Ringside!

[Finn]

I thought that they were good at asking haye the questions we wanted to hear answers too.

So its either chag or povetkin then.

[Andypittcov]

Ringsides been fantastic the last few weeks but the best part of tonights show was the lovely Miami background.

[Chris W 1982]

Decent show but what was it's relevance to the current boxing climate?

Haye's opponent is yet to be confirmed so why spend time with the man in the beautiful Miami sun?

No Gavin-Lomax, Olubawimo-McDermott, Donaire-Montiel previews

No extensive coverage from Gary Mason's funeral

No reaction to Anthony Crolla's awesome win over John Watson

No news on big April 2nd show that features Cleverly-Braehmer and possibly Murray-Mitchell.

A decent show overall but one can't help thinking that it was nothing more than a Sky TV jolly

[Finn]

Decent show but what was it's relevance to the current boxing climate?

Haye's opponent is yet to be confirmed so why spend time with the man in the beautiful Miami sun?

No Gavin-Lomax, Olubawimo-McDermott, Donaire-Montiel previews

No extensive coverage from Gary Mason's funeral

No reaction to Anthony Crolla's awesome win over John Watson

No news on big April 2nd show that features Cleverly-Braehmer and possibly Murray-Mitchell.

A decent show overall but one can't help thinking that it was nothing more than a Sky TV jolly

i think they have to appeal to all fans and to be fair im a haye fan so it was something i wanted to see. The boxing brothers show didnt really have alot to do with the current boxing scene but it was a good watch, neither did last weeks great show about boxing injuries.

I think they cover all bases well with the show.

[hurlock]

Decent show but what was it's relevance to the current boxing climate?

Haye's opponent is yet to be confirmed so why spend time with the man in the beautiful Miami sun?

No Gavin-Lomax, Olubawimo-McDermott, Donaire-Montiel previews

No extensive coverage from Gary Mason's funeral

No reaction to Anthony Crolla's awesome win over John Watson

No news on big April 2nd show that features Cleverly-Braehmer and possibly Murray-Mitchell.

A decent show overall but one can't help thinking that it was nothing more than a Sky TV jolly

well said kidda :!: it's all to do with box office
but atleast smith was probing.

haye seems like he allready is retired :!:

[Final round]

Decent show but what was it's relevance to the current boxing climate?

Haye's opponent is yet to be confirmed so why spend time with the man in the beautiful Miami sun?

No Gavin-Lomax, Olubawimo-McDermott, Donaire-Montiel previews

No extensive coverage from Gary Mason's funeral

No reaction to Anthony Crolla's awesome win over John Watson

No news on big April 2nd show that features Cleverly-Braehmer and possibly Murray-Mitchell.

A decent show overall but one can't help thinking that it was nothing more than a Sky TV jolly

well said kidda :!: it's all to do with box office
but atleast smith was probing.

haye seems like he allready is retired :!:

That did seem a bit .like a retrospective look back on his career discussing what he'd achieved and why certain fights didn't happen.
David didn't come across like a fighter hell bent on destroying his opposition more like he can't wait until his final two fights are over with...

[chrisfinch]

Awful programme this week. After the really good programmes the last couple of weeks it was a shocker. Smith and Nelson asking the same questions we've ehard before, Haye giving the same answers he always does. Smith really should have pressed him when he asked about his recent quality of opponents, but instead just settled for whatever Haye said. Just a bit of a jolly up for a couple of the Sky crew in Miami, money that would have been better spent on Donaire v Montiel.

For all the improvement Sky's boxing has been this season, stuff like this episode of Ringside and the whole Haye v Harrison debacle undoes the vast majority of that.

[earsjohn]

Awful programme this week. After the really good programmes the last couple of weeks it was a shocker. Smith and Nelson asking the same questions we've ehard before, Haye giving the same answers he always does. Smith really should have pressed him when he asked about his recent quality of opponents, but instead just settled for whatever Haye said. Just a bit of a jolly up for a couple of the Sky crew in Miami, money that would have been better spent on Donaire v Montiel.

For all the improvement Sky's boxing has been this season, stuff like this episode of Ringside and the whole Haye v Harrison debacle undoes the vast majority of that.

