A tribute to Setanta and the Boxing hour.

[DavidPayne]

I dont see the issue of SKY letting Steve talk about fights on other channels, in case you haven't noticed as of January 2010, there will NOT be any fights on other channels.

The dark side has triumphed.

[Chambers2]

I dont see the issue of SKY letting Steve talk about fights on other channels, in case you haven't noticed as of January 2010, there will NOT be any fights on other channels.

Yeah fair point hadn't thought of that, but if ESPN are picking up the Prem packages will they be having a channel in the UK to air them, if so we may get some boxing on that

[My T Sharp]

Great show

Hope it's back on the air soon so that I can hear more about Don Kings Steakhouse.

[Captain Hook]

Thanks for all your efforts Buncey, such a shame this.....

We boxing fans get f*** all.......then when we do it's taken away

Bollocks.....

Yet darts, tennis, snooker, bowls etc are on every hour for weeks on end at certain times of year....

:(

[doctorboxing]

Just want to say thanks for Buncey and Kerr (plus that blonde woman who presented a few weeks back, that made my day!). You guys have done a great job and made the boxing hour the best show on television.

I really hope this show can go on somewhere - Channel 5, Bravo - jesus, I would even subscribe to Red Hot over 40 if it was on it.

[Carbo]

I really hope you're right Steve.

I hope I'm not standing in a bar in twenty years with an as yet unborn son regaling him with tales of yore, telling him how we used to have a boxing magazine show and it would have corporals from the Irish regiment and then Don King, or Barry Hearn. How we used to watch live bills from America and Germany all for one subscription.

In the way so many remind us of how we used to watch McGuigan for free etc. Or how everyone knew who the heavyweight champ was etc.

I don't think you will.

I think, in general, the old media order, whether it be TV channels or newspapers, are being destroyed by the internet.

Newspapers are dying. You can see it in their readership figures and their levels of debt (certainly in the US), because there are all kinds of ways to get that stuff for free online -- including through the online editions of the papers -- and online advertising isn't drawing the revenue to pick up the slack. Plus, most people are interested in only a few areas: why buy the paper just for the sports section, or just for the business section, when for free, in an instant, you can go to three or four websites which specialize in those areas?

The same will go for TV.

Who will want to watch or subscribe to a TV channel that shows stuff in which they're not interested for 90% of the time. Take you, for example, David: " I've watched probably 4 PL games in two years and NEVER watched UFC, SPL, Golf or Tennis," yet you would be willing to pay 10 pounds a month for, say, four or five decent cards from around the world plus some top up highlights and a magazine show.

That's where the internet will come in: TV on demand. It'll be good for you, because your ten or fifteen quid or whatever, and, ultimately, it'll be good for advertisers, because they will be able to precisely target their audience and will be able to tailor their campaigns accordingly.

Who it won't be good for is for those who feel boxing should be free and begrudge paying a penny for it, despite crying about the demise of Setanta. I've never gotten over those who were hunting around like pigs with their snouts in the sh1t for a stream for the Froch -- Taylor fight because they begrudged paying a tenner for it. This money wasn't going to Murdoch's evil empire, it was going to Carl, yet all'y'all were proving once more than your bark is far louder than your bite.

Ultimately, that's why boxing has been tried and tried and tried and failed on just about every platform bar Sky. Viewers. Willingness to pay.

I’ll bet there would be a stack more fight cards available if there were about 20,000 in Britain willing to pay a tenner for the card on a consistent basis – like, say, once a month.

You're all willing to shout, but I'd like to ask you now: What's worse: Paying and receiving all the best boxing? Or babbling like babies about having to pay, hunting for streams, and then ultimately handing a monopoly to Sky's sub-standard coverage?

How do you feel, streamers, non-payers and whingers?

[DavidPayne]

Thanks for all your efforts Buncey, such a shame this.....

We boxing fans get f*** all.......then when we do it's taken away

Bollocks.....

Yet darts, tennis, snooker, bowls etc are on every hour for weeks on end at certain times of year....

:(

Why?

Because the best play the best all of the time and its largely, aside from darts two bodies, run under one umbrella.

Boxing, lets not forget, is its own worst enemey.

[DavidPayne]

I really hope you're right Steve.

