Fair play to Warren, Fightskool is a different poduction style that certainly seems aimed at a younger generation of audience and whilst I don't know its success, at least it is an attempt of getting a different audience to watch the game.
If you were a promter, with a free reign to do how you pleased, what methods would you use to bring a global appeal to the masses.
I would personally, really focus on rivalaries. For example, I would produce programmes designed at demonstrated the rivalary (like the best of enemies show with Eubank and Benn). Also encourage interviews with the rivals when one is fighting (I remember Camacho and Marsh having something like this). An MTV style show focusing on the fighters life outside of the ring would also be benefitial - we live in a society with two major obessions, these are celebrity and the creation of celebrity (i.e. through reality tv shows). We need to get the fighters known as a person as well as their in ring talent.
The American promotions seem to focus in on rivalaries alot more (i.e. their dramatic trailer of DLH vs Vargas) also it seems like the networks don't mind discussing fights that are not on their station (i.e. Espn Friday Night Fights are showcasing a segment on Tyson vs Williams soon).
I do think we need to follow America's lead more often in the production and promotion of shows - of course, we do need the rivals to fight each other which seems to be the biggest ask of them all.
How can boxing appeal to the masses?
Yes, it will be interesting to see the viewing figures of the winner's first fight.
Another method could be to offer "Boxing alternatives". For example, Cedric Kushner's heavyweight tournament (the one in which Harries won) attracted quite alot of media attention given the quality of the fighters. Something like that may be introduced as an appetiser for a main event.
The only time I can remember boxing hitting the national headlines (newspapers, that is) last year was with the Audley Harrison / Herbie Hide spat. Whilst that wasn't a good advert, we do need the papers to get the coverage as they effectively influence both the TV and viewers.
Was it surprising the Labour won the last two election when the Sun publically backed them. For the locals the sun said they were undecided, look what happend to Labour. On a more trivial matter, the papers started calling the Big Brother four shit, viewing figures SUBSEQUENTLY dropped.
The viewing figures of the Osbournes isn't great (cause its on MTV) but because their faces are in the papers, they remain popular. We need boxing in the papers in a positive sense and make reality style programmes or documentaries are the way to attract the papers attention.
Another method could be to offer "Boxing alternatives". For example, Cedric Kushner's heavyweight tournament (the one in which Harries won) attracted quite alot of media attention given the quality of the fighters. Something like that may be introduced as an appetiser for a main event.
The only time I can remember boxing hitting the national headlines (newspapers, that is) last year was with the Audley Harrison / Herbie Hide spat. Whilst that wasn't a good advert, we do need the papers to get the coverage as they effectively influence both the TV and viewers.
Was it surprising the Labour won the last two election when the Sun publically backed them. For the locals the sun said they were undecided, look what happend to Labour. On a more trivial matter, the papers started calling the Big Brother four shit, viewing figures SUBSEQUENTLY dropped.
The viewing figures of the Osbournes isn't great (cause its on MTV) but because their faces are in the papers, they remain popular. We need boxing in the papers in a positive sense and make reality style programmes or documentaries are the way to attract the papers attention.
I am not sure that building up rivalrys and hyping the boxers hatered of each other, especially int the tabloids, is the way to go, it will all turn into WWF (sorry WWE) if we go that route.
I think the best way would be to get rpmotors to offer the big fights cheaper, then coverage would be more accesable and more people would have the chance to watch it.
That said it will never be as big as it once was, mainly because people in the West are more sensitve to violence than they were previously (or say they are) and so much like turning veggie or hating hunting people will swear off boxing for being a blood sport.
I think the best way would be to get rpmotors to offer the big fights cheaper, then coverage would be more accesable and more people would have the chance to watch it.
That said it will never be as big as it once was, mainly because people in the West are more sensitve to violence than they were previously (or say they are) and so much like turning veggie or hating hunting people will swear off boxing for being a blood sport.
