Following on from the locked thread regarding streams for tonight's fight, perhaps we should have a serious discussion about whether you should watch illegal streams or not.
I called the people asking for links leeches. I genuinely feel that the people who come on here slating the state of British Boxing, but then don't support it - even when there is a fight they want to watch - are hypocrites.
The only way boxing is going to improve on Sky, is if they think more people want it. Anything else is counterproductive.
The argument that it is OK to watch feeds and not fork out the monthly, because of the quality of fights, holds no water for me:
1) If you don't like the quality of fights in general and dont want to fork out, tough. You will have to miss out. Unlike the BBC, at least this choice is given to you.
2) The quality of fights coming up isn't actually that bad. Clearly many of you were interested in tonight's event. Next week is Morrison-Daws and a decent prizefighter is on the way. Also next week is Mayweather - and it isn't on Pay Per View!
3) The payment isn't just for boxing. If that is the only sport you like it is unfortunate, but again you have the choice.
Your are entitled to vote with your pennies, I am all for consumer sovereignty. But when you take your support away but then watch the fights anyway, something is wrong.
Incidentally, I noticed that Sky ran a nice vignette tonight showing how they had supported boxing for 15 years. I am sure many of you will come on saying how they killed the sport etc. but I don't agree. If you want to blame anyone for that, look to the promoters taking advantage of the broadcaster's support.
Consider the names Sky have been associated with:
Bruno, Naz, Eubank, Benn, Hatton, Calzaghe..........
That is saying nothing of the support they have given to small hall, grass roots boxing.
No, I don't work for Sky, but I just think that sometimes they are underappreciated.
There are numerous posts on here about getting the BBC involved, mailing ESPN and so on.
How about backing the one ever present we have had in the sport for a decade and a half, instead of watching the coverage they pay for, illegally?
If there was more demand for boxing, do you not think they would push for better and better content. They don't want a monopoly by one promoter, it is not in their interest. If they have scaled down coverage in recent years, it is because interest has scaled down - and that is partly down to you leeches.
I am sure new internet broadcasting models will develop - one of online PPV's and so forth. But Sky will be a the forefront of this. They are here to stay, so how about we cut them some slack? Does anybody here agree?
Should we back Sky?
Should we back Sky?
Last edited by Maelstrom on 11 Sep 2009, 18:40, edited 1 time in total.
-
damianhucker1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3071
- Joined: 20 Sep 2008, 17:36
Re: Should we back Sky?
IM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THIS . BESIDES STREAMS ARE USUALLY SO POOR QUALITY ITS DIFFICULT TO WATCH . IF MORE PEOPLE SUBSCRIBE FOR SKY AND MAKE A POINT OF IT BEING FOR BOXING SOMEHOW , THEN MAYBE THEY MIIGHT EVEN INVEST SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK INTO BOXING , EVERYONE KNOWS THEY SHOW FOOTBALL AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WATCH THE FOOTY KNOW THEY NEED TO SUBSCRIBE TO SKY , THE SAME SHOULD APPLY TO BOXING
-
hitman_hatton1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 6150
- Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 20:57
Re: Should we back Sky?
no sky and not much boxing on tv over these last 15 yrs.
just wish they'd use the financial muscle they have a buy up some more american action.
and demand better on the domestic scene.
should be in for this super 6 tournament as well.
i can't wait to see froch put in his place.
don't begrudge me of seeing it u c*nts.
just wish they'd use the financial muscle they have a buy up some more american action.
and demand better on the domestic scene.
should be in for this super 6 tournament as well.
i can't wait to see froch put in his place.
don't begrudge me of seeing it u c*nts.
Re: Should we back Sky?
Well said mate. I abhor some of sky's tricks and the presentational 'integrity' is awful, but they are the only ones supporting British boxing right now.
The line up over the next few weeks is excellent. I'm on board.
The line up over the next few weeks is excellent. I'm on board.
Re: Should we back Sky?
If they don't show Froch-Dirrell mate, I don't think it is Sky you should be blaming.hitman_hatton1 wrote:no sky and not much boxing on tv over these last 15 yrs.
just wish they'd use the financial muscle they have a buy up some more american action.
and demand better on the domestic scene.
should be in for this super 6 tournament as well.
i can't wait to see froch put in his place.
don't begrudge me of seeing it u c*nts.
-
Quixall
- Heavyweight
Re: Should we back Sky?
The quality of fights isn't, in the main, very good........So, no, people won't pay !!
