Sky re-formatting the presenting

[alexpaterson]

Ye I thought Darke did well commontating and Smith did well presenting he does sound as though he is excited all the time and emphasises every word

[opticald]

Ye I thought Darke did well commontating and Smith did well presenting he does sound as though he is excited all the time and emphasises every word

That's exactly why he is an awful commentator. Tries too hard. There seems to be a firecracker up his arse for the duration of the commentary.

[rhino222]

Payne,

Why do you feel the urgent need to hijack my posts to make yourself look clever with your patronising and insults - keep to the thread - see if you can discuss the issues without the insults.

As for costs etc etc you yet again make out you are in the know - when in reality you know nothing more than I do - well thats incorrect too because I have it on very good authority Sky could do this 24/7 if they wanted to and at very little cost to themselves.

Lets just presume I am wrong Payne - I cannot get my head around why you have chosen to open up an old long running feud between us with your insults.

hey spud, last week you were saying how much more laid back you are now and are relaxing....

[whiteboy]

Current Sky build-up shows amount to this:

"Hello, I'm Dave Clarke. There is a fight tonight. The guys have weighed in Ok, we've a snippet from that. Johnny, what do you think?"

"Dave, there's going to be a fight tonight!"

"Time to join Elvis Presley for the introductions."

I just can't see it happening.

let's face, if there not going to be arsed to show a british title fight(s) on the undercard, they're not going to be arsed making a 24/7 are they

[Collins2000]

Payne,

Why do you feel the urgent need to hijack my posts

because you are a braying oaf?

[Collins2000]

Payne - must apologise it included the 3rd line too and in the present climate - it seems you think it is okay to joke in the way you do.

Yet another post I see with yet more saracasim - something you cant seem to avoid.

Spud you live in a fantasy world where boxing is a religion.

Honestly, you'd be an fundamentalist if boxing was denomination of a religion.

I can picture you strapping Alka-Seltzer and Cans of Coke to yourself before heading to a Sports Network weigh in.

Come on. Spudly. That was a funny line.

You do come across as a ranting nutter most of the time.

And when you were a moderator on that other board you DID act like a complete megalomaniac.

You even made your biggest fan Rhino cry!

[stujones]

Sky have tried a similar thing once before. Hatton-Lazcano had a 24/7 style show called At Home with the Hattons in the weeks prior to the fight. For his next fight the format and channel had changed, a chat show on Nuts TV, so I don't think it was a raging success. Any Sky/British version of 24/7 would be absolutely turgid, no offence to our boxers, who have lot to offer but there would be little or no thought, little or no investment and literally no point.

Current Sky build-up shows amount to this:

"Hello, I'm Dave Clarke. There is a fight tonight. The guys have weighed in Ok, we've a snippet from that. Johnny, what do you think?"

"Dave, there's going to be a fight tonight!"

"Time to join Elvis Presley for the introductions."

I just can't see it happening.

I would literally piss myself if he said "your commentators are Jim Watt and Adam Smith and your Mc is Elvis Presley"!.

[chrisfinch]

Something on Sky Sports news would be good, something before the thursday before the fight!! Like a "heres jamie training for his fight" say tomorrow, then the same with ryan on wednesday. 5 mins each played every hour for the course of the day (like all their stories are).

They do that on a Friday. Footage from the weigh-in, interviews etc.

[oliverfennell]

I know nothing of production costs, or anything to do with that. But I don't see why they couldn't do a one hour programme build up, the week before or in the week leading up to it.

Exactly!!!

It seems there are some on this forum who would rather pick holes in my posts rather than discuss boxing and its issues.

I am stating there is no reason expecially financial why a programme or 2 cannot be made!!!

You flatter yourself. People are not picking holes in your post, they're simply telling you your idea is unrealistic, and why. But of course when it doesn't back up your idea, it can onlyu be because of their personal agenda against you.

Film/video production is the most costly and time-consuming of all the media to produce. Just because any bloke with a computer can create a website does not mean any bloke with a video camera can produce a TV show.