-
knockout artist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1482
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 13:18
The papers need to give boxing much more column inches. They also need to appoint reporters who know something about the game. Apart from Harty and Bunce, there are no others.bugs wrote:I am not sure that building up rivalrys and hyping the boxers hatered of each other, especially int the tabloids, is the way to go, it will all turn into WWF (sorry WWE) if we go that route.
I think the best way would be to get rpmotors to offer the big fights cheaper, then coverage would be more accesable and more people would have the chance to watch it.
That said it will never be as big as it once was, mainly because people in the West are more sensitve to violence than they were previously (or say they are) and so much like turning veggie or hating hunting people will swear off boxing for being a blood sport.
Look at David Smith who tries to write about Boxing for the LOndon Evening Standard. He talks out of his arse. He slags off Tyson at every oppotunity, but licks the footballer Dennis Wise's arse.
But come fight time, Smith will be the first in Louisville on an all expenses paid junket.
You will never see him at a small hall show though.
What a prick.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
It's a vicious circle. There is little or no boxing coverage, because the papers perceive that boxing is a minority sport, and boxing remains a minority sport, partly at least, because it get little or no coverage.
Say what you want about Steve Bunce, but at least he keeps our sport in the pages of a major quality newspaper, we need more vocal journalists covering the sport who can make an impact, and fast.
Say what you want about Steve Bunce, but at least he keeps our sport in the pages of a major quality newspaper, we need more vocal journalists covering the sport who can make an impact, and fast.
Also some real public interest match ups would help, Im not gonna bang on but its been touted already Skelton Harrison, Hatotn in a genuine world tiutle fight or against witter, Arthur Gomez II, these would all help aise the profile.
Point taken re Steve Bunce though James and I concur, enthusiasm breeds interest, I know pletny of people who have started checking up on the boxing more than they used to simply cos I bore them to death about it
Point taken re Steve Bunce though James and I concur, enthusiasm breeds interest, I know pletny of people who have started checking up on the boxing more than they used to simply cos I bore them to death about it
-
DIRT SUGAR
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 11:48
IMO it's purely down to a lack of Eubank v Benn-type fights on terrestrial TV – the fights that capture the imagination of the non-boxing fan and make kids run off to the gym to become the next Benn.
Sky, for all it's coverage and airtime even it's eight-round fighters get, just can't attract anywhere near the kind of huge audiences those fights pulled in on a Saturday night.
This has also led to a reduced coverage in the nationals is limited, hence the sport's profile has suffered immensely. I mean, imagine if Chi v Brodie I had been on ITV. There'd have been a much bigger reaction in the press and the rematch would have had a huge audience.
Sky, for all it's coverage and airtime even it's eight-round fighters get, just can't attract anywhere near the kind of huge audiences those fights pulled in on a Saturday night.
This has also led to a reduced coverage in the nationals is limited, hence the sport's profile has suffered immensely. I mean, imagine if Chi v Brodie I had been on ITV. There'd have been a much bigger reaction in the press and the rematch would have had a huge audience.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Exactly Chi v Brodie would have been a HUGE fight in the days when the BBC and ITV were competing for boxing ratings, there would have been coverage in all the national newspapers and on the news too, as it was, the fight barely caused a ripple of interest amongst the newsmedia.
And what a fantastic fight the first one was, worthy of the coverage I would have said, except that nobody knew how Brodie was over here, let alone chi.
And what a fantastic fight the first one was, worthy of the coverage I would have said, except that nobody knew how Brodie was over here, let alone chi.
-
black panther
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4095
- Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06
but boxing DID appeal to the masses when it was on terrestial tv. I know a lot of non-boxing fans who started watching boxing on the bbc. A lot of people cant afford sky. Boxing was on the up until the bbc decided to pull the plug on audley harrison - the idiots. they didnt understand how important the beeb was in generating interest in boxing amonst the casual sports fan. A lot of people who knew jack bout boxing and just agreed with the papers about audley harrison being still tuned in to waatch him fight and he is nearing a big fight which would have attracted more attention but they pulled the plug. One final rant - isnt it sad that no-one knows who a genuiine world class british fighter (joe calzaghe) is but everybody 's heard of audley harrison who is comparatively a novice.