I hope I'm not standing in a bar in twenty years with an as yet unborn son regaling him with tales of yore, telling him how we used to have a boxing magazine show and it would have corporals from the Irish regiment and then Don King, or Barry Hearn. How we used to watch live bills from America and Germany all for one subscription.

In the way so many remind us of how we used to watch McGuigan for free etc. Or how everyone knew who the heavyweight champ was etc.

I don't think you will.

I think, in general, the old media order, whether it be TV channels or newspapers, are being destroyed by the internet.

Newspapers are dying. You can see it in their readership figures and their levels of debt (certainly in the US), because there are all kinds of ways to get that stuff for free online -- including through the online editions of the papers -- and online advertising isn't drawing the revenue to pick up the slack. Plus, most people are interested in only a few areas: why buy the paper just for the sports section, or just for the business section, when for free, in an instant, you can go to three or four websites which specialize in those areas?

The same will go for TV.

Who will want to watch or subscribe to a TV channel that shows stuff in which they're not interested for 90% of the time. Take you, for example, David: " I've watched probably 4 PL games in two years and NEVER watched UFC, SPL, Golf or Tennis," yet you would be willing to pay 10 pounds a month for, say, four or five decent cards from around the world plus some top up highlights and a magazine show.

That's where the internet will come in: TV on demand. It'll be good for you, because your ten or fifteen quid or whatever, and, ultimately, it'll be good for advertisers, because they will be able to precisely target their audience and will be able to tailor their campaigns accordingly.

Who it won't be good for is for those who feel boxing should be free and begrudge paying a penny for it, despite crying about the demise of Setanta. I've never gotten over those who were hunting around like pigs with their snouts in the sh1t for a stream for the Froch -- Taylor fight because they begrudged paying a tenner for it. This money wasn't going to Murdoch's evil empire, it was going to Carl, yet all'y'all were proving once more than your bark is far louder than your bite.

Ultimately, that's why boxing has been tried and tried and tried and failed on just about every platform bar Sky. Viewers. Willingness to pay.

I’ll bet there would be a stack more fight cards available if there were about 20,000 in Britain willing to pay a tenner for the card on a consistent basis – like, say, once a month.

You're all willing to shout, but I'd like to ask you now: What's worse: Paying and receiving all the best boxing? Or babbling like babies about having to pay, hunting for streams, and then ultimately handing a monopoly to Sky's sub-standard coverage?

How do you feel, streamers, non-payers and whingers?

But that contradicts the undeniable truth, that had we rejected the notion of subscription sports or pay per view on mass, the sports would still be on terrestrial television.

[Chambers2]

Thanks for all your efforts Buncey, such a shame this.....

We boxing fans get f*** all.......then when we do it's taken away

Bollocks.....

Yet darts, tennis, snooker, bowls etc are on every hour for weeks on end at certain times of year....

:(

Why?

Because the best play the best all of the time and its largely, aside from darts two bodies, run under one umbrella.

Boxing, lets not forget, is its own worst enemey.

Ain't that the truth, last-minute withdrawals (which can't be helped) and constant mismatches really damage the sport, especially the latter IMO

[forcefraser]

Gutted by this. Loved the show.

Buncey was top drawer with his rants, and I think Andy Kerr did a great job alongside him.

Let`s hope they can sort something out on another channel.

[Carbo]

I really hope you're right Steve.

I hope I'm not standing in a bar in twenty years with an as yet unborn son regaling him with tales of yore, telling him how we used to have a boxing magazine show and it would have corporals from the Irish regiment and then Don King, or Barry Hearn. How we used to watch live bills from America and Germany all for one subscription.

In the way so many remind us of how we used to watch McGuigan for free etc. Or how everyone knew who the heavyweight champ was etc.

I don't think you will.

I think, in general, the old media order, whether it be TV channels or newspapers, are being destroyed by the internet.

Newspapers are dying. You can see it in their readership figures and their levels of debt (certainly in the US), because there are all kinds of ways to get that stuff for free online -- including through the online editions of the papers -- and online advertising isn't drawing the revenue to pick up the slack. Plus, most people are interested in only a few areas: why buy the paper just for the sports section, or just for the business section, when for free, in an instant, you can go to three or four websites which specialize in those areas?

The same will go for TV.