What nonsense. Like it or not Haye is the biggest name in British boxing and the biggest news in British boxing is the mooted Haye v Wlad fight. Sky don't cater for the 15-20 of us on here who watch nothing but boxing and could tell you the reach and punch stats of any of the top 25 in each weight division. They are a commercial organisation who cater for the large majority of boxing fans (ie those who know Haye, Khan, Froch, Pacquaio and that's about it). Following two specialist shows (the Brothers and the Watson/Ingle/Oliver show), a lowest common denominator episode is surely forgivable?

And as for asking the same questions and giving the same answers, I'm not sure you were actually listening. Haye on a number of occasions talked about how the Harrison fight was not about quality but about (paraphrasing) the event. The Ruiz fight was his mandatory - there was no getting round that one. His next fight is a mandatory and it looks likely to be either Chagaev or Povetkin and we heard his views on both guys. As he said, the PPV numbers support this. There was also the interesting bit in the gym where Adam was saying "OK, why don't you take 48 or 47% if its about money?" (regarding the Wlad fight). Haye gave an elusive, but honest response (basically, why should he concede all the ground). He was also pressed on why not Vitali and again gave an honest response that was previously unheard (ie, he wants Wlad more - he's the one mouthing off and he's the one considered the number 1 in the division).

[Final round]

They would have been better off joining him in camp when he signs for his next fight.
Showing training, sparring his ups and downs etc. last night was just Dave on his hols not caring about boxing which is of course what a man should be doing on holiday

[bfchunk]

I was happy with the show, but having two consecutive "special" shows isn't the best idea, as it's then three weeks for a regular update show. They should have put a regular show on last night and the Haye special next week.

[chrisfinch]

And as for asking the same questions and giving the same answers, I'm not sure you were actually listening. Haye on a number of occasions talked about how the Harrison fight was not about quality but about (paraphrasing) the event. The Ruiz fight was his mandatory - there was no getting round that one. His next fight is a mandatory and it looks likely to be either Chagaev or Povetkin and we heard his views on both guys. As he said, the PPV numbers support this. There was also the interesting bit in the gym where Adam was saying "OK, why don't you take 48 or 47% if its about money?" (regarding the Wlad fight). Haye gave an elusive, but honest response (basically, why should he concede all the ground). He was also pressed on why not Vitali and again gave an honest response that was previously unheard (ie, he wants Wlad more - he's the one mouthing off and he's the one considered the number 1 in the division).

Oh, I was. He has said a million times that the Harrison fight was about money and the event, not quality of opponent. And that he wants to Wlad cos its the fight 'the people want to see' and it is Wlad that has been trying to wind him up. You must have been living under a rock if you thought he said anything new regarding the Klitschko's or Harrison. Smith had a couple of chances to really quiz Haye, but just pandered along to him, while Nelson-who I usually rate as Sky's best regular pundit-spent the entire hour sucking Haye's cock.

I'm sure 'the people' would rather seem him fight Vitali than neither of them at all, which unfortunately is what is most likely happening now. The problem is Haye has got no interest in fighting Vitali, and the brothers would rather Haye fight Vitali. It's going nowhere, and won't while both sides are being stubborn.

I'm still a Haye fan, and for the most part I enjoy Honestly I thought it was a waste of a show. I would have understood it if they had a Haye PPV fight to currently sell, but they don't. There is other boxing going on both here, and worldwide they could have spoken about on a typical edition of Ringside this week.

Where's Froch's special one hour episode, eh?

[Glyn Leach]

Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.

I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.

Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.

[bfchunk]

Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.

I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.

Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.

Got to agree with the point here that there are way many people "on mic" on their shows at present. When you break down how long some of them actually speak for it is crazy.

[Final round]

Glyn that McGuigan/Nelson virtual Haye/Harrison virtual top trumps game may have been shite but it was more memorable than the main event for sheer spectacle.
i thought the lads were going to strip down to underpants and start wresting at one point..I know UFC get away with it but not in my sport!

[chrisfinch]

Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.

I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.

Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.

