shara pulled out I got some news…Somebody hurts in the main event so UFC called 📞 me to fighting an top5 in few weeks for 5 rounds. To be fair, I propose 3 rounds due short time and guess what, he said no for 3 rounds 😅. What heck! Cowards … gonna exposing them My Vintage version is back and people are scared 😱 🧃 Depois que Shara desistiu, recebi uma notícia... Alguém se machucou na luta principal, então o UFC me chamou para lutar contra um top 5 em poucas semanas por 5 rounds. Propus 3 rounds devido ao curto espaço de tempo e, adivinha, ele disse não por 3 rounds 😅. Que diabos! Covardes...

Paulo Costa

308,277 次观看 • 11 个月前

Retention is going mainstream. Sean O'Malley Yet another UFC fighter utilising the power of retention in order to maximise their energy to perform at the highest levels. If you want to be the best version of yourself as a man, then retention is the pathway to get there. As they say in the clip, it is “scientific”, but it is also deeply esoteric, intuitive, and obvious once you try it for yourself. #Retention #nofap
1:36

Retention is going mainstream. Sean O'Malley Yet another UFC fighter utilising the power of retention in order to maximise their energy to perform at the highest levels. If you want to be the best version of yourself as a man, then retention is the pathway to get there. As they say in the clip, it is “scientific”, but it is also deeply esoteric, intuitive, and obvious once you try it for yourself. #Retention #nofap

⚡️🌞 Sol Brah 🌞🐬

14,792 次观看 • 1 个月前

These two clips side by side make the contrast impossible to ignore. The first clip with Dana White and Ariel Helwani ahead of UFC on FOX 2 in 2012 shows the version of Dana that I believed was the best sports promoter in the world, and it wasn’t anything crazy, just fully locked in on the event like a passionate fan who happened to run the company. Four minutes off the cuff. Passionate. Deep in the weeds. Breaking down the top three fights with inside knowledge, behind the scenes context, and real storytelling. No teleprompter. No polish. Just genuine care about selling the fight and in tune with the fans. Now compare that to the Israel Adesanya vs Joe Pyfer announcement we got yesterday. Read off a screen. Flat. Disconnected. Like checking a box on a to do list. And I believe the timing also matters. UFC on FOX 2 was early in the FOX deal. Adesanya vs Pyfer is early in the Paramount deal. One feels like someone who could not wait to tell you why the fights mattered. The other feels like someone who could not wait to move on to the next agenda item. And I know these are not apples to apples. One is a pre fight scrum and the other is a fight announcement. But honestly, you could substitute almost any interview Dana has even done recently about the first Paramount card and the contrast would still be there. This is what the UFC and Dana specifically used to be the best at. And it is exactly what they are missing right now. The problem is, the UFC machine runs just fine without it. 🎙️: Ariel Helwani UFC on FOX 2, 2012 🎥: UFC YT January 2026
4:09

These two clips side by side make the contrast impossible to ignore. The first clip with Dana White and Ariel Helwani ahead of UFC on FOX 2 in 2012 shows the version of Dana that I believed was the best sports promoter in the world, and it wasn’t anything crazy, just fully locked in on the event like a passionate fan who happened to run the company. Four minutes off the cuff. Passionate. Deep in the weeds. Breaking down the top three fights with inside knowledge, behind the scenes context, and real storytelling. No teleprompter. No polish. Just genuine care about selling the fight and in tune with the fans. Now compare that to the Israel Adesanya vs Joe Pyfer announcement we got yesterday. Read off a screen. Flat. Disconnected. Like checking a box on a to do list. And I believe the timing also matters. UFC on FOX 2 was early in the FOX deal. Adesanya vs Pyfer is early in the Paramount deal. One feels like someone who could not wait to tell you why the fights mattered. The other feels like someone who could not wait to move on to the next agenda item. And I know these are not apples to apples. One is a pre fight scrum and the other is a fight announcement. But honestly, you could substitute almost any interview Dana has even done recently about the first Paramount card and the contrast would still be there. This is what the UFC and Dana specifically used to be the best at. And it is exactly what they are missing right now. The problem is, the UFC machine runs just fine without it. 🎙️: Ariel Helwani UFC on FOX 2, 2012 🎥: UFC YT January 2026

AFeldmanMMA

62,663 次观看 • 7 个月前

Former UFC champion Dominick Cruz gave Julian Newman a REALITY CHECK after finding out that he wanted his sister Jaden to make an O/F when she turned 18 and that he would be fine with his future daughter starting an O/F 😳👀 “If you had a daughter, would you tell her to go on O/F at 18?” “If we’re gonna scam these n*ggas, ya… Why wouldn’t we? They’re already sexualizing her.” “Would you raise your kid coming from the place of “I want you to make decisions about yourself that you admire so you love yourself, & when you grow up, you don’t find the need for that. Which version of yourself are you raising your daughter with?... Other people can sexualize anything, but it's more about ‘Have I sexualized myself to make me like myself or hate myself?.’”
7:26

Sensitive content

Former UFC champion Dominick Cruz gave Julian Newman a REALITY CHECK after finding out that he wanted his sister Jaden to make an O/F when she turned 18 and that he would be fine with his future daughter starting an O/F 😳👀 “If you had a daughter, would you tell her to go on O/F at 18?” “If we’re gonna scam these n*ggas, ya… Why wouldn’t we? They’re already sexualizing her.” “Would you raise your kid coming from the place of “I want you to make decisions about yourself that you admire so you love yourself, & when you grow up, you don’t find the need for that. Which version of yourself are you raising your daughter with?... Other people can sexualize anything, but it's more about ‘Have I sexualized myself to make me like myself or hate myself?.’”