Who will want to watch or subscribe to a TV channel that shows stuff in which they're not interested for 90% of the time. Take you, for example, David: " I've watched probably 4 PL games in two years and NEVER watched UFC, SPL, Golf or Tennis," yet you would be willing to pay 10 pounds a month for, say, four or five decent cards from around the world plus some top up highlights and a magazine show.

That's where the internet will come in: TV on demand. It'll be good for you, because your ten or fifteen quid or whatever, and, ultimately, it'll be good for advertisers, because they will be able to precisely target their audience and will be able to tailor their campaigns accordingly.

Who it won't be good for is for those who feel boxing should be free and begrudge paying a penny for it, despite crying about the demise of Setanta. I've never gotten over those who were hunting around like pigs with their snouts in the sh1t for a stream for the Froch -- Taylor fight because they begrudged paying a tenner for it. This money wasn't going to Murdoch's evil empire, it was going to Carl, yet all'y'all were proving once more than your bark is far louder than your bite.

Ultimately, that's why boxing has been tried and tried and tried and failed on just about every platform bar Sky. Viewers. Willingness to pay.

I’ll bet there would be a stack more fight cards available if there were about 20,000 in Britain willing to pay a tenner for the card on a consistent basis – like, say, once a month.

You're all willing to shout, but I'd like to ask you now: What's worse: Paying and receiving all the best boxing? Or babbling like babies about having to pay, hunting for streams, and then ultimately handing a monopoly to Sky's sub-standard coverage?

How do you feel, streamers, non-payers and whingers?

But that contradicts the undeniable truth, that had we rejected the notion of subscription sports or pay per view on mass, the sports would still be on terrestrial television.

But David, how much sports were really on terrestrial TV?

How many live football matches?

How often did they show England cricket matches from abroad? (And, for that matter, (dear God) how many test matches were shown where the afternoon session wasn't interrupted six times for racing coverage?)

How often was the US Open or PGA shown?

How many boxing cards from the US were shown on TV?

Was it really as good for free? Or was it actually relatively sh1tty, but free?

[doug.ie]

you shouldnt have to thank anyone Steve because its been a pleasure being involved in such a fan friendly, interactive show and i'm sure you will be back on our screens soon:box:

i heard you mentioned many times on it mark...you were a great supporter of the show, fair play to you.

[DavidPayne]

Good point Carbs. Not been made, my dad once wrote a poem called "Was it as good as I remember".

Rose coloured glasses are an affliction most of share.

[Carbo]

But that contradicts the undeniable truth, that had we rejected the notion of subscription sports or pay per view on mass, the sports would still be on terrestrial television.

But David, how much sports were really on terrestrial TV?

How many live football matches?

How often did they show England cricket matches from abroad? (And, for that matter, (dear God) how many test matches were shown where the afternoon session wasn't interrupted six times for racing coverage?)

How often was the US Open or PGA shown?

How many boxing cards from the US were shown on TV?

Was it really as good for free? Or was it actually relatively sh1tty, but free?

the BBC have never been able to handle major sporting events as they dont have the air space and have to play to the tastes of everyone. Recently they had the French Open and we got to see next to nothing, at the moment its wimbledon and if you havent got Interactive tv you are stuck with what they show. Both the BBC and C4 were a joke IMO with their cricket coverage that was constantly interrupted to show horse racing which IMO isnt even a sport but just a way to people to make money from gamberling. Boxing however is different and due to its normal late time slot can be shown uninterrupted but just doesnt fit with what the BBC profile so wont be shown until the head of sport is a boxing fan. We all moan at sky because of their Biased approch but when they cover a sport or event they do a very good job and my problem with their boxing coverage is the quality of fights not the actual broadcast which is normally ok. The BBC a few years back showed big American fights the day after the event in the afternoon or evening. I remember seeing Mayorga beat Forset, Pacman beat MAB but missed Oscar - Vargas as they changed the time slot at the last minute and i got Motorbikes. The Beeb need to give up with $hit like the boatrace and show decent sport because all we get from them is Snooker, Bowls, canoeing and F1.

This is an excellent point: namely, that the BBC, ITV et al can't really show everything because they have limited airtime.

The point is, though, that when competing with that, boxing doesn't necessarily have the support needed to get regular coverage. The reason that the boatrace is shown is because it's an event that people actually watch, ergo the bidding war that eventually led to ITV winning the rights.