I really do agree with this. Take the recent huge numbers of people involved in their broadcasts. Like Bob Mee. He seems a nice fellow, and obviously knows his boxing, but honestly what is the point in having him if all he is gonna do is read out the rules at the start of the fight (something Rawling/Smith could easily do) and give us his scorecard occasionally. This isn't a knock at Bob, just the way they use him. If you are having him on, why not make more use of him? And Richie Woodhall with whoever the reporter is that night. Again, I think he's a great analyst-but is it worth heading to him at the start and end of fights, and a couple of times in between? Have him on commentary, and properly-not just talking once every few rounds when Rawling asks him something. At the end of the day, if you are not getting enough analysis from two co-commentators, and a couple of pundits that you need Richie in his current role, something is obviously wrong with that analysis.

I've no problem with the 3-man commentary teams the likes of HBO and Showtime use, because each person's role in that team is clearly defined, they know their role and when to talk. If you gave Richie, or Bob, or Spencer Oliver that third role, and gave them the license to talk more, I think that could be a positive development. With Sky at the minute it just seems a case of sticking as many people as possible on a show, and hoping we get some coherent analysis from it.

And as you say, people watch boxing for the boxing, not the presentation. I just feel the money they spent on sending a team to Miami to hear Haye give his stock answers for 60 minutes could have been better spent on a US fight or two-say Donaire v Montiel, that ok, many casuals wouldn't watch at 5am, but they would watch the replay the next day at 9am, or over lunchtime. I dunno, perhaps I'm too harsh-I feel that Smith sort of has the right ideas, but I don't think they are being executed in the best possible way.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn that McGuigan/Nelson virtual Haye/Harrison virtual top trumps game may have been shite but it was more memorable than the main event for sheer spectacle.
i thought the lads were going to strip down to underpants and start wresting at one point..I know UFC get away with it but not in my sport!

Can't argue with that mate, the card was appalling. For a 15 quid boxing PPV there was precious little boxing, all the planning seemed to go into the presentation. Arse about face IMO (but thankfully not Barry and Johnny's arses in my face!).

[P4P#1]

Glyn that McGuigan/Nelson virtual Haye/Harrison virtual top trumps game may have been shite but it was more memorable than the main event for sheer spectacle.
i thought the lads were going to strip down to underpants and start wresting at one point..I know UFC get away with it but not in my sport!

Made me lol this

[Buncey]

Earlier in this thread there was a massive review of what should have been on SKY this week and the two British title fights and Tyson Fury against the Brazilian Beast was not mentioned...what's going on?
By the way, on Premier this Saturday there will be four members of the 3.5 hour broadcast.

Adios.

[earsjohn]

Sky certainly seem to be spending a lot of money on themselves since Adam took over — probably inevitable when you give a 'talking head' a big budget to play with. Not only this jaunt to Miami, but they've had eight and nine people 'on mic' at recent live shows, when most networks don't use more than five, and often only three. Perhaps they're trying to find the right blend, they are certainly blooding new presenters, but the impression I'm left with is that they're spending money on themselves that could be spent on the real product, which is boxing.

I'm all for high quality broadcasts, don't get me wrong, but I wonder if there's a fundamental difference in opinion as to what sells boxing best. After Haye-Harrison and it's piss poor undercard and 'talent'-heavy broadcast, Adam stated that he thought bringing 'the big guns' like Lennox and Hatton into the studio, and the silly McGuigan-Nelson video game, was the way to go with that show. I disagree. Personally, I believe good matches sell boxing better than anything else. Surely people tune into a boxing show to watch boxing, not the presenters. Who justifies who? Without the boxing, there'd be no need for the presenters.

Maybe this is a teething period though, a 'growing up in public' of the broadcasts on the way to finding the right balance. The Smith regime is still relatively new, after all. But it's hard to accept the arguments that Sky can't spend more on fights because of existing contractual obligations when you see the amount they're spending on 'talent' at the moment.

I really do agree with this. Take the recent huge numbers of people involved in their broadcasts. Like Bob Mee. He seems a nice fellow, and obviously knows his boxing, but honestly what is the point in having him if all he is gonna do is read out the rules at the start of the fight (something Rawling/Smith could easily do) and give us his scorecard occasionally. This isn't a knock at Bob, just the way they use him. If you are having him on, why not make more use of him? And Richie Woodhall with whoever the reporter is that night. Again, I think he's a great analyst-but is it worth heading to him at the start and end of fights, and a couple of times in between? Have him on commentary, and properly-not just talking once every few rounds when Rawling asks him something. At the end of the day, if you are not getting enough analysis from two co-commentators, and a couple of pundits that you need Richie in his current role, something is obviously wrong with that analysis.