Slime🐍

33,879 次观看 • 25 天前

Here I’ve got a fourth list of 110 games with boob and/or butt jiggle… Pure Onyx [PC] Warframe [PS5] ASTRA: Knights of Veda [PC] Catherine [PS3] Brown Dust II [MOB] Stretch Panic [PS2] Whacked! [XB] Fighting Force [PSX] Corridor Z [PC] Samurai Western [PS2] Honey Select 2: Libido Deluxe [PC] Crimson Tears [PS2] Treasure of Nadia [PC] Waifu Fighter [PC] Cy Girls [PS2] Half-Demon Shinobi [PC] The First Descendant [PS5] Pinup Ball [PC] Orc Massage [PC] Cyberpunk 2077 [XSX] X-Angels [PC] Dead or Alive 5 Last Round [PS4] Advanced V.G. [SAT] Injustice: Gods Among Us [XB360] Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles [GC] Breeders of the Nephelym [PC] SoniPro [3DS] Metal Gear AC!D 2 [PSP] Doki Doki Majo Shinpan! [DS] Sexy Beach Zero [PC] The Mini-Skirt Police [PS2] Pretty Fighter X [SAT] Mario Kart 8 Deluxe [NSW] Splinter Cell: Conviction [XB360] Top Spin 2 [XB360] WWE Smackdown! vs. RAW 2011 [PS3] Asuka 120% Limited BURNING Fest. [SAT] Tear Ring Saga [PSX] Dream C Club Zero Portable [PSV] Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock [PS3] To Love Ru Darkness: Battle Ecstasy [PSV] Seisou no Amazones [3DS] Monster Monpiece [PSV] Kung Fu Rider [PS3] Atelier Ryza [PS4] Groove on Fight [SAT] Valhalla Knights 3 [PSV] Love Smash! 5.1 [PS2] Namco x Capcom [PS2] Artificial Girl 3 [PC] The All*Star Kakutou Matsuri [PS2] Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure [PSX] Garou: Mark of the Wolves [DC] Sol Trigger [PSP] THE iDOLM@STER [XB360] Super Mario RPG [SNES] Pocket Pool [PSP] Tokyo Clanpool [PSV] GrimGrimoire OnceMore [NSW] High School DxD [3DS] Ikki Tousen: Xross Impact [PSP] Toshin Toshi: Girls Gift [3DS] Castle Panzers [PS4] Luminous Arc Infinity [PSV] Azur Lane [MOB] Deadrock Redemption [PC] Strip Fighter 5: Chimpocon Edition [PC] Queen’s Blade: Spiral Chaos [PSP] Bleach: Shattered Blade [WII] Time Leap [XB360] Ghost Pirates of Vooju Island [PC] Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann [DS] Fantasy Earth Zero [PC] Super Robot Wars Alpha 3 [PS2] Lust & Legends [PC] Dr. Muto [GC] Yoake no Mariko [PS2] VR Kanojo [PC] Ka 2: Let’s Go Hawaii [PS2] Heavy Metal Geomatrix [DC] Sabrina [MSX] Kamihime Project R [PC] Happy Manager [PS4] Lightning Legend: Daigo no Daibouken [PSX] Splatoon 2 [NSW] Epic Battle Fantasy 5 [PC] Halo 5: Guardians [XBO] Together VR [PC] Monster Rancher [PSX] UFC 2009 Undisputed [PS3] Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A’s Portable [PSP] LoveR Kiss [NSW] Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair [PSV] Policenauts [SAT] World of Warcraft [PC] Finder Love: Hoshino Aki [PSP] Midnight Castle Succubus [PC] Party Girls [PS2] Wish [PC] Motion Gravure Series: Megumi [PS2] Parodius Portable [PSP] Natsuiro High School: Seishun Hakusho [PS4] Train Capacity 300% [PC] Hard Knock High [PS2] Neptunia x SENRAN KAGURA Ninja Wars [PS4] Koikatsu Party [PC] Reco Love: Gold Beach [PSV] Sword of the Vagrant [NSW] Captain Blood [XSX] Operation Lovecraft: Fallen Doll [PC] (As with previous lists, note that the platform in brackets to the side indicates which version I’ve played or may prefer for one reason or another. That does not mean it’s the only platform to feature jiggle. While not totally exhaustive, at 410 games so far I believe these posts combined now make up the largest compendium ever compiled for such games, despite limiting repeated mentions of the same series. Huzzah!)
0:59