I, too, remember watching Mayorga-Forrest, Pacman-MAB and DLH-Vargas, and that was actually great, and I think that a magazine show on a friday night when the pubs roll out -- say at 11.30 repeated during, say, Grandstand, with all the big American cards shown on delay would be a decent way for the beeb to go. I think they can pick up a whole bunch of fights that Sky won't buy.

It seems to me though, that whenever competition is brought into the sport, instead of leading to more boxing, it leads to more expensive boxing as promoters are able to start bidding wars for their fight cards. Eventually, it just gets too expensive for one side to maintain and they have to withdraw.

Perhaps, after the BBC splurged a crapload of cash on the crappile that was Audley, they could go the route I suggested. Sky concetrate on the domestic scene and building superstars, but perhaps the Beeb could pick up the delayed broadcast rights to the second tier cards in the US: ie, not Hatton-Pacquiao or Mayweather-Marquez, but those just below the megafight status. There are a heap of decent fights in Germany like that, too. Coupled with a magazine show which already has a hardcore fanbase and would serve to promote the fights, it could work.

Ideas? How much would it cost to buy the likes of Berto-Urango, or the Lightweight Lightning card recently that showcased Katsidis, Valero et al? I'm sure Buncey knows.

PS I thought the C4 cricket coverage was fantastically good, horse racing and all.

[punchers chance]

I'm absolutely gutted about Setanta's demise, :( but many thanks to Steve & Andy for the Boxing Hour.
A great show for the fans. I enjoyed every minute of it - the best show on TV every week.
I think ratings would have been even higher if they could have secured a consistent time slot for the evening repeat too.

Good luck in finding other work guys

[johnswan1]

Have you got the one on the ponytailed lad from Max Boxing too?

The Bunce rant at The Ring online dweeb Doug Fischer was hilarious. Doug was furious about it and writing about it for weeks afterwards in his egotrip mailbag.

Anyway, very best of luck to both Buncey and Andy Kerr. I've got to admit I wasn't a big fan of Bunce initially but his style grew on me over time. Andy was an excellent host and I'm sure he'll do well. It's really awful for British boxing to lose the show and hopefully it will be back before too long.

[Captain Hook]

Thanks for all your efforts Buncey, such a shame this.....

We boxing fans get f*** all.......then when we do it's taken away

Bollocks.....

Yet darts, tennis, snooker, bowls etc are on every hour for weeks on end at certain times of year....

:(

Why?

Because the best play the best all of the time and its largely, aside from darts two bodies, run under one umbrella.

Boxing, lets not forget, is its own worst enemey.

The best play the best at what? I'm aware of why football and certain pub sports are more mainstream but absolutely no boxing will be on terrestrial TV yet virtually every other sport is...even swimming, bowls, skiing........I guess they all have their fans but come on....

I know boxing does itself no favours but this takes the biscuit.

[DavidPayne]

Thanks for all your efforts Buncey, such a shame this.....

We boxing fans get f*** all.......then when we do it's taken away

Bollocks.....

Yet darts, tennis, snooker, bowls etc are on every hour for weeks on end at certain times of year....

:(

Why?

Because the best play the best all of the time and its largely, aside from darts two bodies, run under one umbrella.

Boxing, lets not forget, is its own worst enemey.

The best play the best at what? I'm aware of why football and certain pub sports are more mainstream but absolutely no boxing will be on terrestrial TV yet virtually every other sport is...even swimming, bowls, skiing........I guess they all have their fans but come on....

I know boxing does itself no favours but this takes the biscuit.

All the sports you complain get more consistent exposure than boxing.

They do all have their fans and they also have their regulation, format, schedule and structure absolutely in place.

Imagine snooker where O'Sullivan never played Hendry or Higgins etc.

Television wouldn't bother. And neither would fans. Just look at darts, the game has two houses of players. Divided by SKY money, the best players play each other in the SKY backed one and the remainder slug it out on BBC. But it gets good viewing still because its a simple format, people understand it and its evenly matched.

Boxing has inherent advantages; its dramatic, its pure as a sporting spectacle and simple at its heart. It emotes far more than other sports but its complex in structure, unreliable and prohibitive to most casual viewers.