And beyond the realities of creating such a show, I also dispute that it would significantly increase audience figures for the fight. For example, I am not a football fan, but I'll watch the World Cup, Euros, etc. I don't watch the Premiership because I don't follow it, and no amount of documentaries about Everton v Birmingham City will make me watch such a match. It's just not on my agenda. Similarly, the average bloke who doesn't follow boxing will watch Hatton or Khan but he won't watch Moore v Rhodes, and a 24/7 doco won't change that, either.

[oliverfennell]

I just want to say I have just received a fit and proper response to the 24/7 idea from someone within Sky TV.

It was a full explanation as to why it would be deemed not a very good idea - I have no problems in accepting that.

The response was not merely a one liner dismissing me out of hand and it did not contain one single line of insult of saracasim.

Thank you

I offered you at least two attempts to explain why it is a non-starter, you were too busy having a hissy fit to respond, though granted an answer from SKY TV is a little more definitive.

But it was still the same.

I found your original post insulting, degrading and disgusting - I have a right to my opinion - and thus you got the varied responses you deserved.

It show your arrogance that you think the response I received was the same as your - not a chance.

Why don't you post this response, then.

David said, without knowing the business, he suspected it would cost too much and would not increase the fight's audience enough to justify it. If he was wrong, then it would genuinely be interesting to hear what Sky's reasoning is.

[Deserter]

I'm willing to organise a whip-round to do a 24-7 on Spud during the build-up to a big fight as it would be utterly compulsive viewing - imagine the tension building as we witness the calls to promoters to see if someone needs a right-hand man/driver/bag carrier. The crucial advice given to the boxer across a crowded room while said fighter has got his earphones in, the tension as he tap-taps away on his laptop making posts that contain killler lines like 'I've been speaking with (insert huge name in boxing world here), and he told me everything... but unfortunately I can't tell you any of it. You'll just have to accept I'm right."
And, of course, the climax... the rematch the world has been waiting to see - Spud Vs Paul King II.
I'm only joking Spud, you know I love ya

[DavidPayne]

I've just finished my eggs benedict and asked Jacobs to call up the forum on my computery jibbertywotsit, thanks awfully to all the good eggs who have supported the hearty jest about the cola cans, I really had begun to wonder whether I'd gone too far, like the time I pushed Tubby Hartley in the Cam.

As for Woollatt of Jersey, no hard feelings old boy.

Yours in excelsia,

David W Payne III
Eton Hogwarts House
Devilliers Drive
Kensington
EL1 T15T

[Carbo]

First, your Moore Rhodes 24/7 idea is risible on several levels:

• HBO don't even produce these for every fight, just for top-of-the-line PPV attractions. Moore Rhodes is about 6 levels below that, I'm afraid. Nobody in America, even in the St Louis, would be that interested in seeing Cintron Spinks 24/7, yet in terms of the stories, personalities, histories and, arguably, quality, they’re more suitable than Moore and Rhodes. Suggesting that Moore and Rhodes would be suitable is indicative of stupidity.
• Second, PPV works best when there’s a mega-fight at the very top of the card. Ideally with charismatic so-called “crossover stars”, or, at the very least, fighters like Shane Mosley or Floyd Mayweather, that the general public “knows” about. That's because this brings in an audience beyond the 'hardcore' boxing fan, and this is necessary for PPV success. This should provide a clue as to the motivation behind the 24/7 series -- the cast the net further out and generate as much interest and buzz as possible -- not from core fans, but casual fans that might get sucked in to paying 50 bucks for a Saturday night’s entertainment.
• Third, PPV, when it works, brings in big bucks. This means that large investments can be tolerated, because they might show a return. The cost of hiring not one, but two filming teams to follow the fighters around -- to fly them around, to feed them, to provide accommodation -- of hiring well known film star Liev Schreiber to do the voice over, to cut it all, to put it together, to write the script, to produce it, and then to promote it will be astronomical -- astronomical. But this is justified, because adding 50,000 PPV viewers onto the totals is worth over USD2 mn. This does not apply to a Sky Friday Night Fights so. Have you any idea how many extra viewers Sky would need to add to the show ratings to justify the costs of a 24/7 type show, even if it was done on the cheap? Clearly not, or you wouldn’t have suggested it.
• Fourth, it is preposterous to think that in three weeks Sky -- or anyone else, for that matter -- would have time to develop and film a show like 24/7. Simply preposterous. They need to think of the concept, which is ready for them, but needs to be adapted to a British context. They need to finalize the format. They need to pitch for money. They need to start hiring a team, including directors, camera men, sound guys, lighting, grips, logistics people, someone to do the interviews, production designers, graphic designers, editors and someone to do the voice over. Then they need to do research on the fighters, speak to people, find out what might be interesting avenues to explore, what are the key questions to ask, etc. That’s before they even start the filming, the process of taking hundreds of hours of footage and trimming it to 45 minutes, the scripting, the voice over, the promotion work. My God! If you think that can be done in three weeks or so, you’re either a grade A buffoon, or someone worth having round to clean my house (no doubt in 12 seconds.)
• Do you think that Sky is good and promoting stuff? For instance, the Premier League coverage is hyped amazingly well – far better than BBC of ITV ever managed. And I do mean far, far better. Their production and promotion is second to none in Britain. Given this fact upon which I think we can all agree, Spud, if a 24/7 style promotion for boxing on Sky was worth it, or even had a glimmer of hope of being worth it, don’t you think Sky would have tried? In fact, given that the far cheaper and far easier to produce Ringside was shelved, what do you think Sky’s experience tells them about boxing shows which don’t involve a live fight?
• Finally, what you need to consider is that… it’s Britain! Americans are naturally great on camera. There is no Mayweather family in British boxing. No Roger to lispily mumble about muddafugging Midwest fighters is the muddafugging best there ever has bin and ever will be. Or Floyd senior to read poetry about how he’s the greatest fighter ever. And I’m sure Jamie Moore’s house is very nice, but he ain’t got a TV in is toilet or a 100 square foot walk in closet. Americans, even working class Americans, are articulate, interested in sharing their emotions and inner thoughts, and confident. Britons are modest, shy on camera, often inarticulate or monosyllabic, and generally far duller subjects than our cousins from across the pond. You watch Sky Sport’s excellent NFL coverage, listen to the articulate, engaging, interesting interviews kids from the ‘hood give after the match and compare it to the kind of interviews Steven Gerrard and John Terry – not to mention Paul Scholes – give after a match.

Without really having read the thread, I would suggest that most of this has been explained to you, but you’re not listening, because of some perceived slight, which brings me on to my second point:

As you demonstrated on a post with me, you consider any argument presented forcefully against one of your views as some kind of personal attack.

I’ve defended you on so many occasions – even after, I might say, an occasion where one quip on Doghouse cost me a torrent of abusive PMs including several which contained threats of violence to my person -- but here I cannot. What Payne was actually doing was complimenting you: he was saying “jeez, Spud, you totally love boxing. But I think that love blinds you to the truth,” which, on a forum populated by boxing anoraks, I think counts as a compliment.

End of post.

[Poncey]

Bulletpoints. Nice.

[DavidPayne]

Carbo, you int half an elitist whatsaname.

[Carbo]

Carbo, you int half an elitist whatsaname.

It's an image I deliberately try to cultivate here.

If the best I can achieve in life is being the Christopher Hitchens of the boxrec forum, then so be it.

[DavidPayne]

Carbo, you int half an elitist whatsaname.

It's an image I deliberately try to cultivate here.

If the best I can achieve in life is being the Christopher Hitchens of the boxrec forum, then so be it.

I'd shoot for Christopher Biggins darling, you may get closer.

[Carbo]

Carbo, you int half an elitist whatsaname.

It's an image I deliberately try to cultivate here.