Sensitive content

Here I’ve got a fourth list of 110 games with boob and/or butt jiggle… Pure Onyx [PC] Warframe [PS5] ASTRA: Knights of Veda [PC] Catherine [PS3] Brown Dust II [MOB] Stretch Panic [PS2] Whacked! [XB] Fighting Force [PSX] Corridor Z [PC] Samurai Western [PS2] Honey Select 2: Libido Deluxe [PC] Crimson Tears [PS2] Treasure of Nadia [PC] Waifu Fighter [PC] Cy Girls [PS2] Half-Demon Shinobi [PC] The First Descendant [PS5] Pinup Ball [PC] Orc Massage [PC] Cyberpunk 2077 [XSX] X-Angels [PC] Dead or Alive 5 Last Round [PS4] Advanced V.G. [SAT] Injustice: Gods Among Us [XB360] Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles [GC] Breeders of the Nephelym [PC] SoniPro [3DS] Metal Gear AC!D 2 [PSP] Doki Doki Majo Shinpan! [DS] Sexy Beach Zero [PC] The Mini-Skirt Police [PS2] Pretty Fighter X [SAT] Mario Kart 8 Deluxe [NSW] Splinter Cell: Conviction [XB360] Top Spin 2 [XB360] WWE Smackdown! vs. RAW 2011 [PS3] Asuka 120% Limited BURNING Fest. [SAT] Tear Ring Saga [PSX] Dream C Club Zero Portable [PSV] Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock [PS3] To Love Ru Darkness: Battle Ecstasy [PSV] Seisou no Amazones [3DS] Monster Monpiece [PSV] Kung Fu Rider [PS3] Atelier Ryza [PS4] Groove on Fight [SAT] Valhalla Knights 3 [PSV] Love Smash! 5.1 [PS2] Namco x Capcom [PS2] Artificial Girl 3 [PC] The All*Star Kakutou Matsuri [PS2] Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure [PSX] Garou: Mark of the Wolves [DC] Sol Trigger [PSP] THE iDOLM@STER [XB360] Super Mario RPG [SNES] Pocket Pool [PSP] Tokyo Clanpool [PSV] GrimGrimoire OnceMore [NSW] High School DxD [3DS] Ikki Tousen: Xross Impact [PSP] Toshin Toshi: Girls Gift [3DS] Castle Panzers [PS4] Luminous Arc Infinity [PSV] Azur Lane [MOB] Deadrock Redemption [PC] Strip Fighter 5: Chimpocon Edition [PC] Queen’s Blade: Spiral Chaos [PSP] Bleach: Shattered Blade [WII] Time Leap [XB360] Ghost Pirates of Vooju Island [PC] Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann [DS] Fantasy Earth Zero [PC] Super Robot Wars Alpha 3 [PS2] Lust & Legends [PC] Dr. Muto [GC] Yoake no Mariko [PS2] VR Kanojo [PC] Ka 2: Let’s Go Hawaii [PS2] Heavy Metal Geomatrix [DC] Sabrina [MSX] Kamihime Project R [PC] Happy Manager [PS4] Lightning Legend: Daigo no Daibouken [PSX] Splatoon 2 [NSW] Epic Battle Fantasy 5 [PC] Halo 5: Guardians [XBO] Together VR [PC] Monster Rancher [PSX] UFC 2009 Undisputed [PS3] Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A’s Portable [PSP] LoveR Kiss [NSW] Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair [PSV] Policenauts [SAT] World of Warcraft [PC] Finder Love: Hoshino Aki [PSP] Midnight Castle Succubus [PC] Party Girls [PS2] Wish [PC] Motion Gravure Series: Megumi [PS2] Parodius Portable [PSP] Natsuiro High School: Seishun Hakusho [PS4] Train Capacity 300% [PC] Hard Knock High [PS2] Neptunia x SENRAN KAGURA Ninja Wars [PS4] Koikatsu Party [PC] Reco Love: Gold Beach [PSV] Sword of the Vagrant [NSW] Captain Blood [XSX] Operation Lovecraft: Fallen Doll [PC] (As with previous lists, note that the platform in brackets to the side indicates which version I’ve played or may prefer for one reason or another. That does not mean it’s the only platform to feature jiggle. While not totally exhaustive, at 410 games so far I believe these posts combined now make up the largest compendium ever compiled for such games, despite limiting repeated mentions of the same series. Huzzah!)