I've no problem with the 3-man commentary teams the likes of HBO and Showtime use, because each person's role in that team is clearly defined, they know their role and when to talk. If you gave Richie, or Bob, or Spencer Oliver that third role, and gave them the license to talk more, I think that could be a positive development. With Sky at the minute it just seems a case of sticking as many people as possible on a show, and hoping we get some coherent analysis from it.

And as you say, people watch boxing for the boxing, not the presentation. I just feel the money they spent on sending a team to Miami to hear Haye give his stock answers for 60 minutes could have been better spent on a US fight or two-say Donaire v Montiel, that ok, many casuals wouldn't watch at 5am, but they would watch the replay the next day at 9am, or over lunchtime. I dunno, perhaps I'm too harsh-I feel that Smith sort of has the right ideas, but I don't think they are being executed in the best possible way.

Maybe I'm playing Devils advocate a little too much here, but I try to look at this with a sense of realism. As great a fight as Donaire v Montiel is, it remains very niche. Even a repeat showing on sunday morning is not going to draw in viewers in their droves. It is a fight for the likes of us internet warriors, but the vast majority of the Sky boxing viewing public will never have heard of either guy, let alone know that they are fighting in a mouth watering clash on saturday. On the other hand, every man and his dog knows David Haye. Therefore a Ringside special with David Haye from a glamour location is going to draw in a bigger audience. Bigger audience means higher ad revenues.

An ideal world would see 5 hours of live action each week from across the world, with no analysis, just the entire programming time being spent on showing fights with one man, say Ed Robinson, being used to introduce the fights and a commentary team of two to cover the fights. An ideal world? Yes, but a long way from a realistic world. Sky's boxing coverage is consistent with their coverage of all sports. They have a slick presenting style, with heavy use of a range of experts and technology. Boxing is not a sport that lends itself greatly to technological aids, but the differing views of a range of experts adds a great deal to the programming, especially for those non-hardcore who make up the vast majority of Skys subscription base.

Also, I'm sure there was a lot of praise recently for the change in Sky's approach, in that they seemed to be using a wider range of analysts and experts from both within the sport (current and former boxers) and from the support side (journos, etc). Are we now saying that it's too much and they should go back to a stripped down approach?

[bfchunk]

With so much going on, I don't really see the point and expense of having the studio there as well.

As for Buncey - very much looking forward to the Hennesey card. Glad that has stuck to together. Still wondering whether Fury's opponent is all 0's and no substance. Saturday will tell.

[Chris W 1982]

Earlier in this thread there was a massive review of what should have been on SKY this week and the two British title fights and Tyson Fury against the Brazilian Beast was not mentioned...what's going on?
By the way, on Premier this Saturday there will be four members of the 3.5 hour broadcast.

Adios.

Believe me Steve, the MH show was at the very front of my mind.

My reason for leaving them out was based on Sky not covering the show. I knew there was no way that the bill would make it onto Ringside.

Good luck with this weekend's best show

[Glyn Leach]

An ideal world would see 5 hours of live action each week from across the world, with no analysis, just the entire programming time being spent on showing fights with one man, say Ed Robinson, being used to introduce the fights and a commentary team of two to cover the fights. An ideal world? Yes, but a long way from a realistic world. Sky's boxing coverage is consistent with their coverage of all sports. They have a slick presenting style, with heavy use of a range of experts and technology. Boxing is not a sport that lends itself greatly to technological aids, but the differing views of a range of experts adds a great deal to the programming, especially for those non-hardcore who make up the vast majority of Skys subscription base.

Two commentators and one presenter is hardly unrealistic, ESPN have been doing it for years. On the subject of company consistency, I can't really compare Sky's boxing coverage to anything other than its football coverage. I don't think a live football match has nine Sky 'employees' 'on mic' — there's a presenter, a couple of guests, a two-man commentary team and one pitchside man who also does the post match interviews. Can't think of any more — and we should bear in mind that a football stadium is a far larger area than a leisure centre for reporters to physically cover. Boxing's approach doesn't strike me as consistent with football, at least, but I don't know about other sports.