We don't have the quality of fighters around anymore. We don't have a Lewis, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Hatton, Calzaghe, who is anywhere near world level. We have Froch, whose limitations will be shown pretty quickly, Haye, who is exciting but unproven at heavyweight and Amir Khan.......enough said on that !!
The fights like Mayweather - Marquez are far and very few these days. Boxing has been charging too much for very little quality, for far too long and in this current economic climate, people are leaving their money in their pockets. The promoters and manages are to blame, because they are expecting top dollar money for poor quality fights, hence itv3 and it4 puling out of boxing. If the promoters were more realistic with their finances, more tv companies would look towards promoting and broadcasting boxing.
If you think that Sky would put more money into it's coverage, if more people paid the subscription, then your very naive. People only subscribe for the football and movies and all the advertisements around that pay for all the rest of the less popular tv channnels and sports, including boxing. Sky sports puts on a spit and sawdust coverage, because it's showing poor quality fights. The days of Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Calzaghe, Bruno etc etc are gone. Thre is no-one with box office appeal to replace them.......end of
We don't have the quality of fighters around anymore. We don't have a Lewis, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Hatton, Calzaghe, who is anywhere near world level. We have Froch, whose limitations will be shown pretty quickly, Haye, who is exciting but unproven at heavyweight and Amir Khan.......enough said on that !!
The fights like Mayweather - Marquez are far and very few these days. Boxing has been charging too much for very little quality, for far too long and in this current economic climate, people are leaving their money in their pockets. The promoters and manages are to blame, because they are expecting top dollar money for poor quality fights, hence itv3 and it4 puling out of boxing. If the promoters were more realistic with their finances, more tv companies would look towards promoting and broadcasting boxing.
If you think that Sky would put more money into it's coverage, if more people paid the subscription, then your very naive. People only subscribe for the football and movies and all the advertisements around that pay for all the rest of the less popular tv channnels and sports, including boxing. Sky sports puts on a spit and sawdust coverage, because it's showing poor quality fights. The days of Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Calzaghe, Bruno etc etc are gone. Thre is no-one with box office appeal to replace them.......end of
Re: Should we back Sky?
I'd pay to watch a stream, say £4.99 for a legit, legal stream.
Re: Should we back Sky?
£4.99 for an internet stream of domestic boxing?whicker wrote:I'd pay to watch a stream, say £4.99 for a legit, legal stream.
-
damianhucker1
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3071
- Joined: 20 Sep 2008, 17:36
Re: Should we back Sky?
I DISAGREE .CARL FROCH , AND DAVID HAYE HAS BOX OFFICE APPEAL AND WILL BE A BIG MONEY MAKER FOR SKY IF THEY MAKES A FEW GOOD WINS AND ARE MARKETED CORRECTLY WHICH IM SURE THEY WILL BE , A LOT RESTS ON HAYES NEXT FIGHT THOUGH . PLUS WE HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHERS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY DO WELL , KELL BROOK ETC ALONG WITH AMIR KAHN OF COURSE , ITS ALL ABOUT GETTING THE PUBLIC TO LIKE THEM ETC . I AT THE MO WOULD SUBSCRIBE JUST ON THOSE NAMES ALONES COS WHERE ELSE WILL YOU SEE THE BEST BRITAINS GOT ????Quixall wrote:The quality of fights isn't, in the main, very good........So, no, people won't pay !!
We don't have the quality of fighters around anymore. We don't have a Lewis, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Hatton, Calzaghe, who is anywhere near world level. We have Froch, whose limitations will be shown pretty quickly, Haye, who is exciting but unproven at heavyweight and Amir Khan.......enough said on that !!
The fights like Mayweather - Marquez are far and very few these days. Boxing has been charging too much for very little quality, for far too long and in this current economic climate, people are leaving their money in their pockets. The promoters and manages are to blame, because they are expecting top dollar money for poor quality fights, hence itv3 and it4 puling out of boxing. If the promoters were more realistic with their finances, more tv companies would look towards promoting and broadcasting boxing.
If you think that Sky would put more money into it's coverage, if more people paid the subscription, then your very naive. People only subscribe for the football and movies and all the advertisements around that pay for all the rest of the less popular tv channnels and sports, including boxing. Sky sports puts on a spit and sawdust coverage, because it's showing poor quality fights. The days of Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Calzaghe, Bruno etc etc are gone. Thre is no-one with box office appeal to replace them.......end of
BUT TO SAY THERES NO ONE
-
Quixall
- Heavyweight
Re: Should we back Sky?
