Why does boxing have to be on free TV?

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

I dont live in the UK anymore, so my radar could be off a little.

I keep reading on here that boxing has to be on free TV to survive and or thrive.

I dont get it at all.

1) allegedly, Mick Hennessey and Hayemaker have all been on free TV in the UK and failed to deliver anything of note.

2) Football, Rugby, Cricket, UFC and wrestling are all broadcast on subscription TV and are absolutely thriving at the moment.

3) What hell is "free TV" anyway? As far as i know, UK is now 100% digital and everyone has access to subscription TV if they want it.

4) People are used to paying for content these days (see itunes) so why is boxing so special?

Last time i was home "Live on channel 5" was a punchline to a joke. Now its boxings way forward?

[Counter-puncher]

I dont live in the UK anymore, so my radar could be off a little.

indeed.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

I dont live in the UK anymore, so my radar could be off a little.

indeed.

Probably, but how so, exactly?

I dont remember Ricky (the biggest draw in the history of British Boxing) ever fighting on free TV.

[smoggy7188]

Hayemaker was on Setanta which you had to pay for on.

[bripez]

I dont remember Ricky (the biggest draw in the history of British Boxing) ever fighting on free TV.

A bigger draw than McGuigan, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Naz who all boxed on terrestrial ???? .......................

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

I dont remember Ricky (the biggest draw in the history of British Boxing) ever fighting on free TV.

A bigger draw than McGuigan, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Naz who all boxed on terrestrial ???? .......................

Yes, bigger in terms of PPV and live attendance i'd say.

What did Hatton - Mayweather do on PPV? 1,000,000 or something stupid.

Plus all those MEN sell-outs.

[Datsue]

Boxing fans say this because boxing fans aren't making ten million a year out of boxing so cannot see why anyone would want to continue with the current economic/promotional/organisational model. That the people who are making ten million a year out of boxing are fvcking ecstatic with the aforementioned model escapes us, 'cos we're missing the point of the professional sport of boxing, which is to make money. We somehow bought the pony that it was about nobility, the thrill of a sporting contest, even some bollocks about masculinity or some shit like that, which just goes to show that the people who have historically made money out of boxing were fvcking smart, which leads on to the inevitable conclusion that those who now make money out of boxing are also fvcking smart, because they're the ones making the money & we're the ones swallowing the bullshit.

That it also follows that those making the most money out of boxing literally don't give a shit about boxing as a concept the way we do seems inevitable & I'm going to shut up now because I can never tell if you're being serious or not which I think might be the point anyway so I'll just stop.

PS: Ricky did over fifty thousand for Juan Lazcano. When you think about it, that's fvcking ridiculous for a fighter in today's mass-media environment. Ditto for Calzaghe, the Kessler fight. That's a nuts number.

[Adamj1987]

so more people can see it everyoine wants everysport on the free

[scottyp]

I dont remember Ricky (the biggest draw in the history of British Boxing) ever fighting on free TV.

A bigger draw than McGuigan, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Naz who all boxed on terrestrial ???? .......................

Yes, bigger in terms of PPV and live attendance i'd say.

What did Hatton - Mayweather do on PPV? 1,000,000 or something stupid.

Plus all those MEN sell-outs.

But that was Hatton, he is an exception we might not see another boxer with a fan base like his for quite a few years. how many did Khan do on primetime wasn't it about 100k and Froch done less than that, so PPV isn't the way to go. Even regular Saturday fight nights only get around 150k or less, but with free TV it is a different story they are reporting that the Kid Galahad and Eubank jr fights got 1.7 million viewers on Saturday. So any boxing on free tv is going to help it thrive again like it did in the past.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Boxing fans say this because boxing fans aren't making ten million a year out of boxing so cannot see why anyone would want to continue with the current economic/promotional/organisational model. That the people who are making ten million a year out of boxing are fvcking ecstatic with the aforementioned model escapes us, 'cos we're missing the point of the professional sport of boxing, which is to make money. We somehow bought the pony that it was about nobility, the thrill of a sporting contest, even some bollocks about masculinity or some shit like that, which just goes to show that the people who have historically made money out of boxing were fvcking smart, which leads on to the inevitable conclusion that those who now make money out of boxing are also fvcking smart, because they're the ones making the money & we're the ones swallowing the bullshit.

That it also follows that those making the most money out of boxing literally don't give a shit about boxing as a concept the way we do seems inevitable & I'm going to shut up now because I can never tell if you're being serious or not which I think might be the point anyway so I'll just stop.

