2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by whiskey »

A small rant by me.

Image

Whilst across the pond, respected writers such as Thomas Hauser of Maxboxing write about their disdain with HBO and the TV station's attitude to making genuine fights between genuine fighters, here in the UK the average fan is also getting short changed by the TV stations who continue to ignore the fan's calls.

Whilst our American friend's moan (quite rightly) about the cost of their PPV's, at least they have access to them. Us poor Brits miss out on many high profile fights whilst our friends across the pond enjoy regular boxing shows on HBO, ESPN and Showtime each and every month.

The sport of boxing continues to suffer and shrink in the UK as a result of this... and is now reduced to fighting for a slot before or after a UFC card on some obscure satellite channel. It's like our sport is being wrongly pigeon holed. Boxing is an Olympic sport, deep with history and pedigree. The other is a T-shirt selling empire, run by cabbage eared brawlers who spend half their time rolling on the floor.

Whilst I enjoy the odd MMA fight and see how it's characters have lots of adolescent appeal, it will always remain on the same page as American Wrestling and Bodybuilding with the lion's share of it's fans being white, into rock music, tattoo's and machismo. Despite the sport itself having flaws, nobody can argue that the UFC business model is not working. The UFC is growing at an alarming rate with many gyms now offering MMA training sessions and the fashionable Affliction attire being purchased by hundreds of thousands of youths across the globe.

Some of our our leading promoters can certainly look to the UFC and a blueprint for success. The way the UFC website is run, the way the UFC targets males aged 16 - 30 and it's heavy involvement with cash-rich sponsors has catapulted an underground affair to worldwide brand in no time. Despite boxing having a far more interesting and accessible product, the promoter's still fail to sell their wares to the TV execs and casual sport fans.

Whilst I shall give the TV stations a kicking later, the promoter must take a slice of the blame for poor mismatches for alphabet titles over the years. Whilst TV execs have not helped them at times, they need to help themselves, with proper marketing and sponsorship.

But back to TV.

Despite the annual £142.50 we fork out on our TV licence, our national sport is not represented on the BBC in any shape or form. It would seem the toffee nosed 'old boy network' who runs this dinosaur are far keener to splurge our hard-earned on a dull afternoon of rowing or a tedious weekend of horse riding. The average Brit does not care for such tripe.

When I was growing up, my bedroom wall was adorned with Linda Lusardi and Mike Tyson - and certainly not a buck toothed, tweed adorned equestrian champion, nor did I write to Father Christmas and plead for a rowing boat.

Whilst football continues to thrive and have billion's of pounds change hands between TV stations, clubs, player and their fans. Boxing when compared to football, is like a tramp stood next to a Saudi oil prince.

The average British / Lonsdale title defence earns a fighter between £5,000 and £30,000. The reported highest bid for a British title fight was Carl Froch vs Robin Reid for around £120,000 to £140,000 which is split between the holder and the challenger.

That money is paid after months of running, sparring, dealing with injuries, plus the big fight itself which can bring broken bones and cuts after tough rounds of potentially savage action.

Wheras many a Championship level footballer would earn that kind of money in a single week whilst warming the bench - the footballer will not have to then pay his coach/trainer/team a percentage of his purse for their assistance like the boxer will do.

Virgin Money recently concluded following intense research, that the 'average' football fan spends 33 full days per year being a supporter - including travelling to and from matches, watching TV, searching the internet and talking about the game with friends. That equates to approximately 15 hours a week, with several of those hours actually sat enjoying their sport happen.

I'd hazard a guess that boxing fans spend about 15 hours online per week alone, due to the no media coverage , with only around an hour or two a fortnight actually managing to watch any action.

This author knows of hardcore boxing fans who will spend £2500 on travelling to Las Vegas to watch a single fight, which may only last a couple of rounds.

They will spend 2 days alone, simply flying there and back. Domestically they will drive up and down the UK watching appealing fights - and without the luxury of a fan coach to take them, they will pay for their petrol and the heavy price of a decent seat upon arrival at the venue.

Whilst Football will always be the most-supported in numbers, other sports such as Rugby, Golf, Cricket and Tennis also have vast amounts of coverage across SKY, ITV and BBC. The sport of boxing seems to be thought of as being 'poorly supported'.