Answer me this......damianhucker1 wrote:I DISAGREE .CARL FROCH , AND DAVID HAYE HAS BOX OFFICE APPEAL AND WILL BE A BIG MONEY MAKER FOR SKY IF THEY MAKES A FEW GOOD WINS AND ARE MARKETED CORRECTLY WHICH IM SURE THEY WILL BE , A LOT RESTS ON HAYES NEXT FIGHT THOUGH . PLUS WE HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHERS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY DO WELL , KELL BROOK ETC ALONG WITH AMIR KAHN OF COURSE , ITS ALL ABOUT GETTING THE PUBLIC TO LIKE THEM ETC . I AT THE MO WOULD SUBSCRIBE JUST ON THOSE NAMES ALONES COS WHERE ELSE WILL YOU SEE THE BEST BRITAINS GOT ????Quixall wrote:The quality of fights isn't, in the main, very good........So, no, people won't pay !!
We don't have the quality of fighters around anymore. We don't have a Lewis, Hamed, Benn, Eubank, Hatton, Calzaghe, who is anywhere near world level. We have Froch, whose limitations will be shown pretty quickly, Haye, who is exciting but unproven at heavyweight and Amir Khan.......enough said on that !!
The fights like Mayweather - Marquez are far and very few these days. Boxing has been charging too much for very little quality, for far too long and in this current economic climate, people are leaving their money in their pockets. The promoters and manages are to blame, because they are expecting top dollar money for poor quality fights, hence itv3 and it4 puling out of boxing. If the promoters were more realistic with their finances, more tv companies would look towards promoting and broadcasting boxing.
If you think that Sky would put more money into it's coverage, if more people paid the subscription, then your very naive. People only subscribe for the football and movies and all the advertisements around that pay for all the rest of the less popular tv channnels and sports, including boxing. Sky sports puts on a spit and sawdust coverage, because it's showing poor quality fights. The days of Lewis, Hamed, Hatton, Calzaghe, Bruno etc etc are gone. Thre is no-one with box office appeal to replace them.......end of
BUT TO SAY THERES NO ONE
If Carl Froch has "box office appeal", why did no tv station in this country show his fight with Jermain Taylor live ?? This is Jermain Taylor we are talking about.......Carl Froch has zilch box office appeal....
I just proved it !!
Also, Kell Brook is for the future. He is'nt at world level yet and so also does'nt command an audience. You should check the ppv figures for Amir Khan before stating that he has box office appeal. The figures for his last fight are pretty poor. He will sell out the stadia where he is fighting, but not on tv, where it's presented as pay per view
Re: Should we back Sky?
I think this is getting slightly off the point of the argument.
Whether the big names are around or not, there is still coverage to be offered.
If you don't think that coverage is good enough, then fair enough, don't pay the subscription and vote with your feet.
But then DONT go and watch that very coverage illegally.
And Quixall, on your point about being naieve...... I know exactly the model Sky work to.
If they believe there is a potential audience to be captured and drive new subscribers, they will go after them - yes by offering the quality required.
Sky made a decision last year to buy spit and sawdust boxing at a maxiumum of British Title level, because:
1) Subscriptions were down
2) Promoters wanted ridicolous fees for above British Title fights
In short, spit and sawdust boxing was all they could justifying offering effectively to a falling subscriber base.
If you dont think Sky are looking, every day, for new ways to drive subscriptions, the naievety is not over here.
The point of their vignette tonight was to let us subscribers, (yes not the justin.tv viewers), that we should stick around. Why else would they secure the Mayweather rights.
Whether the big names are around or not, there is still coverage to be offered.
If you don't think that coverage is good enough, then fair enough, don't pay the subscription and vote with your feet.
But then DONT go and watch that very coverage illegally.
And Quixall, on your point about being naieve...... I know exactly the model Sky work to.
If they believe there is a potential audience to be captured and drive new subscribers, they will go after them - yes by offering the quality required.
Sky made a decision last year to buy spit and sawdust boxing at a maxiumum of British Title level, because:
1) Subscriptions were down
2) Promoters wanted ridicolous fees for above British Title fights
In short, spit and sawdust boxing was all they could justifying offering effectively to a falling subscriber base.
If you dont think Sky are looking, every day, for new ways to drive subscriptions, the naievety is not over here.