Joshua Michael French ジョシュア

103,743 次观看 • 2 年前

alright let’s do a class on nielsen ratings / witness a timeline murder? i’m about to spin the block. the programming insider screenshots below are for weds, march 31. Programming Insider is one of the few places that just posts the raw nielsen grid without spin. every demo every network every show laid out the way buyers sellers and network executives actually read it. it’s not a recap site it’s not opinion it’s the sheet and if you’re not reading the sheet you’re not actually talking about the same thing as the people making the decisions 730k and a 0.15 in adults 18–49 is a real number and it maps cleanly within the expected range. nobody serious disputes that. in the current environment you’re generally looking at: 0.10 ≈ 580k–610k 0.11 ≈ 600k–630k 0.12 ≈ 620k–660k 0.13 ≈ 650k–690k 0.14 ≈ 680k–720k 0.15 ≈ 710k–750k 0.16 ≈ 740k–790k 0.17 ≈ 780k–830k 0.18 ≈ 820k–880k 0.19 ≈ 860k–920k 0.20 ≈ 900k–960k the issue is how often people stop there and treat it like a conclusion instead of the starting point. because a single demo pulled out of context doesn’t tell you what kind of number it actually was what kind of audience it represents or what it means in a real marketplace start with the full AEW row because that’s the foundation. AEW on TBS for 121 minutes posted: 0.44 household rating 0.12 adults 18–34 0.15 adults 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 0.20 men 18–49 0.22 adults 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.10 persons 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.03 teens 12–17 730k total viewers 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers that’s the entire result. not the tweet version not the clipped version not the one number people like to repeat. that full row is the reality and once you actually read it the first thing that matters is not the 0.15 it’s how that 0.15 is built 0.20 men 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 that’s not a subtle imbalance that’s the number. this is not a broad demo performance it’s a concentrated one. when one side of the demo is doing more than double the work of the other side you are not looking at wide audience adoption you are looking at a defined lane showing up consistently and that distinction is everything because certain faux authorities talk about 0.15 like it’s a universal currency when it’s not. a 0.15 built on something like 0.14 women and 0.16 men is a fundamentally different asset than a 0.15 built on 0.09 women and 0.20 men. one is balanced one is narrow. one has flexibility across advertisers scheduling and audience expansion the other is predictable reliable and capped this one is clearly the latter same story in 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 again more than double same structural dependence same ceiling implication and then you go younger and nothing changes 0.12 adults 18–34 0.10 persons 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 it’s the same shape repeated across demos which tells you this is not a one week anomaly it’s the product identity. stable consistent defined not expanding and that’s where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat actually shows up in the data this is reliable. the audience shows up. the profile is predictable. the show holds its lane it is not broad. it is not expanding. it is not signaling that new segments are coming into the tent and changing the ceiling of the property that’s not opinion that’s what the row says now zoom out to the actual cable landscape that night because this is where context starts to cut through the noise Hannity 0.50 NBA on ESPN 0.36 Jesse Watters Primetime 0.28 Gutfeld 0.25 The Source with Kaitlan Collins 0.18 AEW Dynamite 0.15 that’s the board. that’s the tiering. AEW is not competing with the leaders it’s sitting clearly below them in the next band the gap from 0.15 to 0.18 is real the gap from 0.15 to 0.25 is large the gap from 0.15 to 0.36 and 0.50 is massive and this is where people get sloppy because they use ranking to imply proximity when there isn’t any the placements are: 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers those are good placements for a cable property they are not dominant placements and they are not close to dominant placements. 12th at 730k tells you exactly how much total audience is actually there across the full market not just the demo slice people like to highlight and that matters because scale still matters. total audience still matters. you don’t get to ignore it just because the demo is easier to weaponize quickly on the presidential address because this keeps getting dragged in like it explains something and it doesn’t a brief presidential address is not real competition it’s not counterprogramming it’s not sustained audience capture it’s a short interruption that hits every network at the same time. everyone gets disrupted nobody gets singled out. it doesn’t change relative positioning it doesn’t create winners or losers it’s just noise in the system and leaning on it is basically avoiding what the table actually shows same thing with hourly ranks 3rd in an hour 4th in an hour fine but relative to what. if the field is thin outside a few programs you can place well in a window and still be materially behind the actual leaders. a 0.15 does not become a 0.25 because it ranked 3rd it stays a 0.15 now zoom out even further and look at the broader tv ecosystem broadcast that same night is pulling 4M 5M viewers with broader demo balance. different ecosystem yes but it gives you scale perspective. cable is fragmented expectations are different a 0.15 can be a good cable number but that does not make it a market moving television number it makes it solid within its lane and that’s where most of the conversation should stop but it doesn’t because once you layer in actual market structure the ratings matter even less than people think they do the buyer universe is not theoretical it is already allocated high tier buyers netflix amazon apple all operate at 600k+ per telecast levels but only for global scalable franchise inventory netflix has already consolidated the global wwe backbone across raw international distribution and library. there is no incentive to layer overlapping wrestling inventory into that system amazon is deploying capital into nfl nba nascar and large scale league ecosystems. servicing ppv distribution is not the same thing as underwriting long term weekly rights. there is no mandate for niche weekly wrestling at scale apple is curating a premium global sports portfolio aligned with brand identity. nothing niche nothing polarizing nothing demo fragmented clears that filter mid tier buyers disney espn already has wwe premium live events and massive nfl nba and college football commitments. the wrestling lane is already defined at the tentpole level fox is concentrated on nfl and big ten with disciplined incremental spend and no mandate for a second wrestling property peacock is structurally tied into wwe across events and library footprint. that lane is occupied paramount plus max post merger is sitting on one of the heaviest combat sports portfolios in the market ufc at roughly 1.1b per year zuffa boxing pbr nfl afc that is category consolidation not exploration. any additional combat adjacent inventory has to clear duplication against that stack turner inside that same structure is no longer operating independently. it is part of a combined portfolio that already has a defined combat sports identity low tier buyers roku tubi vice are operating in the 150k–300k per telecast range and are not positioned to escalate into premium rights competition so when you actually map the landscape it’s not that buyers are hesitant it’s that lanes are already filled there is no real second bidder dynamic and once you remove the idea of competitive bidding the ratings stop functioning as leverage they become a utility metric now go back to the numbers 0.15 730k male heavy composition those are not bad numbers they are just not strong enough to override strategic redundancy inside a portfolio that already includes ufc and global wwe alignment across multiple platforms so the conversation shifts this is no longer what will the market pay this becomes what is this worth inside our existing portfolio can we fill two hours cheaper can we replicate the demo with studio shows shoulder programming unscripted if yes there is no leverage if no it stays but on controlled terms that’s the real decision tree and this is where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat becomes the entire story this is reliable inventory. it shows up every week it delivers a consistent demo it fills two hours it holds a lane it is not broad strategic heat. it does not expand the audience map it does not unlock new advertiser categories it does not create urgency across buyers it does not force capital to move and that’s not a criticism it’s a classification so the clean read is simple the number is real the audience is still there the composition is still narrow the placement is still upper middle and none of that on its own creates leverage in a market that is already structurally allocated this is a property negotiating inside someone else’s portfolio not across an open market and that leads to the only conclusion that actually matters once capital is already deployed across nfl nba ufc and global wwe distribution and once the high tier buyers are structurally filtered out this stops being a rights negotiation driven by ratings and becomes an internal portfolio decision driven by overlap cost efficiency and replacement value. at that point a steady 0.15 does not create leverage it defines the floor of what that two hour block is worth relative to everything else competing for the same capital and now add the part everyone either ignores or pretends doesn’t exist TKO is effectively sitting on ~100% of premium combat sports market share at scale when you look at UFC plus WWE across global distribution lanes. that’s not just another player in the category that is the category so when you’re talking about where AEW fits you’re not comparing it in a vacuum you’re comparing it against the most consolidated combat sports stack the business has ever seen and that stack isn’t just operating independently Ari Emanuel has been advising David Ellison for 15+ years that relationship matters because it shapes how these portfolios are thought about at the highest level. this isn’t random alignment this is long term strategic overlap between the people actually making decisions about where billions in rights fees go so when you layer that on top of a potential Paramount controlled WBD structure you’re not just dealing with ratings anymore you’re dealing with a fully informed portfolio strategy that already knows exactly what it values in combat sports and what it doesn’t and then you zoom all the way out to cultural positioning because this part matters more than people think Pat McAfee is in the main event at WrestleMania that’s not a throwaway detail that’s the signal that’s WWE extending into mainstream sports media personalities who already command massive audiences across multiple platforms and pulling them into the biggest event in the space that’s what broad strategic heat actually looks like not just a consistent demo number not just reliable weekly inventory but expansion into new audience layers new distribution touchpoints and new cultural relevance that travels outside the core base so when you put all of this together the picture gets even clearer AEW is stable AEW is reliable AEW fills a lane but it’s operating in a market where the category leader already controls the majority of premium combat IP the decision makers are aligned at the highest levels the buyer universe is structurally closed and the biggest player is actively expanding its cultural footprint beyond wrestling itself that’s the environment so yes a 0.15 matters. yes 730k matters the number isn’t fake the number isn’t terrible the number is specific it tells you exactly what the show is right now it tells you the core audience showed up it tells you that audience is heavily male it tells you women are materially underrepresented it tells you the show converts to about 730k it tells you where it sits on the night it tells you the audience shape hasn’t changed what it doesn’t tell you matters just as much it doesn’t tell you the audience is expanding it doesn’t tell you the show is broadening it doesn’t tell you the ceiling moved this was a good night for a show with a defined audience but none of it overrides the reality that this is being evaluated inside a system that already knows what “must have” looks like and right now that bar is being set somewhere else entirely cc: Dave Meltzer
6:23