A prime time slot on a saturday night say, for showing Hatton vs Witter (nobody outside of boxing circles has EVER heard of Witter) might draw... I dunno, 3.5 million viewers? maybe more.
A shitty re-run of Dempsey & Makepeace in the same slot would draw the same number of viewers. It's just a sad truth.
So which does the BBC (who only care about viewing figures) choose to put on?
Boxing is just too expensive to stage, its as simple as that. It costs a small fortune to put a fight on, pay the fighters what they want and so on...and the BBC just can't afford to do it...
An option that draws the same viewing numbers can be done for 2% of the cost... *shrug*
A prime time football match would draw 10 million+.... and cost less to show than financing the broadcasting costs of a Hatton vs Witter showdown.
If boxers fought for considerably less, it could be mainstreamed. But when they start talking about hundred of thousands ..then the BBC = forget about it..
A shitty re-run of Dempsey & Makepeace in the same slot would draw the same number of viewers. It's just a sad truth.
So which does the BBC (who only care about viewing figures) choose to put on?
Boxing is just too expensive to stage, its as simple as that. It costs a small fortune to put a fight on, pay the fighters what they want and so on...and the BBC just can't afford to do it...
An option that draws the same viewing numbers can be done for 2% of the cost... *shrug*
A prime time football match would draw 10 million+.... and cost less to show than financing the broadcasting costs of a Hatton vs Witter showdown.
If boxers fought for considerably less, it could be mainstreamed. But when they start talking about hundred of thousands ..then the BBC = forget about it..
-
DIRT SUGAR
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1200
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 11:48
We have to take a step back from our position as boxing enthusiasts and just accept that the nature of the game means it can no longer be mainstreamed.
Witter vs Hatton would get less viewers nationally than some Pop Wank shite... that millions of brain-dead arseholes across the country would much rather lap up...
If you think we've got it bad imagine being a netball, lacrosse, volleyball, badminton, squash, baseball, table-tennis, fencing, cycling, judo, karate fan?
What coverage do THEY GET?????
Comparatively, we do really rather well!!
Witter vs Hatton would get less viewers nationally than some Pop Wank shite... that millions of brain-dead arseholes across the country would much rather lap up...
If you think we've got it bad imagine being a netball, lacrosse, volleyball, badminton, squash, baseball, table-tennis, fencing, cycling, judo, karate fan?
What coverage do THEY GET?????
Comparatively, we do really rather well!!
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
You have to say that the money spent on Audley was a little cavalier. 100,000 per fight for a novice professional is big potatoes, especially as the BBC doesn't have any advertising revenue, and there is no resale value in those fights (unlike many other programmes they commission), how did they figure to recoup the costs?
That 1 Million could have been better spent commissioning (in my opinion) a good weekly boxing programme, which gave a rundown of the current world scene, how the British fighters fitted into it
I wonder how much the Witter EBU title fight cost, not much more than 100k I bet, and this was a much better example for me, of what the BBC should be showing...
That 1 Million could have been better spent commissioning (in my opinion) a good weekly boxing programme, which gave a rundown of the current world scene, how the British fighters fitted into it
I wonder how much the Witter EBU title fight cost, not much more than 100k I bet, and this was a much better example for me, of what the BBC should be showing...
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
How many of those sports, aside from Tennis, produces the kind of money that boxing does, some of the most lucrative sporting events of all time, in fact, the biggest have been boxing events. The problem with boxing is that it happens at prime time in a time slot where there are far bigger non-sporting draws. Also there isn't enough money in it for the TV company unless it is PPV, and terrestrial TV cannot do that.Loftgroov wrote:We have to take a step back from our position as boxing enthusiasts and just accept that the nature of the game means it can no longer be mainstreamed.
