The BBC's response to the Cuban TV Coverage..........

Coconut · Post by **Coconut** » 14 Apr 2005, 04:23

Fair play on the Hatton front - they may not have the card but they're not pretending that no boxing exists outside of the BBC. Something SKY have done with lots of sports in the past. I appreciated that, actually, thought it showed a bit of class - interest in the wider sport rather than pure commercial interest - what the BBC should be about, anyway...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Apr 2005, 05:30

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Tarquin Tarpaulin IV wrote:
Did you actually read the Beeb's bloke response? Because it was in a general sports show so they felt it important to set the context, ie more yap and less action than the obsessive fight fan would want.
There's some merit in that argument but who other than an obsessive fight fan would want to see Steve Bunce interview Andy Lee? The Cuban documentary, yes, fine, a bit of studio chat fine.................but why have Ricky Hatton in the studio to promote his SKY TV fight?

Having worked in the media I know that thinking on your feet is par for the course and sometimes it's difficult making things come together to suit everyone but it seems the 'why, oh why' gun has been aimed at the Beeb for it's boxing coverage for many years and sometimes the excuses, any excuses wear a bit thin!

Back to the point raised in your response Ian. I can't think of any sporting event where the scene setting so greatly outweighs the action, can you?
I think for your general sports fan an interview with Andy Lee is worthy because if there wasn't much background offered on him it would be Andy Who? when they saw the action...and he is one of the most special out there and a definite future pro champ.

As for having Hatton on...the Beeb can't seem to win with this one! I remember when the footy was nicked from them and they were criticized for neglecting coverage, flashing results up without warning, etc, basically spoiling the coverage for the other channels. Surely it's of interest to the sport in general to get Hatton some terrestrial air time?

I didn't actually see the Cuban coverage so I'm in the dark a bit. But about scene setting outweighing the action...if you are talking about the Beeb, horse racing is a classic. Four hours of fornicating build up for the Grand National and plenty for every other racing card they have.

I didn't generally have a problem with the coverage, hell, I don't even follow amateur boxing that much, I'm glad for the scene setting myself, and I think it is naive to think that a sport which has become as marginalised as boxing can be broadcast without context. It's different with professional boxing, there is more chance that some of the viewers know who they are.,

As for Hatton appearing on the Beeb, I thought that was a nice touch, and Hatton makes for intelligent comment, he comes across as thoughtful and articulate and has an opinion, another who some day down the line would make a good pundit.

The grand national Ian is probably a bad example, it's a one-off and a social occassion to boot, and is the biggest horse race of the year.

It's a bit like the interminable 5 hour build up to Leonard v Hearns. I remember waiting up with my mates to watch it years ago, we all got stoned and after waiting up for hours and hours (the programme started at 10.00 pm, and we didn't realise the fight was at like 5 in the morning), fell asleep and missed the whole bloody thing. They were interviewing everyone even remotely connected with both fighters.

"Bob, you once served Tommy candy floss when he visited the detroit motor show....what was he like."
"He had big hair."
"thanks Bob."

"Next, we speak to a lady who once trod on Tommy the Hitman Hearns' toe and lived to tell the tale.......right after this commercial....."

ZZZZZzzzZZZZZzzzzZZZZ

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 14 Apr 2005, 06:04

OK, the Grand National is probably a bad example. Every other time they have horse racing as a separate programme then.

J · Post by J » 14 Apr 2005, 06:11

horse racing is fornicating shite.

why we have to have two out of the four terrestial channels coveirng that bent "sport" I will never know.

channel 4 and the beeb cover the same frigging races why?

doesnt happen in any other "sport". Its crap, i'd gladly take a fornicating gun to all those involved, its been the bane of my fornicating life waiting for the rugby coverage to start since i was young kid.

it sux. immeasurably.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Apr 2005, 06:20

Sadly we are a nation of inveterate gamblers, and thus horse racing is big fornicating business....personally I find it incredibly tedious along with motor racing and superbikes.

I'd rather watch bowls, darts, cricket or even curling!

J · Post by J » 14 Apr 2005, 06:26

Not only that its crooked as all hell.
as has been proven you would think people would have the common snese to back out of something thats stinks so bad, I mean boxingf has had its moments but never anything as bad as what has been proven against racing.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Apr 2005, 07:23

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
silkov wrote:The coverage was incompetent and crap! simple as that!. If they were so short of time why not shut Bunce and Inverdale up for 20 mins and fit in more fights and show them in full!.
Far too much yap and not enougth action!.
Did you actually read the Beeb's bloke response? Because it was in a general sports show so they felt it important to set the context, ie more yap and less action than the obsessive fight fan would want.