alright let’s do a class on nielsen ratings / witness a timeline murder? i’m about to spin the block. the programming insider screenshots below are for weds, march 31. Programming Insider is one of the few places that just posts the raw nielsen grid without spin. every demo every network every show laid out the way buyers sellers and network executives actually read it. it’s not a recap site it’s not opinion it’s the sheet and if you’re not reading the sheet you’re not actually talking about the same thing as the people making the decisions 730k and a 0.15 in adults 18–49 is a real number and it maps cleanly within the expected range. nobody serious disputes that. in the current environment you’re generally looking at: 0.10 ≈ 580k–610k 0.11 ≈ 600k–630k 0.12 ≈ 620k–660k 0.13 ≈ 650k–690k 0.14 ≈ 680k–720k 0.15 ≈ 710k–750k 0.16 ≈ 740k–790k 0.17 ≈ 780k–830k 0.18 ≈ 820k–880k 0.19 ≈ 860k–920k 0.20 ≈ 900k–960k the issue is how often people stop there and treat it like a conclusion instead of the starting point. because a single demo pulled out of context doesn’t tell you what kind of number it actually was what kind of audience it represents or what it means in a real marketplace start with the full AEW row because that’s the foundation. AEW on TBS for 121 minutes posted: 0.44 household rating 0.12 adults 18–34 0.15 adults 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 0.20 men 18–49 0.22 adults 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.10 persons 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.03 teens 12–17 730k total viewers 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers that’s the entire result. not the tweet version not the clipped version not the one number people like to repeat. that full row is the reality and once you actually read it the first thing that matters is not the 0.15 it’s how that 0.15 is built 0.20 men 18–49 0.09 women 18–49 that’s not a subtle imbalance that’s the number. this is not a broad demo performance it’s a concentrated one. when one side of the demo is doing more than double the work of the other side you are not looking at wide audience adoption you are looking at a defined lane showing up consistently and that distinction is everything because certain faux authorities talk about 0.15 like it’s a universal currency when it’s not. a 0.15 built on something like 0.14 women and 0.16 men is a fundamentally different asset than a 0.15 built on 0.09 women and 0.20 men. one is balanced one is narrow. one has flexibility across advertisers scheduling and audience expansion the other is predictable reliable and capped this one is clearly the latter same story in 25–54 0.30 men 25–54 0.13 women 25–54 again more than double same structural dependence same ceiling implication and then you go younger and nothing changes 0.12 adults 18–34 0.10 persons 12–34 0.12 males 12–34 0.07 females 12–34 it’s the same shape repeated across demos which tells you this is not a one week anomaly it’s the product identity. stable consistent defined not expanding and that’s where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat actually shows up in the data this is reliable. the audience shows up. the profile is predictable. the show holds its lane it is not broad. it is not expanding. it is not signaling that new segments are coming into the tent and changing the ceiling of the property that’s not opinion that’s what the row says now zoom out to the actual cable landscape that night because this is where context starts to cut through the noise Hannity 0.50 NBA on ESPN 0.36 Jesse Watters Primetime 0.28 Gutfeld 0.25 The Source with Kaitlan Collins 0.18 AEW Dynamite 0.15 that’s the board. that’s the tiering. AEW is not competing with the leaders it’s sitting clearly below them in the next band the gap from 0.15 to 0.18 is real the gap from 0.15 to 0.25 is large the gap from 0.15 to 0.36 and 0.50 is massive and this is where people get sloppy because they use ranking to imply proximity when there isn’t any the placements are: 6th in adults 18–49 12th in total viewers those are good placements for a cable property they are not dominant placements and they are not close to dominant placements. 12th at 730k tells you exactly how much total audience is actually there across the full market not just the demo slice people like to highlight and that matters because scale still matters. total audience still matters. you don’t get to ignore it just because the demo is easier to weaponize quickly on the presidential address because this keeps getting dragged in like it explains something and it doesn’t a brief presidential address is not real competition it’s not counterprogramming it’s not sustained audience capture it’s a short interruption that hits every network at the same time. everyone gets disrupted nobody gets singled out. it doesn’t change relative positioning it doesn’t create winners or losers it’s just noise in the system and leaning on it is basically avoiding what the table actually shows same thing with hourly ranks 3rd in an hour 4th in an hour fine but relative to what. if the field is thin outside a few programs you can place well in a window and still be materially behind the actual leaders. a 0.15 does not become a 0.25 because it ranked 3rd it stays a 0.15 now zoom out even further and look at the broader tv ecosystem broadcast that same night is pulling 4M 5M viewers with broader demo balance. different ecosystem yes but it gives you scale perspective. cable is fragmented expectations are different a 0.15 can be a good cable number but that does not make it a market moving television number it makes it solid within its lane and that’s where most of the conversation should stop but it doesn’t because once you layer in actual market structure the ratings matter even less than people think they do the buyer universe is not theoretical it is already allocated high tier buyers netflix amazon apple all operate at 600k+ per telecast levels but only for global scalable franchise inventory netflix has already consolidated the global wwe backbone across raw international distribution and library. there is no incentive to layer overlapping wrestling inventory into that system amazon is deploying capital into nfl nba nascar and large scale league ecosystems. servicing ppv distribution is not the same thing as underwriting long term weekly