The point of their vignette tonight was to let us subscribers, (yes not the justin.tv viewers), that we should stick around. Why else would they secure the Mayweather rights.
-
Quixall
- Heavyweight
Re: Should we back Sky?
I know where you coming from.......Maelstrom wrote:I think this is getting slightly off the point of the argument.
Whether the big names are around or not, there is still coverage to be offered.
If you don't think that coverage is good enough, then fair enough, don't pay the subscription and vote with your feet.
But then DONT go and watch that very coverage illegally.
And Quixall, on your point about being naieve...... I know exactly the model Sky work to.
If they believe there is a potential audience to be captured and drive new subscribers, they will go after them - yes by offering the quality required.
Sky made a decision last year to buy spit and sawdust boxing at a maxiumum of British Title level, because:
1) Subscriptions were down
2) Promoters wanted ridicolous fees for above British Title fights
In short, spit and sawdust boxing was all they could justifying offering effectively to a falling subscriber base.
If you dont think Sky are looking, every day, for new ways to drive subscriptions, the naievety is not over here.
The point of their vignette tonight was to let us subscribers, (yes not the justin.tv viewers), that we should stick around. Why else would they secure the Mayweather rights.
I think the problem is the cost of boxing at the minute and the promoters are to blame, because they are charging too much for fights, which have to be passed on to the consumer. I think you answered your own question, when you said that Sky's reason for showing spit and sawdust fights, was falling subscriptions and you have to ask the question "why were they falling......."
I would say :
1. Not enough quality fights around
2. Promoters choking the sport through offering expensive finacial packages to tv/sports networks
It;s a bit like itunes. People ripped off cd's because they were too expensive, not because they did'nt want to pay for music. That monopoly was broken by piracy and the consequence of that is the more people willing to pay for music at a reasonable price.
-
opticald
- Heavyweight
Re: Should we back Sky?
Useless discussion.
Streams will be watched regardless. A post on a message board won't change anyones mind. If I had no access to sky and a stream was available you would expect me not to watch? I'm not made of money pal. I'll be watching streams regularly (and have been) and I think you'd be surprised to hear of some of the high profile people who regularly watch streams.
Streams will be watched regardless. A post on a message board won't change anyones mind. If I had no access to sky and a stream was available you would expect me not to watch? I'm not made of money pal. I'll be watching streams regularly (and have been) and I think you'd be surprised to hear of some of the high profile people who regularly watch streams.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 23092
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Should we back Sky?
they followed up their compilation of 15 years of great nights with a seamless link to lenny daws-barry morrison!
Re: Should we back Sky?
Sky Sports is actually good value for money if you watch more than just boxing like I do so I have no problem with it.
However I rarely ever buy PPV because a) Most PPV events are at stupid o'clock in the morning and I'll probably fall asleep and lose out and b) the meaningful fights are replayed in full on the following wednesday/thursday for normal viewing cost with the added bonus of not listening to that gurning Thomas The Tank Engine lookalike and his merry men for hours on end.
However I rarely ever buy PPV because a) Most PPV events are at stupid o'clock in the morning and I'll probably fall asleep and lose out and b) the meaningful fights are replayed in full on the following wednesday/thursday for normal viewing cost with the added bonus of not listening to that gurning Thomas The Tank Engine lookalike and his merry men for hours on end.
Re: Should we back Sky?
Fine.. pal. But I am afraid you therefore surrender your right to comment on the quality of boxing in Britain.opticald wrote:Useless discussion.
Streams will be watched regardless. A post on a message board won't change anyones mind. If I had no access to sky and a stream was available you would expect me not to watch? I'm not made of money pal. I'll be watching streams regularly (and have been) and I think you'd be surprised to hear of some of the high profile people who regularly watch streams.
Re: Should we back Sky?
Promoters are at the heart of this. I was interested to read that the rights to the FA Community Shield were bought for £250,000. Now if you're a TV exec and you have the choice of buying something like that or you have a promoter asking for 4-500k for Froch v Dirrell, how long would you have to take before making your decision????
Re: Should we back Sky?
What Maelstrom says.Maelstrom wrote:Fine.. pal. But I am afraid you therefore surrender your right to comment on the quality of boxing in Britain.opticald wrote:Useless discussion.
Streams will be watched regardless. A post on a message board won't change anyones mind. If I had no access to sky and a stream was available you would expect me not to watch? I'm not made of money pal. I'll be watching streams regularly (and have been) and I think you'd be surprised to hear of some of the high profile people who regularly watch streams.