Yes I read it (I can read!) and it's just a copout... I know the BBC is dumbing down but do they have to have a half hour of explanatory chat before each different sport is shown?. To make such a statement in the first place shows the BBC's general ineptness in covering sport in general and especially boxing.
They just haven't got a clue!.

steve68 · Post by **steve68** » 14 Apr 2005, 09:48

seem to presume that people watching a certain sport haven't seen it before. I don't watch the snooker anymore because i'm sick of Taylor, Virgo and Thorne stating the obvious. Be interesting to find out how many former sportsmen/women are employed by the BBC to give us their 'expert opinons'. Waste of money IMO.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Apr 2005, 09:54

Snooker had pretty much unbroken blanket coverage for the best part of 15 years though, between 1980 and the mid 1990's snooker players were some of the most high profile sports people in the country. Higgins (alex), White, Hendry, Davis, Taylor, etc were all massive sports stars. Even now the Snooker still gets three major tournaments a year where most of the major games are shown, or is it four, World Champs, Grand Prix, the Masters, and Embassy UK championship.

There's something reassuring about having ex-players as commentators, and provided they are good at what they do, I think they bring a lot to the sport.

Tarquin Tarpaulin IV · Post by **Tarquin Tarpaulin IV** » 14 Apr 2005, 11:00

Sorry Ian, your comparison with horse racing simply doesn't cut it. The vast majority of people who watch Horse racing look for tips, inside information etc., not just to see half a ton of dog food racing against each other. Boxing is different, people tune in to watch the fights.

There are some TV programmes that require a big build up, cooking for example...............this is the mad aass chef and this is where he was born, where he learnt his craft and how he was influenced..blah, blah, blah......here's what to buy, here's how to prepare it, cook it..............and hey presto........this is what it looks like! (The last bit usually takes 20 seconds)And here's Anthony Worral Thomson to give some class and credibilty to the programme!!

That's what Sundays coverage of the boxing was like. Yes, it was good to see Ricky Hatton on terrestrial TV, yes it showed a common sense approach to the fact that boxing is universal but all the preperation, all the bumph was hugely imbalanced, the cooking analogy turned on it's head in my view............

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 14 Apr 2005, 15:37

Tarquin Tarpaulin IV wrote:Sorry Ian, your comparison with horse racing simply doesn't cut it. The vast majority of people who watch Horse racing look for tips, inside information etc., not just to see half a ton of dog food racing against each other. Boxing is different, people tune in to watch the fights.

There are some TV programmes that require a big build up, cooking for example...............this is the mad aass chef and this is where he was born, where he learnt his craft and how he was influenced..blah, blah, blah......here's what to buy, here's how to prepare it, cook it..............and hey presto........this is what it looks like! (The last bit usually takes 20 seconds)And here's Anthony Worral Thomson to give some class and credibilty to the programme!!

That's what Sundays coverage of the boxing was like. Yes, it was good to see Ricky Hatton on terrestrial TV, yes it showed a common sense approach to the fact that boxing is universal but all the preperation, all the bumph was hugely imbalanced, the cooking analogy turned on it's head in my view............

Aye, you're probably right about horse racing. Well, I know that when I stopped betting on it regularly over a decade ago my interest suddenly waned... 8)

But what if the build up was done WELL? The Yankees do it well, of course. I agree with you though - the action should take precedence.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 14 Apr 2005, 15:39

silkov wrote:
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
silkov wrote:The coverage was incompetent and crap! simple as that!. If they were so short of time why not shut Bunce and Inverdale up for 20 mins and fit in more fights and show them in full!.
Far too much yap and not enougth action!.
Did you actually read the Beeb's bloke response? Because it was in a general sports show so they felt it important to set the context, ie more yap and less action than the obsessive fight fan would want.
Yes I read it (I can read!) and it's just a copout... I know the BBC is dumbing down but do they have to have a half hour of explanatory chat before each different sport is shown?. To make such a statement in the first place shows the BBC's general ineptness in covering sport in general and especially boxing.
They just haven't got a clue!.

Sorry pal, didn't want to appear harsh. Think I'd just spent half an hour on a forum populated by mugs and was getting sick!

Yes, they need to sort out an equitable balance...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Apr 2005, 18:17

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
silkov wrote:
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Did you actually read the Beeb's bloke response? Because it was in a general sports show so they felt it important to set the context, ie more yap and less action than the obsessive fight fan would want.
Yes I read it (I can read!) and it's just a copout... I know the BBC is dumbing down but do they have to have a half hour of explanatory chat before each different sport is shown?. To make such a statement in the first place shows the BBC's general ineptness in covering sport in general and especially boxing.
They just haven't got a clue!.
Sorry pal, didn't want to appear harsh. Think I'd just spent half an hour on a forum populated by mugs and was getting sick!

Yes, they need to sort out an equitable balance...

Obviously, I mean for the Beeb man to suggest that because the boxing was on during a 'general sports program' there was a need for an explanatory 40 mins of inane chat interspersed with brutalised highlights really makes me laugh, is he serious?.... if he is then the BBC is in a worse state than I thought. Are we to expect these explanatory chats before each different sport?. And if this was the case shouldn't the beeb find someone better to explain things to us than Bunce and Inverdale!... and without a doubt! Woodhall!.