rights. there is no mandate for niche weekly wrestling at scale apple is curating a premium global sports portfolio aligned with brand identity. nothing niche nothing polarizing nothing demo fragmented clears that filter mid tier buyers disney espn already has wwe premium live events and massive nfl nba and college football commitments. the wrestling lane is already defined at the tentpole level fox is concentrated on nfl and big ten with disciplined incremental spend and no mandate for a second wrestling property peacock is structurally tied into wwe across events and library footprint. that lane is occupied paramount plus max post merger is sitting on one of the heaviest combat sports portfolios in the market ufc at roughly 1.1b per year zuffa boxing pbr nfl afc that is category consolidation not exploration. any additional combat adjacent inventory has to clear duplication against that stack turner inside that same structure is no longer operating independently. it is part of a combined portfolio that already has a defined combat sports identity low tier buyers roku tubi vice are operating in the 150k–300k per telecast range and are not positioned to escalate into premium rights competition so when you actually map the landscape it’s not that buyers are hesitant it’s that lanes are already filled there is no real second bidder dynamic and once you remove the idea of competitive bidding the ratings stop functioning as leverage they become a utility metric now go back to the numbers 0.15 730k male heavy composition those are not bad numbers they are just not strong enough to override strategic redundancy inside a portfolio that already includes ufc and global wwe alignment across multiple platforms so the conversation shifts this is no longer what will the market pay this becomes what is this worth inside our existing portfolio can we fill two hours cheaper can we replicate the demo with studio shows shoulder programming unscripted if yes there is no leverage if no it stays but on controlled terms that’s the real decision tree and this is where the difference between narrow reliability and broad strategic heat becomes the entire story this is reliable inventory. it shows up every week it delivers a consistent demo it fills two hours it holds a lane it is not broad strategic heat. it does not expand the audience map it does not unlock new advertiser categories it does not create urgency across buyers it does not force capital to move and that’s not a criticism it’s a classification so the clean read is simple the number is real the audience is still there the composition is still narrow the placement is still upper middle and none of that on its own creates leverage in a market that is already structurally allocated this is a property negotiating inside someone else’s portfolio not across an open market and that leads to the only conclusion that actually matters once capital is already deployed across nfl nba ufc and global wwe distribution and once the high tier buyers are structurally filtered out this stops being a rights negotiation driven by ratings and becomes an internal portfolio decision driven by overlap cost efficiency and replacement value. at that point a steady 0.15 does not create leverage it defines the floor of what that two hour block is worth relative to everything else competing for the same capital and now add the part everyone either ignores or pretends doesn’t exist TKO is effectively sitting on ~100% of premium combat sports market share at scale when you look at UFC plus WWE across global distribution lanes. that’s not just another player in the category that is the category so when you’re talking about where AEW fits you’re not comparing it in a vacuum you’re comparing it against the most consolidated combat sports stack the business has ever seen and that stack isn’t just operating independently Ari Emanuel has been advising David Ellison for 15+ years that relationship matters because it shapes how these portfolios are thought about at the highest level. this isn’t random alignment this is long term strategic overlap between the people actually making decisions about where billions in rights fees go so when you layer that on top of a potential Paramount controlled WBD structure you’re not just dealing with ratings anymore you’re dealing with a fully informed portfolio strategy that already knows exactly what it values in combat sports and what it doesn’t and then you zoom all the way out to cultural positioning because this part matters more than people think Pat McAfee is in the main event at WrestleMania that’s not a throwaway detail that’s the signal that’s WWE extending into mainstream sports media personalities who already command massive audiences across multiple platforms and pulling them into the biggest event in the space that’s what broad strategic heat actually looks like not just a consistent demo number not just reliable weekly inventory but expansion into new audience layers new distribution touchpoints and new cultural relevance that travels outside the core base so when you put all of this together the picture gets even clearer AEW is stable AEW is reliable AEW fills a lane but it’s operating in a market where the category leader already controls the majority of premium combat IP the decision makers are aligned at the highest levels the buyer universe is structurally closed and the biggest player is actively expanding its cultural footprint beyond wrestling itself that’s the environment so yes a 0.15 matters. yes 730k matters the number isn’t fake the number isn’t terrible the number is specific it tells you exactly what the show is right now it tells you the core audience showed up it tells you that audience is heavily male it tells you women are materially underrepresented it tells you the show converts to about 730k it tells you where it sits on the night it tells you the audience shape hasn’t changed what it doesn’t tell you matters just as much it doesn’t tell you the audience is expanding it doesn’t tell you the show is broadening it doesn’t tell you the ceiling moved this was a good night for a show with a defined audience but none of it overrides the reality that this is being evaluated inside a system that already knows what “must have” looks like and right now that bar is being set somewhere else entirely cc: Dave Meltzer