At one point during a recent commentary, John Rawling stated, with a hint of irony, I thought: 'Thanks for that, always good to have another opinion.' IMO a range of opinions is good, but when you get too many it becomes confusing. I think this is particularly pertinent in relation to the non-hardcore fans you refer to. These are the people we need to 'educate' and turn into hardcore fans, but they're currently being presented with so many different names and opinions — although to be honest, it's not as though the opinions differ that much, they all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet — for a low-key leisure centre show that I think they're in danger of becoming confused. For me, simple is best. Why employ nine for a job that could be done by four — and indeed is being done by less than four elsewhere? I think Sky's boxing presenter pudding is being over-egged at the moment, but as I said, this might just be a period in which they are trying things out before settling on who their A Team really is.

Separate theme, re the hour-long David Haye special, I have no real problem with it, though I do think a 'news' section should play a part in any magazine show — it would have been good to have a mention of Saturday's action last night, even sensible if, as you suggest, non hardcore fans might have been watching that show, it might have encouraged them to tune in on Saturday. But it's a bit odd to hear Adam tell Haye that his last three opponents haven't been that great when it's Sky who have charged us 15 quid to watch them and he is the fella who knows he will charge us 15 quid (at least) to watch Haye's next fight even without an opponent having been named yet! Can't have it both ways, Adam.

[Glyn Leach]

Haye looked slightly miffled by the line of questioning.

He's a little Tiger, that Adam. Haye did look surprised though, he's not used to having people challenge his party line, least of all the people who have been staging his parties!

[Glyn Leach]

I was with you for a while there King but you lost me again

[freddydoesdallas]

An ideal world would see 5 hours of live action each week from across the world, with no analysis, just the entire programming time being spent on showing fights with one man, say Ed Robinson, being used to introduce the fights and a commentary team of two to cover the fights. An ideal world? Yes, but a long way from a realistic world. Sky's boxing coverage is consistent with their coverage of all sports. They have a slick presenting style, with heavy use of a range of experts and technology. Boxing is not a sport that lends itself greatly to technological aids, but the differing views of a range of experts adds a great deal to the programming, especially for those non-hardcore who make up the vast majority of Skys subscription base.

Two commentators and one presenter is hardly unrealistic, ESPN have been doing it for years. On the subject of company consistency, I can't really compare Sky's boxing coverage to anything other than its football coverage. I don't think a live football match has nine Sky 'employees' 'on mic' — there's a presenter, a couple of guests, a two-man commentary team and one pitchside man who also does the post match interviews. Can't think of any more — and we should bear in mind that a football stadium is a far larger area than a leisure centre for reporters to physically cover. Boxing's approach doesn't strike me as consistent with football, at least, but I don't know about other sports.

At one point during a recent commentary, John Rawling stated, with a hint of irony, I thought: 'Thanks for that, always good to have another opinion.' IMO a range of opinions is good, but when you get too many it becomes confusing. I think this is particularly pertinent in relation to the non-hardcore fans you refer to. These are the people we need to 'educate' and turn into hardcore fans, but they're currently being presented with so many different names and opinions — although to be honest, it's not as though the opinions differ that much, they all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet — for a low-key leisure centre show that I think they're in danger of becoming confused. For me, simple is best. Why employ nine for a job that could be done by four — and indeed is being done by less than four elsewhere? I think Sky's boxing presenter pudding is being over-egged at the moment, but as I said, this might just be a period in which they are trying things out before settling on who their A Team really is.

Separate theme, re the hour-long David Haye special, I have no real problem with it, though I do think a 'news' section should play a part in any magazine show — it would have been good to have a mention of Saturday's action last night, even sensible if, as you suggest, non hardcore fans might have been watching that show, it might have encouraged them to tune in on Saturday. But it's a bit odd to hear Adam tell Haye that his last three opponents haven't been that great when it's Sky who have charged us 15 quid to watch them and he is the fella who knows he will charge us 15 quid (at least) to watch Haye's next fight even without an opponent having been named yet! Can't have it both ways, Adam.

I think a good comparison to make would be with speedway. They have a temporary studio with 2 fellas in and a roving reporter (the lovely Charlie Webster) covering the action in the pit lane speaking to the riders.

For the very big events they add in another roving reporter and a guest. For the foreign jaunts they stay in the UK studio and only send the two reporters.