Re: Should we back Sky?
Sorry, superheavyweight, but that is one of the worst posts I have ever seen on Boxrec. It just doesn't make sense.Superheavyweight wrote:True, and technically we should let Africans starve to death, financially that’s fair but you’re hardly going to get Sky on basis of ‘if there’s a free stream available’.
Morally people in Africa shouldn't be left to starve.
Morally you shouldn't choose to not pay for something and then watch it illegally.
Re: Should we back Sky?
Yes, I have. But I paid for it on I-Tunes.
And besides, even if did, I wouldn't then come on a forum and complain about the quality of music on offer.
And besides, even if did, I wouldn't then come on a forum and complain about the quality of music on offer.
Re: Should we back Sky?
You are missing the point.
A lot of people who came on here asking for links to the free stream last night, are precisely those who moan about the state of British Boxing.
How is going to get any better if, even when there are fights on they don't want to watch, they wont pay for them?
A lot of people who came on here asking for links to the free stream last night, are precisely those who moan about the state of British Boxing.
How is going to get any better if, even when there are fights on they don't want to watch, they wont pay for them?
Re: Should we back Sky?
Because the price for watching domestic boxing is too high for the amount of boxing content they actually show.
Setanta offered a good deal for what they showed. £10 a month and they had big international fights, some domestic stuff and some good euro stuff - as soon as I had it, do you honestly think I looked at a stream again? Better quality, frequent replays, no stuttering and no changing stream when someone's girlfriend wants to watch E! Tonight
Setanta offered a good deal for what they showed. £10 a month and they had big international fights, some domestic stuff and some good euro stuff - as soon as I had it, do you honestly think I looked at a stream again? Better quality, frequent replays, no stuttering and no changing stream when someone's girlfriend wants to watch E! Tonight
Re: Should we back Sky?
Utter bullshat.
I was a longtime subscriber who got tired of an ever decreasing standard, lowered output and a blatant disdain towards the one thing I was paying good money for!
Sorry, but I'm not going to 'not moan about the standard of boxing', simply because there happened to be one fight which represented a speck of H2O in the desert being served up to me. I'm perfectly happy to pay for box office events in order to support the sport, but I will not pay a monthly fee for slim pickings.
Sky simply doesn't show enough of the sport to justify an argument not to watch streams, you cannot be party to the best of the sport without resorting to them. The money I used to pay Sky now goes to a stable stream provider and I have no moral qualms about it whatsoever. Show me a channel which gives a damn about the sport (like Setanta) and I'll pay through the teeth... piss on me and tell me it's raining (your Sky argument), and I'll proceed to the nearest stream.
I was a longtime subscriber who got tired of an ever decreasing standard, lowered output and a blatant disdain towards the one thing I was paying good money for!
Sorry, but I'm not going to 'not moan about the standard of boxing', simply because there happened to be one fight which represented a speck of H2O in the desert being served up to me. I'm perfectly happy to pay for box office events in order to support the sport, but I will not pay a monthly fee for slim pickings.
Sky simply doesn't show enough of the sport to justify an argument not to watch streams, you cannot be party to the best of the sport without resorting to them. The money I used to pay Sky now goes to a stable stream provider and I have no moral qualms about it whatsoever. Show me a channel which gives a damn about the sport (like Setanta) and I'll pay through the teeth... piss on me and tell me it's raining (your Sky argument), and I'll proceed to the nearest stream.
-
opticald
- Heavyweight
Re: Should we back Sky?
lol Maelstrom is acting as if Sky have been giving us the best fights for years and deserve loyalty. Does he not know their history? 
Re: Should we back Sky?
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, no-one is forcing you to pay.....fluxstuff wrote:Because the price for watching domestic boxing is too high for the amount of boxing content they actually show.
Setanta offered a good deal for what they showed. £10 a month and they had big international fights, some domestic stuff and some good euro stuff - as soon as I had it, do you honestly think I looked at a stream again? Better quality, frequent replays, no stuttering and no changing stream when someone's girlfriend wants to watch E! Tonight
And you get a lot more than just boxing by the way.
But if you do opt out, you are a hypocrite to then watch it illegally and are actively preventing the sport from improving.
I cannot put it more obviously than this...........
All you lot might not think that a meal in a West End restaurant is worth £50 a head.
Therefore you choose not to pay.
You don't then go into that restaurant, eat a meal, and run off without paying the bill.