Nick LoPiccolo

17,146 次观看 • 5 个月前

let’s start where this actually lives, not where you want it to live. with the math. the last three weeks of dynamite: 👉 765k 👉 730k 👉 654k that is not a ramp. that is not momentum. that is not “heating up” into a conversion window. that is a decline into it. you are looking at a -111k drop in two weeks, roughly 14–15% contraction from the high to the low, at the exact point where a traditional ppv cycle should be stabilizing or expanding. instead, you have compression. average those three weeks and you land at roughly ~716k linear viewers. that is your real, observable, measurable audience. not hypothetical reach not cumulative impressions not social engagement proxies actual people sitting down and watching the show in the time slot that matters for conversion. i’ve already laid out in detail what the max numbers actually represent and how simulcast behavior works, so i’m not going to re-litigate all of that here. but it matters enough to say again clearly: max is not a second audience at scale. it is a distribution extension that splits the same audience. it does not double your reach. it does not materially expand your funnel. it shifts a portion of existing behavior from one pipe to another. the short version is already established: 👉 max is not additive at scale 👉 max is a split of the same audience 👉 max realistically contributes ~50k–150k, ~75k center so your total reachable audience on a good night is: 👉 ~790k–800k all-in that’s the funnel. that’s the ceiling. that’s the number you are working from. that’s the universe that can possibly convert into a paid transaction. not hypothetical not inflated not “what if” that is the real audience number. now take the number dave is floating: 👉 ~143k ppv buys run the only equation that matters: 👉 143k ÷ 800k = ~17.9% conversion stop there for a second Dave Meltzer is unironically asserting that nearly 1 out of every 5 viewers is converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026 in a market with: – no centralized ppv infrastructure – subscription-first behavior – widespread piracy – fragmented pricing (domestic, max discount, vpn international) – a declining weekly audience trend that is the claim. not “strong performance.” not “better than expected.” not “up year over year.” the claim is nearly 1 in 5 viewers converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026. this is where the conversation should end, because that number does not exist anywhere in modern media behavior. it doesn’t exist in boxing. it doesn’t exist in ufc. it doesn’t exist in any scaled transactional model operating in the current environment. and more importantly, it didn’t exist consistently even when the infrastructure supporting it was intact. again, this is the part people either don’t understand or choose to ignore: ppv is not just a pricing model. it is an infrastructure model. and that infrastructure is gone. for decades, the backbone of ppv was inDemand. that system wasn’t just pushing content out to cable homes. it was aggregating buys, standardizing reporting, and creating a reconciliation layer that allowed promoters, distributors, and networks to operate off the same dataset. if you were serious about this business, you could triangulate numbers. you could get within a narrow band of reality because the pipes were real and the accounting was shared. that system shut down in 2025. 👉 143k ppv buys is not an aggressive take 👉 it is not an optimistic take 👉 it is a structurally impossible take because we know what real conversion looks like. we do not need to guess. it has been modeled across combat sports, boxing, ufc, and multiple transactional platforms. the ranges are stable: 👉 1–3% → normal 👉 3–5% → strong 👉 5%+ → elite and rare, reserved for events with massive cultural heat and crossover appeal those ranges were established when the infrastructure was intact, pricing was more controlled, piracy was less frictionless, and distribution was more centralized. today, every one of those conditions is worse. pricing is fragmented. you have $49.99 standard, $39.99 through max, international pricing accessible through vpn, and a piracy environment where high-quality streams are available instantly. that is a high-friction, high-leakage system. so conversion should compress, not expand. now apply real-world conversion to your real audience: 👉 800k × 2% = 16k buys 👉 800k × 3% = 24k buys 👉 800k × 5% = 40k buys that’s your range. 👉 ~15k–35k realistic 👉 ~20k–30k as the most defensible center 👉 ~40k reasonable given the strength of the headliners now invert the math, because this is where the claim completely collapses. if you want to justify 143k buys at even a healthy 3% conversion rate, you need roughly 4.7 million engaged viewers. so the question becomes extremely simple: where are the other four million people? 👉they are not on linear television. 👉they are not on max. 👉they are not showing up in any digital engagement metrics that correlate with that level of demand. 👉they are not visible anywhere in the ecosystem that would need to exist to support that level of conversion. 👉👉👉👉👉 they do not exist. and this is before you even account for the trend line moving the wrong way. you are not converting off a growing base. you are converting off a shrinking one. you are not building urgency. you are losing reach. that matters, because conversion does not happen in a vacuum. it happens on top of momentum, visibility, and audience expansion. when those inputs are declining, conversion does not spike to historic highs. it compresses further. the biggest fights in the world are no longer relying on ppv as their primary distribution model. they are moving to platforms that guarantee reach and revenue up front. the most recent example should end this conversation for anyone actually paying attention: netflix just locked tyson fury vs anthony joshua for a major global fight this august. that is one of the biggest possible matchups in boxing. in any previous era, that is a premium ppv event with massive buy expectations, heavy marketing, and a full transactional rollout. instead, it is going to a subscription platform. why? because the economics are better. the reach is global. the friction is lower. the platform values engagement at scale over one-off purchases. that is where the industry is. so when you are being asked to believe that a weekly wrestling property with a ~700k linear audience, declining into its ppv window, is somehow generating six-figure transactional buys inside a subscription platform in 2026, you are not just being asked to accept a number. dave is asking you to ignore the direction of the entire market. and that’s before you even bring in platform behavior. max is not a live sports-first platform. it does not behave like one. when max has something it cares about, it promotes it aggressively. homepage rails. push notifications. press releases. talent integration. cross-platform amplification. you do not see that here. and that absence is not accidental. platforms surface what they want you to see. they amplify what drives engagement and revenue. if ppv at scale were happening inside that ecosystem, it would be visible. it would be part of the narrative. it would be monetized loudly. it isn’t. and that’s before you even factor in the other variables i’ve broken down in detail before: 👉 i’ve already debunked why the max numbers people are throwing around don’t make sense 👉 i’ve already explained what the linear number actually represents and what it doesn’t 👉 i’ve already mapped the media rights landscape in 2026, including how these properties are being evaluated ahead of the paramount–wbd merger the wsj reports could close as early as july so when you’re being told by dave that a property with a ~700k weekly audience trending downward into a ppv window is generating six-figure transactional buys at premium pricing inside a subscription platform in 2026, you’re not being given data. you’re being given a number that does not reconcile with anything else in the system. that’s math. stop it - 45
1:00