Yet Ricky Hatton took over 30,000 fans to see him challenge Floyd Mayweather. When you consider that only 6,000 England football fans went to the World Cup in Japan and Korea it kind of makes a mockery of that notion. You'll not see 30,000 follow the cricket or rugby teams - yet one individual boxer alone has that pulling power.

Wheras all of international football, cricket and rugby broadcasts are generally free to air, or part of a monthly subscription package - the poor boxing fan is not only receiving less and less transmissions of their sport, both on an amateur or professional level, but when a decent event is finally televised the boxing fan has to pay over and above for the privilege.

As we begin to enter 'boxing season' again, over the next 30 days we will have only a handful of fights to see. All of which will need to be paid for once and in some cases twice by SKY subscribers.

Whilst we may be afforded the Brook vs Jennings fight as part of our monthly subscription to Sky sports, the meaty David Haye vs Nicolay Valuev fight will be an additional £15 or so on top of your monthly subscription which is difficult to swallow, especially when many of us working class boxing folk are staring at redundancy.

Wheras a football match may always last a minimum of 90 mins of action - a boxing match may last just seconds if an early KO appears. So the true value of a boxing PPV purchase in terms of 'minutes' will never be comparable to football.

The other tasty fight we have happening in the next month or so is the Carl Froch vs Andre Dirrell card at Nottingham Arena on the 17th. In this instance, SKY have not even offered to show this fight despite fans screaming for a means of watching it - and the promoters have had to seek out a new channel, PrimeTime PPV, which will only launch the week beforehand to show this fight.

Froch vs Dirrell is the boxing equivalent of Manchester Utd vs Chelsea and yet despite Froch's last two fights being total thrillers, no station bothered to throw their name into the hat despite multiple email and facebook campaigns with hundreds participating.

Whilst SKY may come in for some stick during this piece, I suppose at least they are still offering the sport of boxing to it's viewers. ITV4 have featured some excellent domestic and European action courtesy of Hennessy Sports, but are rumoured to be leaving the sport after the current deals expires at the end of the year.

It's no surprise, given the media blackout on boxing, that the sport now thrives online. Since national newspapers all but abandoned covering boxing from ringside, it has since barely written a word about it in print. Other than the odd 'soapbox' article from the odd promoter, the national press has all but washed it's hands of boxing and now concentrate on sports that assist their publication sales quota.

Other than the likes of the ever present and hardworking Gareth.A.Davies of the Telegraph, The Guardian's Kevin Mitchell or Ron Lewis of The Times - we have no newspaper coverage at all. Even their valued input is generally assigned to a 'blog' within the newspaper website.

To crystallise the boxing fans' of the last couple of years, we are slowly but very surely, turning into a .com sport. In other words if we want to view footage, see pictures or discuss the sport of boxing, we only have the internet to fall back on. With many of the leading boxing websites run by enthusiasts only, it is a testament to their dedication to boxing that this online culture exists.

If the terrestrial TV companies do not wish to use valuable broadcasting time on boxing, then surely they must consider streaming fights through their websites? The BBC, ITV and SKY all have state of the art media players and transmission software which would enable far more boxing from around the world to be covered and then shown to the .com generation of boxing fans.

If you'd like to air your own opinion's on our sports lack of coverage, then why not spend 3 minutes clicking on the following links and notifying the TV stations concerned. Below are their contact details - it's high time we spoke in numbers folks before our sport vanishes from our TV screens altogether.

This little article, on this little website might only generate a handful of emails to the TV companies, but it is something we all should do as boxing fans before our voices disappear forever.

Following Calzaghe and Hatton's exit from boxing, the second wave of genuine British champions in Haye and Froch, have already run into TV issues. If they lose their forthcoming fights, British boxing will have nobody spearheading the sport whatsoever, so it's important that their exciting fights are seen...and seen by many.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/

http://www.itv.com/contactus/

http://www.skysports.com/contactus/
gasman
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 740
Joined: 20 May 2009, 10:59

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by gasman »

Great rant!
whicker
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4550
Joined: 01 Jan 2008, 01:52

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by whicker »

Their answer seems straight up- they can't afford to show it. Thats that, really.

Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
bigjack
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by bigjack »

whicker wrote:Their answer seems straight up- they can't afford to show it. Thats that, really.

Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
ITV could stop flying in the mc from amarica for each show,have one commentator, have just jim rosenthal introducing the shows and stop having the backstage interviews pre fight,which annoys me and surely must annoy the fighters who will have other things on their mind,if it meant just basically showing the fights without all the hype surrounding it then that would be better than nothing, and also i'd be willing to pay a small fee to view shows
banjo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 26454
Joined: 20 Nov 2007, 03:17

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by banjo »

I think that MC is actually based here.
whiskey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11956
Joined: 27 Mar 2007, 14:52

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by whiskey »

Tom Treiber is employed by Hennessy, not ITV.
Adamj1987
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5400
Joined: 14 Oct 2008, 16:16

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Adamj1987 »

whicker wrote:Their answer seems straight up- they can't afford to show it. Thats that, really.

Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
product placement
Poncey
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7525
Joined: 21 May 2007, 07:48

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Poncey »

G0mez wrote:Tom Treiber is employed by Hennessy, not ITV.
And he's Canadian, not American?

Anyway, we've had a good run. Could be worse. We could be America.
Eraserhead
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 554
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 18:46

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Eraserhead »

Yeah, we get it. All of us care and desperately want to watch boxing on television every single minute of the day. Unfortunately, when we step outside the Boxrec forum, that is no longer the case with the wider population.

I'm sure the many dwellers in the lacrosse forums are writing the same letters and having the same heated debates. It doesn't mean they're right.
jizzle
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 392
Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 13:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by jizzle »

whicker wrote:Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
Loads of ways. Unfortunately the current crop of promoters have been unprofessional, delivered shoddy product and relied too heavily on TV for money and promotion.

From BBC to ITV to Five; all the broadcasters have wanted boxing to work. Maybe, just maybe, we should be pointing the finger at the promoters and NOT the broadcasters.

Scandalous, I know!
The_Don1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1139
Joined: 15 Feb 2008, 07:32

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by The_Don1 »

jizzle wrote:
whicker wrote:Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
Loads of ways. Unfortunately the current crop of promoters have been unprofessional, delivered shoddy product and relied too heavily on TV for money and promotion.

From BBC to ITV to Five; all the broadcasters have wanted boxing to work. Maybe, just maybe, we should be pointing the finger at the promoters and NOT the broadcasters.

Scandalous, I know!
re: pointing fingers at promoters, I fail to see what Hennessy has done wrong during his time on ITV4, he's always provided them with good quality match ups for genuine titles, yeah there have recently been a few flaws in his undercards (but that may have something to do with the fact their giving him the boot) but prior to that his undercards have always been good, Hennessy has done a great job with the ITV4 coverage and its a real shame they aren't giving him the opportunity to continue.

Same goes with the Carl Froch issue, he was involved in one of the fights of the year last year for a genuine world title in which he triumphed on prime time (well post-11pm anyway) national TV, but that's still not good enough for them for them to continue showing him, I can't see what else Hennessy could have done to impress ITV.
ArtOfWar
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1253
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 11:54

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by ArtOfWar »

Eraserhead wrote:Yeah, we get it. All of us care and desperately want to watch boxing on television every single minute of the day. Unfortunately, when we step outside the Boxrec forum, that is no longer the case with the wider population.

I'm sure the many dwellers in the lacrosse forums are writing the same letters and having the same heated debates. It doesn't mean they're right.
Exactly. Boxing is simply a minority sport, and at the top level it's a high priced minority sport both for the fans and tv companies.
jizzle
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 392
Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 13:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by jizzle »

The_Don1 wrote:
jizzle wrote:
whicker wrote:Anyone think of ways in which it could be viable?
Loads of ways. Unfortunately the current crop of promoters have been unprofessional, delivered shoddy product and relied too heavily on TV for money and promotion.

From BBC to ITV to Five; all the broadcasters have wanted boxing to work. Maybe, just maybe, we should be pointing the finger at the promoters and NOT the broadcasters.

Scandalous, I know!
re: pointing fingers at promoters, I fail to see what Hennessy has done wrong during his time on ITV4, he's always provided them with good quality match ups for genuine titles, yeah there have recently been a few flaws in his undercards (but that may have something to do with the fact their giving him the boot) but prior to that his undercards have always been good, Hennessy has done a great job with the ITV4 coverage and its a real shame they aren't giving him the opportunity to continue.

Same goes with the Carl Froch issue, he was involved in one of the fights of the year last year for a genuine world title in which he triumphed on prime time (well post-11pm anyway) national TV, but that's still not good enough for them for them to continue showing him, I can't see what else Hennessy could have done to impress ITV.
I would hazard a guess that he overcharged for his product, vastly over-valued his boxers and overpaid for fights for the smaller shows.