How does any casual fan recognise the significance of a bout? How does he understand the trajectory of fighters? How do television networks schedule to provide contingency to last minute pull outs. To Danny Williams pulling on Warren two days before his ITV debut. How do they justify Eastman v Beardsley.

Boxing has potential to entertain millions but it does it despite the shackles greed, corruption and short-sightedness has slung on the sport.

Darts shouldn't be a more popular sport than boxing - any fool can see that. But it is because its well organised and well promoted and it keeps it simple.

[Captain Hook]

Keeping it simple is fair enough, and I am aware of the reasons why boxing shoots itself in the foot - I don't need it spelling out to me thanks David :)

That does not mean, like many on here, I can't be frustrated that two channels that had been getting behind boxing - particularly in the last 12 month or so - have pulled the plug. Such a shame, especially as ITV4 was showing good fights and had potential for even better with Froch and possibly a Macklin vBarker match-up soon etc etc.....and the rise of Fury.

But you're right, with promoters putting on rubbish bouts and fighters pulling out - they've taken the piss too many times.

Darts and snooker have been popular for decades and get decent viewing figures. That's to be expected.....doesn't make boxing's small screen demise any less hard to swallow.

[DavidPayne]

Didn't mean to patronise CH, but you did ask, indirectly why boxing isn't on mainstream telly because other niche sports like Skiing, Darts, Snooker are.

I just tried to explain, like most boxing fans it seems were desperate to blame the commercial entities who've tried and failed with boxing.

When in truth, boxing is its own worst enemey.

Look at the simplistic approach Prizefighter has taken and how casual fans have warmed to the concept.

It helps unravel the nuances and cul-de-sacs boxing creates to ostrasice the casual observer.

It isn't the NETWORKS fault if boxing doesn't work. You can argue about time slots, BBC with Audleu and all the other mistakes, but the principle problems are reliability, costs and the administrative, structural CHAOS that is boxing's organising bodies.

[stujones]

David,

I did agree with the view - but I think ITV's dealing with Henessey has made me change my philosophy.

For my money, Henessey has delivered - we have had excellent bills and undercards - yet ITV are still not happy. I have gone into more depth about my opinion on the "ITV pulls the plug" that has now sadly turned into another Bennie vs Dbflex thread.

When Hennesey delievered a top top world title fight, ITV didn't want to know.

[telboy66]

I'm gutted it was the best boxing programe on TV & it would be great if some other Channel could take it on,would be interesting to know what the viewing figures were on average.

[hayebomb]

Excellent show buncey best of luck

[WOODDDDDDDYA]

It was a great show and i always remember Tom Binns being sacked after he said he would like to "give Michael Owen one up the arse" after he scored that goal Against Argentina in the 1998 world cup. I remembe them having some problems with Stan Collymore as wel. It really was a great show and pure cult tv.

I forgot to mention the live show they did in Scotland where Paul Elliott was totally pissed. I know he does alot for 'Kick Racism out of Football' but I couldn't take him seriously after that night.

[WOODDDDDDDYA]

Woody and Davido and Big Mark... you have all been part of the whole Setanta thing.
I've started to put in the calls - ALL fan pressure works. Honest, trust me.

Adios and thanks.

Thanks Buncey, what bugs me the most is the media's attitude to the game. Boxing has somehow become the 'Scientology' of sport where it's treated like porn and the networks won't touch it. At the moment Roy Chubby Brown has got more chance of being shown on the BBC. I think Promoters need to look at themselves and learn from their mistakes and quit all the bullshit matchmaking. It's time to give the public value for money and not all this WBU Intercontinental crap. Why don't they push their fighters into the media more? Have them media trained and develop a personality that will attract attention(ie, David Haye) Boxing is crying out for another Ali or Tyson that will pull the non-boxing audience to the sport. The only good thing if Sky gets all of the Setanta/ITV deals is that they are in the perfect position to force meaningful fights. The days of this fighter is on ITV and can't fight the other guy who is contracted to Setanta would be over. I can't see the Bunce Hour being taken by Sky/ITV/BBC or Channel 5 so the best bet would be something like Bravo where they cover stuff like MMA/UFC & Wrestling. I also think they would encourage Buncey to tell it like it is. If Nuts TV was still around then that would be perfect for the Bunce Hour. I think in the future, Promoters will look to have their own channel where the fights would be on PPV, it makes the most sense.