let’s start where this actually lives, not where you want it to live. with the math. the last three weeks of dynamite: 👉 765k 👉 730k 👉 654k that is not a ramp. that is not momentum. that is not “heating up” into a conversion window. that is a decline into it. you are looking at a -111k drop in two weeks, roughly 14–15% contraction from the high to the low, at the exact point where a traditional ppv cycle should be stabilizing or expanding. instead, you have compression. average those three weeks and you land at roughly ~716k linear viewers. that is your real, observable, measurable audience. not hypothetical reach not cumulative impressions not social engagement proxies actual people sitting down and watching the show in the time slot that matters for conversion. i’ve already laid out in detail what the max numbers actually represent and how simulcast behavior works, so i’m not going to re-litigate all of that here. but it matters enough to say again clearly: max is not a second audience at scale. it is a distribution extension that splits the same audience. it does not double your reach. it does not materially expand your funnel. it shifts a portion of existing behavior from one pipe to another. the short version is already established: 👉 max is not additive at scale 👉 max is a split of the same audience 👉 max realistically contributes ~50k–150k, ~75k center so your total reachable audience on a good night is: 👉 ~790k–800k all-in that’s the funnel. that’s the ceiling. that’s the number you are working from. that’s the universe that can possibly convert into a paid transaction. not hypothetical not inflated not “what if” that is the real audience number. now take the number dave is floating: 👉 ~143k ppv buys run the only equation that matters: 👉 143k ÷ 800k = ~17.9% conversion stop there for a second Dave Meltzer is unironically asserting that nearly 1 out of every 5 viewers is converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026 in a market with: – no centralized ppv infrastructure – subscription-first behavior – widespread piracy – fragmented pricing (domestic, max discount, vpn international) – a declining weekly audience trend that is the claim. not “strong performance.” not “better than expected.” not “up year over year.” the claim is nearly 1 in 5 viewers converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026. this is where the conversation should end, because that number does not exist anywhere in modern media behavior. it doesn’t exist in boxing. it doesn’t exist in ufc. it doesn’t exist in any scaled transactional model operating in the current environment. and more importantly, it didn’t exist consistently even when the infrastructure supporting it was intact. again, this is the part people either don’t understand or choose to ignore: ppv is not just a pricing model. it is an infrastructure model. and that infrastructure is gone. for decades, the backbone of ppv was inDemand. that system wasn’t just pushing content out to cable homes. it was aggregating buys, standardizing reporting, and creating a reconciliation layer that allowed promoters, distributors, and networks to operate off the same dataset. if you were serious about this business, you could triangulate numbers. you could get within a narrow band of reality because the pipes were real and the accounting was shared. that system shut down in 2025. 👉 143k ppv buys is not an aggressive take 👉 it is not an optimistic take 👉 it is a structurally impossible take because we know what real conversion looks like. we do not need to guess. it has been modeled across combat sports, boxing, ufc, and multiple transactional platforms. the ranges are stable: 👉 1–3% → normal 👉 3–5% → strong 👉 5%+ → elite and rare, reserved for events with massive cultural heat and crossover appeal those ranges were established when the infrastructure was intact, pricing was more controlled, piracy was less frictionless, and distribution was more centralized. today, every one of those conditions is worse. pricing is fragmented. you have $49.99 standard, $39.99 through max, international pricing accessible through vpn, and a piracy environment where high-quality streams are available instantly. that is a high-friction, high-leakage system. so conversion should compress, not expand. now apply real-world conversion to your real audience: 👉 800k × 2% = 16k buys 👉 800k × 3% = 24k buys 👉 800k × 5% = 40k buys that’s your range. 👉 ~15k–35k realistic 👉 ~20k–30k as the most defensible center 👉 ~40k reasonable given the strength of the headliners now invert the math, because this is where the claim completely collapses. if you want to justify 143k buys at even a healthy 3% conversion rate, you need roughly 4.7 million engaged viewers. so the question becomes extremely simple: where are the other four million people? 👉they are not on linear television. 👉they are not on max. 👉they are not showing up in any digital engagement metrics that correlate with that level of demand. 👉they are not visible anywhere in the ecosystem that would need to exist to support that level of conversion. 👉👉👉👉👉 they do not exist. and this is before you even account for the trend line moving the wrong way. you are not converting off a growing base. you are converting off a shrinking one. you are not building urgency. you are losing reach. that matters, because conversion does not happen in a vacuum. it happens on top of momentum, visibility, and audience expansion. when those inputs are declining, conversion does not spike to historic highs. it compresses further. the biggest fights in the world are no longer relying on ppv as their primary distribution model. they are moving to platforms that guarantee reach and revenue up front. the most recent example should end this conversation for anyone actually paying attention: netflix just locked tyson fury vs anthony joshua for a major global fight this august. that is one of the biggest possible matchups in boxing. in any previous era, that is a premium ppv event with massive buy expectations, heavy marketing, and a full transactional rollout. instead, it is going to a subscription platform. why? because the economics are better. the reach is global. the friction is lower. the platform values engagement at scale over one-off purchases. that is where the industry is. so when you are being asked to believe that a weekly wrestling property with a ~700k linear audience, declining into its ppv window, is somehow generating six-figure transactional buys inside a subscription platform in 2026, you are not just being asked to accept a number. dave is asking you to ignore the direction of the entire market. and that’s before you even bring in platform behavior. max is not a live sports-first platform. it does not behave like one. when max has something it cares about, it promotes it aggressively. homepage rails. push notifications. press releases. talent integration. cross-platform amplification. you do not see that here. and that absence is not accidental. platforms surface what they want you to see. they amplify what drives engagement and revenue. if ppv at scale were happening inside that ecosystem, it would be visible. it would be part of the narrative. it would be monetized loudly. it isn’t. and that’s before you even factor in the other variables i’ve broken down in detail before: 👉 i’ve already debunked why the max numbers people are throwing around don’t make sense 👉 i’ve already explained what the linear number actually represents and what it doesn’t 👉 i’ve already mapped the media rights landscape in 2026, including how these properties are being evaluated ahead of the paramount–wbd merger the wsj reports could close as early as july so when you’re being told by dave that a property with a ~700k weekly audience trending downward into a ppv window is generating six-figure transactional buys at premium pricing inside a subscription platform in 2026, you’re not being given data. you’re being given a number that does not reconcile with anything else in the system. that’s math. stop it - 45

Nick LoPiccolo

20,695 次观看 • 4 个月前