I would also say that, other than the Froch shows, he hardly put on spectacles. I mean he could barely muster crowds for the smaller shows. A half empty York Hall doesn't make great television.
The_Don1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1139
Joined: 15 Feb 2008, 07:32

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by The_Don1 »

.[/quote]

I would hazard a guess that he overcharged for his product, vastly over-valued his boxers and overpaid for fights for the smaller shows.

I would also say that, other than the Froch shows, he hardly put on spectacles. I mean he could barely muster crowds for the smaller shows. A half empty York Hall doesn't make great television.[/quote]

it may be that he overcharged for his product, I don't know, but he did put on some good shows during his time on ITV4 Thaxton-Mezzache, O'Donnell-Watson, all of John Murray's 3 fights, Williams-Sonowski to name put a few were all good fights, I think you're being a bit over-critical here.
jizzle
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 392
Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 13:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by jizzle »

The_Don1 wrote:.
I would hazard a guess that he overcharged for his product, vastly over-valued his boxers and overpaid for fights for the smaller shows.

I would also say that, other than the Froch shows, he hardly put on spectacles. I mean he could barely muster crowds for the smaller shows. A half empty York Hall doesn't make great television.[/quote]

it may be that he overcharged for his product, I don't know, but he did put on some good shows during his time on ITV4 Thaxton-Mezzache, O'Donnell-Watson, all of John Murray's 3 fights, Williams-Sonowski to name put a few were all good fights, I think you're being a bit over-critical here.[/quote]

Maybe. But there must be a reason why every broadcaster enters boxing with a positive attitude and a willingness to work and then leave as if they have been giving a kicking. For me, it lies with the promoters. After all, UFC seem to be doing something right and it's a similar sport. Maybe he didn't deliver what he said he would?
DavidPayne
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6248
Joined: 11 Mar 2004, 11:00

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by DavidPayne »

Could you argue its easier for the US to show higher profile weekly/monthly shows simply due to the greater talent pool? Not per head, but volume wise there are more recognised names fighting in the US than here.
Maelstrom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 425
Joined: 30 Nov 2007, 19:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Maelstrom »

I am sorry Gomez.... but I believe you are way off mark. And if I am being honest, I would not be surprised if Hennessy dictated that to you.

Boxing is a business, it really is that simple. ITV are under no obligation whatsover to show it. Would you if it lost you money?

All the talk about whether Hennessy did a good job or not is moot. At the end of the day, it wasn't good enough to pay for itself.

A lot of people in important positions at TV stations actually like boxing. They also like to be involved in the sport, sitting ringside and mixing with fighters. But they are always up against as many people who feel the polar opposite and when the sport is losing money, they have no chance.

There are many points I don't agree with.. these are just a few:

1) Boxing in not our national sport. Is it even in our top 5?
2) Froch-Dirrell is not Chelsea-Man United. If you are looking for a football analogy it is more like Chelsea-Spurs. But you cannot compare it to football. If it is like anything, it is like St Helens-Widnes or Sussex-Kent in 50/50.
3) The fact a small minority spend fortunes on boxing is irrelevant. I would pay to travel and watch opera, but I wouldn't expect it to be on prime time TV
4) The decline in boxing's popularity has more to do with the promoters than the broadcasters. Look how many have tried it: BBC, ITV, ESPN, Five... only Sky have made it last significantly.
5) Why has UFC become the target for boxing? It is really that popular? I dont think it is as popular as boxing. It has increased in popularity, but was starting from a small base....
danfoster
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 651
Joined: 02 Feb 2009, 05:07

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by danfoster »

positive, constructive, insightful and informative as ever, Ant.

i continue to be impressed by your illuminating posts and am grateful that you are able to donate the time to educate us 'ordinary' boxing fans.
Datsue
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Datsue »

danfoster wrote:positive, constructive, insightful and informative as ever, Ant.

i continue to be impressed by your illuminating posts and am grateful that you are able to donate the time to educate us 'ordinary' boxing fans.
I think you have just become my new favourite poster.
SteveDow
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1800
Joined: 25 Aug 2009, 20:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by SteveDow »

Good comments Gomez.