If the best I can achieve in life is being the Christopher Hitchens of the boxrec forum, then so be it.

I'd shoot for Christopher Biggins darling, you may get closer.

Oh, shit, I sent you a photograph once.

I'm on a diet I tell you! I've changed.

[Carbo]

Carbo, you int half an elitist whatsaname.

It's an image I deliberately try to cultivate here.

If the best I can achieve in life is being the Christopher Hitchens of the boxrec forum, then so be it.

I'd shoot for Christopher Biggins darling, you may get closer.

On second thoughts, can I make an official complaint about Payne's posts?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All he can do is attack other people's views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have my opinion and I'm entitled to it , but Payne has to keep up his constant sniping and personal attacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why did you have to bring this personal feud up again, Payne?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Carbo]

I’ve defended you on so many occasions – even after, I might say, an occasion where one quip on Doghouse cost me a torrent of abusive PMs including several which contained threats of violence to my person -- but here I cannot. What Payne was actually doing was complimenting you: he was saying “jeez, Spud, you totally love boxing. But I think that love blinds you to the truth,” which, on a forum populated by boxing anoraks, I think counts as a compliment.

End of post.

Amour fou...

It was edited, damnit.

Apparently, the rest was to insulting to Spud to be posted before the watershed...

I've been censored. See the violence inherent in the system? Come, everyone, and see me being oppressed!

Poncy Ghent needs to realise that supreme executive power is given by a mandate from the people, not some farcical online ceremony.

[DavidPayne]

It's an image I deliberately try to cultivate here.

If the best I can achieve in life is being the Christopher Hitchens of the boxrec forum, then so be it.

I'd shoot for Christopher Biggins darling, you may get closer.

On second thoughts, can I make an official complaint about Payne's posts?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All he can do is attack other people's views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have my opinion and I'm entitled to it :box: , but Payne has to keep up his constant sniping and personal attacks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why did you have to bring this personal feud up again, Payne?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Carbo, having spoken to some people - you'd be surprised who reads this forum and with who I regularly share giggle - I think your post merits a response.

And I will answer your posts, but I ask this, why can SKY not make a 24/7 about this fight?????!!!! So come on forum lets start a ruck, you'll be surprised who reads this, in fact I've just got a text from someone well known who said "keep it up". And don't forget I once interviewed Danny Williams even though Sports Network didn't want me to.

Oh me and Danny, we had some giggles you know. You'll be surprised who reads this.

[opticald]

I have spoken to a senior member of the Sky sports camp and I have some good information about the 24 7 idea!!!

[Carbo]

Carbo, having spoken to some people - you'd be surprised who reads this forum and with who I regularly share giggle - I think your post merits a response.

And I will answer your posts, but I ask this, why can SKY not make a 24/7 about this fight?????!!!! So come on forum lets start a ruck, you'll be surprised who reads this, in fact I've just got a text from someone well known who said "keep it up". And don't forget I once interviewed Danny Williams even though Sports Network didn't want me to.

Oh me and Danny, we had some giggles you know. You'll be surprised who reads this.

I've suddenly realised how much Spud's language mirrors that used by David Mellor when he used to present 6-0-6 on 5 Live.

Stick your oar in, have a ruck, it's the show they all listen to, red hot soccer chat, I was speaking to [enter football grandee here]....

Now, what's scarier, my memory of Mellor, that comparison, or K-G's wholly unwarranted reference to Adam Smith urinating into Jim Watt's mouth?

[rhino222]

gentlemen, this is the last time i will be leaving this forum, the constant knifing has become too much, im taking a bit of a holiday, i may be back, i may not, you will be surprised who reads this, not sure if i will be back, i am getting a bit fed up of this. you will be surprised who reads this.

[Wales]

Disclaimer: This is not our David Payne, it is a coincidence. I repeat: Payne is not a 'vile, sex predator.'

Maybe not, but he did once ask me to put a hand in a top hat and pull out the hairy floppy thing whilst saying "oompa loompa stick it up my joompa"