Witter vs Hatton would get less viewers nationally than some Pop Wank shite... that millions of brain-dead arseholes across the country would much rather lap up...
If you think we've got it bad imagine being a netball, lacrosse, volleyball, badminton, squash, baseball, table-tennis, fencing, cycling, judo, karate fan?
What coverage do THEY GET?????
Comparatively, we do really rather well!!
-
Slapsie Maxie
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 794
- Joined: 22 Jun 2004, 08:22
the sad truth is that Boxing is a dying sport. I hate to admit it as I love Boxing with all my heart. I am obsessed with it and its history.
But, while promoters take the piss, while fighters are protected and governing bodies corrupt, the core support will drift away
As for the wider audience, we live in changed times and many now view the idea of two people hitting each other for the entertainment of others to be little better than fox hunting. When I mention going to fights in the office I get treated like I said it was OK to molest a child.
Boxing has a very very bad image. Ask people who they think off when they think of Boxing. Don King? Convicted felon. Tyson, convicted felon. They also believe that, despite its actually pretty good safety record, that fighters are dropping like flys.
Apart from this, while Sky may have kept boxing going, it did take it away from a mass audience. 1/10th of the people saw Naz on Sky as watched him on ITV. He made more money, sure, but lost a lot of his public appeal.
There are also almost no fighters now who could capture the public imagination. Hatton? Possibly. Otherwise, who?
We have to be honest and admit that we are involved with a minority sport these days. The days of 20 mill watching Ali/Forman are gone. Boxing is seen by many as an anacronism, outdated and pointless.
I hope we can recover some ground, but at the moment, Boxing is slipping backwards
But, while promoters take the piss, while fighters are protected and governing bodies corrupt, the core support will drift away
As for the wider audience, we live in changed times and many now view the idea of two people hitting each other for the entertainment of others to be little better than fox hunting. When I mention going to fights in the office I get treated like I said it was OK to molest a child.
Boxing has a very very bad image. Ask people who they think off when they think of Boxing. Don King? Convicted felon. Tyson, convicted felon. They also believe that, despite its actually pretty good safety record, that fighters are dropping like flys.
Apart from this, while Sky may have kept boxing going, it did take it away from a mass audience. 1/10th of the people saw Naz on Sky as watched him on ITV. He made more money, sure, but lost a lot of his public appeal.
There are also almost no fighters now who could capture the public imagination. Hatton? Possibly. Otherwise, who?
We have to be honest and admit that we are involved with a minority sport these days. The days of 20 mill watching Ali/Forman are gone. Boxing is seen by many as an anacronism, outdated and pointless.
I hope we can recover some ground, but at the moment, Boxing is slipping backwards
What exactly does the "kind of money that boxing produces" have to do with anything?jamesmcdonnell wrote:Loftgroov wrote:We have to take a step back from our position as boxing enthusiasts and just accept that the nature of the game means it can no longer be mainstreamed.
Witter vs Hatton would get less viewers nationally than some Pop Wank shite... that millions of brain-dead arseholes across the country would much rather lap up...
If you think we've got it bad imagine being a netball, lacrosse, volleyball, badminton, squash, baseball, table-tennis, fencing, cycling, judo, karate fan?
What coverage do THEY GET?????
Comparatively, we do really rather well!!
How many of those sports, aside from Tennis, produces the kind of money that boxing does, some of the most lucrative sporting events of all time, in fact, the biggest have been boxing events. The problem with boxing is that it happens at prime time in a time slot where there are far bigger non-sporting draws. Also there isn't enough money in it for the TV company unless it is PPV, and terrestrial TV cannot do that.
The BBC has a royal charter, and as such cannot be open to commercial (or political) influence. In theory it should devote as much time to the National Candlestick Carving Championships ..as to boxing, if it believes it will draw an audience.
We like boxing ... most people don't. It's just the way it is, and the society we live in.