As a massive boxing fan and someone who attends about 5 shows a year plus pays for a lot more on TV, it is clear that boxing fans are hit both financially and in terms of actually being able to watch the sport at all. These factors jeopardise the further popularity and accessibility of boxing to a new generation of fans which adds up to a bleak future. Here's my take on it:

1. The cost of tickets to big fights in the UK is astronomical. Just as one example, I went to the David Haye v Enzo Maccarinelli fight and paid £165 for good lower tier seats square on to the ring. However, the seats a couple of yards in front were £300 and for outer ringside they were £500. Inner ringside were £750 to £1,100. I found similar issues when attending Calzaghe v Manfredo and Calzaghe v Kessler fights at the Millenium Stadium. By comparison, I am going to Germany for the Haye v Valuev fight and have paid just over 50 Euros for similar seats, lower tier, almost square on to the ring.

The point I am making here is that attending the sport in the UK is becoming unaffordable to the normal fan. For many people, the only seats that are reasonably priced are ones right at the back of the arena where the view is terrible. This then will have a negative impact on attendances and damage the following of particularly the younger boxers. If you are a hardcore fan then you are prepared to splash out a high percentage of your weekly wage on going to shows but for fans who are not hardcore the prices are prohibitively high which means that very few children attend fights anymore as their parents cannot afford to take them. This will be detrimental in the longer term.

2. As Gomez states, most big fights nowadays are PPV or on internet streams with only Sky showing the sport consistently. This takes away a huge potential terrestrial audience and means that even our best fighters like Carl Froch and David Haye are relatively unknown outside their local areas and the boxing community. For example, I was chatting with my friend who is a big sports fan but not really a big boxing fan. When I told him I was attending the Haye v Valuev fight to see Haye challenge for the WBA title he said he didn't even know the fight was on and had barely heard of Haye! Can you imagine this reaction in the 1980's when fighters like Bruno were challenging? No. And the reason is obviously because todays fighters do not have the profile due to lack of TV exposure.
Deserter
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6439
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 10:01

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Deserter »

SteveDow wrote:Good comments Gomez.

As a massive boxing fan and someone who attends about 5 shows a year plus pays for a lot more on TV, it is clear that boxing fans are hit both financially and in terms of actually being able to watch the sport at all. These factors jeopardise the further popularity and accessibility of boxing to a new generation of fans which adds up to a bleak future. Here's my take on it:

1. The cost of tickets to big fights in the UK is astronomical. Just as one example, I went to the David Haye v Enzo Maccarinelli fight and paid £165 for good lower tier seats square on to the ring. However, the seats a couple of yards in front were £300 and for outer ringside they were £500. Inner ringside were £750 to £1,100. I found similar issues when attending Calzaghe v Manfredo and Calzaghe v Kessler fights at the Millenium Stadium. By comparison, I am going to Germany for the Haye v Valuev fight and have paid just over 50 Euros for similar seats, lower tier, almost square on to the ring.

The point I am making here is that attending the sport in the UK is becoming unaffordable to the normal fan. For many people, the only seats that are reasonably priced are ones right at the back of the arena where the view is terrible. This then will have a negative impact on attendances and damage the following of particularly the younger boxers. If you are a hardcore fan then you are prepared to splash out a high percentage of your weekly wage on going to shows but for fans who are not hardcore the prices are prohibitively high which means that very few children attend fights anymore as their parents cannot afford to take them. This will be detrimental in the longer term.

2. As Gomez states, most big fights nowadays are PPV or on internet streams with only Sky showing the sport consistently. This takes away a huge potential terrestrial audience and means that even our best fighters like Carl Froch and David Haye are relatively unknown outside their local areas and the boxing community. For example, I was chatting with my friend who is a big sports fan but not really a big boxing fan. When I told him I was attending the Haye v Valuev fight to see Haye challenge for the WBA title he said he didn't even know the fight was on and had barely heard of Haye! Can you imagine this reaction in the 1980's when fighters like Bruno were challenging? No. And the reason is obviously because todays fighters do not have the profile due to lack of TV exposure.
They are good points Steve, but as others on here have already pointed out (great post by Maelstrom in particular), a large part of the blame lies with promoters. In business terms the general standard of product served up and customer service that accompanies it has been very poor, whether that's ridiculously high ticket prices for poor seats or undercards stacked with mismatches.
So much of boxing's pain has been self-inflicted...
Spud
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Spud »

Maelstrom wrote:There are many points I don't agree with.. these are just a few:

1) Boxing in not our national sport. Is it even in our top 5?
2) Froch-Dirrell is not Chelsea-Man United. If you are looking for a football analogy it is more like Chelsea-Spurs. But you cannot compare it to football. If it is like anything, it is like St Helens-Widnes or Sussex-Kent in 50/50.
3) The fact a small minority spend fortunes on boxing is irrelevant. I would pay to travel and watch opera, but I wouldn't expect it to be on prime time TV
4) The decline in boxing's popularity has more to do with the promoters than the broadcasters. Look how many have tried it: BBC, ITV, ESPN, Five... only Sky have made it last significantly.
5) Why has UFC become the target for boxing? It is really that popular? I dont think it is as popular as boxing. It has increased in popularity, but was starting from a small base....
I will always beat the drum for boxing but alas your point 4 is starting to very sadly ring very true indeed - there are many many people on here who have stated for the last few years that the promoters need to work together to get the bigger and more interesting fights on - in my opinion its still not happening.

A lot of mistakes have been made - its time some promoters were humble enough to admit that and its definitely time to rectify things otherwise we will back firmly to the days of the small hall shows - and whether people laugh at me or not this time around boxing has the EBF or semi professional shows to compete with and they are packing in audiences of 600+ - solely down to there are real competitive fights on albeit the standards are a lot lower. Gone are the days where the punter will pay to watch a boxer go into the ring to get a predictable win - the punter wants to see a scrap not watch paint dry!!!

For me this is the most testing time boxing has seen in recent times.
SteveDow
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1800
Joined: 25 Aug 2009, 20:05

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by SteveDow »

Totally agree about the promotors shooting themselves in the foot with the fights they put on.

Maybe part of the problem is the fact that, in the past when the economy was in a healthier state and people had more disposable cash, promoters like allegedly regularly sold out venues by putting on fights with awful undercards. The most obvious example of this for me was the Calzaghe v Manfredo bill at the Millenium Stadium which attracted 35,000 people and had not one competative fight on the bill. This success may have encouraged fellow promoters to do the same. Times were different then however and in this economic climate people want more value for their money and will not accept paying over the odds to see substandard shows.

The other problem of course is that promoters naturally want to maximise profits for their bigger fighters. This then makes them reluctant to put the fighters on the same show for fear of losing out on revenues from other shows. Usually this means that the fans suffer as they only get a couple of half decent fights on each show at most. For example, Mick Hennessy could have put the John Murray v John Thaxton fight on the undercard of the Froch v Dirrell bill as the fights are only a couple of weeks apart. However, he chose not to do this to maximise gate revenues and as a result the undercards for both shows are poor.
Deserter
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6439
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 10:01

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by Deserter »

SteveDow wrote: Maybe part of the problem is the fact that, in the past when the economy was in a healthier state and people had more disposable cash, promoters like allegedly regularly sold out venues by putting on fights with awful undercards.
It's a good point, and ironically maybe should give us hope. As if we accept the state of the economy means this is no longer viable, promoters may be forced to offer up better product, better service etc to get through this. Much like many businesses, boxing will experience a turbulent time, but, depending on the response of promoters, could come out leaner and in better shape as a result.
Clearly there's significant risk attached to this though.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45235
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: 2009, the final year for free terrestial TV boxing

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

ArtOfWar wrote:
Eraserhead wrote:Yeah, we get it. All of us care and desperately want to watch boxing on television every single minute of the day. Unfortunately, when we step outside the Boxrec forum, that is no longer the case with the wider population.

I'm sure the many dwellers in the lacrosse forums are writing the same letters and having the same heated debates. It doesn't mean they're right.
Exactly. Boxing is simply a minority sport, and at the top level it's a high priced minority sport both for the fans and tv companies.
Yes that's the size of it, boxing may be popular for one off massive PPV events - but generally speaking, most people in this country don't give a rat's arse about boxing.

In addition, boxing struggles to attract big name sponsors and advertisers aren't queuing up to have their products placed either side of a sport where someone might get bludgeoned into unconsciousness.

If the fighters and promoters are looking for money that the broadcasters cannot afford to pay, then something has to give - either the broadcasters say no, or people have to downgrade their expectations of what they should be earning.

The top boys of the sport are sucking most of the money out of the machine, and not putting anything back. They are dining from a small pot with a shovel for a spoon, whilst everyone else is left to get their hands on whatever is left in a desperate scramble.

If the figures don't add up, it is boxing which will suffer.
Post Reply