Football draws the audiences ...football gets the coverage. If there was no money whatsoever in football, but it still held the most public interest, it would still get covered above all else (BBC coffers permitting)
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
You are talking as if the BBC were a non-profit making organisation, which it isn't. There are many commercial arms of the BBC which make a fortune, such as BBC worldwide, who make a killing selling BBC commissioned programmes from the BBC archives all over the world.
Yes, it has a royal charter, but that governs what it broadcasts live on BBC1 and 2, and BBC radio etc, there are plenty of other areas in which the BBC is able to make money.
Yes, it has a royal charter, but that governs what it broadcasts live on BBC1 and 2, and BBC radio etc, there are plenty of other areas in which the BBC is able to make money.
-
TheRiverCityHippy
- Middleweight
- Posts: 8494
- Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 15:39
there`s a lot boxing can do to help itself.
having a possible nine million champions (to the power of ten) doesnt help boxing when trying to sell itself to the casual sportsfan. i know its unrealistic but if the original eight weights came back and one champ at each weight i reckon the public would take the sport more seriously.
each title fight would become a genuine sporting event worthy of airtime and coloumn inches in the mainstream media, and contenders would have to fight off to get to the number one contender spot instead of the shenanigans that go on nowadaze regarding rankings.
not everyone can win a world title, so other belts like the british, NABF (or any other national title for that matter), commonwealth, european etc. would become very prestigous once again.
the sport of boxing, though brutal, does facinate the general public, but the general public cant be arsed sifting through the shite like we do to try to understand how the land lies, they want their genuine champions on a plate in front of them.
as popular as footy is if there was a possible twenty five prem title holders the public would soon become apathetic.
having a possible nine million champions (to the power of ten) doesnt help boxing when trying to sell itself to the casual sportsfan. i know its unrealistic but if the original eight weights came back and one champ at each weight i reckon the public would take the sport more seriously.
each title fight would become a genuine sporting event worthy of airtime and coloumn inches in the mainstream media, and contenders would have to fight off to get to the number one contender spot instead of the shenanigans that go on nowadaze regarding rankings.
not everyone can win a world title, so other belts like the british, NABF (or any other national title for that matter), commonwealth, european etc. would become very prestigous once again.
the sport of boxing, though brutal, does facinate the general public, but the general public cant be arsed sifting through the shite like we do to try to understand how the land lies, they want their genuine champions on a plate in front of them.
as popular as footy is if there was a possible twenty five prem title holders the public would soon become apathetic.
Bugs,
You were saying that we don't want boxing to turn into WWF, while I as an enthusiast agree - perhaps this is the way forward to bring back mass appeal.
I mean, most of the wrestling fans know it entertainment and yet Vince McMahon creats interest to keep extrodinary high ratings for over 20 years. Alot of the matches are designed to promote a PPV (so the results can be predicted easily) yet, the fans flock and the figures are higher than boxing. Obviously, a lot of the matches are repitive - yet still figures are high.
Admittedly, it took one boxer to reignite the wrestling viewers (Tyson), but I think promoters should start looking at the way McMahon promotes his product. One difference being is that wrestling is choriographed to create guarenteed excitment, whereas I'm even show Vince would struggle to promote Ishmian Abdoul.
You were saying that we don't want boxing to turn into WWF, while I as an enthusiast agree - perhaps this is the way forward to bring back mass appeal.
I mean, most of the wrestling fans know it entertainment and yet Vince McMahon creats interest to keep extrodinary high ratings for over 20 years. Alot of the matches are designed to promote a PPV (so the results can be predicted easily) yet, the fans flock and the figures are higher than boxing. Obviously, a lot of the matches are repitive - yet still figures are high.
Admittedly, it took one boxer to reignite the wrestling viewers (Tyson), but I think promoters should start looking at the way McMahon promotes his product. One difference being is that wrestling is choriographed to create guarenteed excitment, whereas I'm even show Vince would struggle to promote Ishmian Abdoul.