PS: Ricky did over fifty thousand for Juan Lazcano. When you think about it, that's fvcking ridiculous for a fighter in today's mass-media environment. Ditto for Calzaghe, the Kessler fight. That's a nuts number.

Hatton and Calzaghe did indeed do quite amazing numbers considering they didnt fight on free TV (for the most part) Indeed they sold far many more tickets than any "free TV " fighter did at the time.


Therefore: Whats the big deal about free TV?


Where is the evidence that "free TV" means anything in boxing tnese days?

[Datsue]

Basically, K-G, it's so boxing fans don't feel so lonely.

You can talk about football or whatever down the pub, I'm told. Boxing fans want to be able to do that.

The interweb was the best thing ever for boxing fans, as it's been making itself a niche sport for years. Now we aren't so lonely & can dream of talking about boxing in public more than twice a year.

[Datsue]

[So any boxing on free tv is going to help it thrive again like it did in the past.

But the people who make all the money from boxing don't want it to "thrive like it did in the past" because then there's a chance that they won't be making ten million a year out of it, because they weren't making nearly so much money then.

Boxing is a multimillion pound entertainment industry, mate, with a sport hanging off it. I love the sport (the things that happen between the bell ringing, inside the ropes), but the rest of it's a crock of shite.

[dondada]

2) Football, Rugby, Cricket, UFC and wrestling are all broadcast on subscription TV and are absolutely thriving at the moment.

I'll focus on this one.

Football is f**ked (on certain levels) and mainly due to subscription-inspired greed. There's obviously the opposite argument to make but the top and bottom of it is that it's a bag o'shite that survives on a totally unique consumer model whose 'customers' would continue to shell out under almost any circumstances. The most successful club in English history is the most in debt. The cheapest season ticket at Arsenal costs nearly a grand. I suppose it depends how you define 'thriving'.

When we won the Ashes with it being televised on Channel 4, the country was absolutely buzzing about it. A real head of steam is built up, simply because everyone has access to it if they want to see it.

As you have pointed out many times, posters on here lose perspective. I'd say over half the population had basically forgotten about boxing until the events of the weekend.

As for Hatton...he was a bloody PR machine. Would he have been even bigger if showcased properly on terrestrial telly? I'd say yes.

Boxing might not NEED terrestrial TV (and, as you rightly point out, 'free tv' is a load of bollocks as a concept anyway - one is paying a tenner a month to view terrestrial) but, in my view, the sport undoubtedly benefits from a platform there.

[SAPFO]

Fury on free done more than Hatton at his best...

[Ezzard]

Football, cricket, rugby have clubs or, what are really brands. As a kid you pin your hopes to a badge and scarf and you follow them. They existed before you and are an institution. Then you have internationals where you have an interest in your national side.

Boxing is different, you support or follow a boxer. if you don't know who the f**k he is then you'll have no interest.

[stujones]

2) Football, Rugby, Cricket, UFC and wrestling are all broadcast on subscription TV and are absolutely thriving at the moment.

I'll focus on this one.

Football is f**ked (on certain levels) and mainly due to subscription-inspired greed. There's obviously the opposite argument to make but the top and bottom of it is that it's a bag o'shite that survives on a totally unique consumer model whose 'customers' would continue to shell out under almost any circumstances. The most successful club in English history is the most in debt. The cheapest season ticket at Arsenal costs nearly a grand. I suppose it depends how you define 'thriving'.

When we won the Ashes with it being televised on Channel 4, the country was absolutely buzzing about it. A real head of steam is built up, simply because everyone has access to it if they want to see it.

As you have pointed out many times, posters on here lose perspective. I'd say over half the population had basically forgotten about boxing until the events of the weekend.

As for Hatton...he was a bloody PR machine. Would he have been even bigger if showcased properly on terrestrial telly? I'd say yes.

Boxing might not NEED terrestrial TV (and, as you rightly point out, 'free tv' is a load of bollocks as a concept anyway - one is paying a tenner a month to view terrestrial) but, in my view, the sport undoubtedly benefits from a platform there.

Yeah, Hatton was a bit of a one off in terms of PR. I'm not sure anyone will really know how it took off. My brother was in Uni in Lancaster in 2000 and you could see Hatton t shirts in market stalls even then, before you knew his personality.

I know that even if this digital age.... terrestial TV is still an important aspect. TV companies fight to get epg number as close as they can to the first page (and the first number of the first page) in their category and sky will occasionally swap them around if it is in their best interest or if a channel is proving to be popular.

[Dirk Kelly]

To get the casual fans hooked in. OUtside of people on here and a few others I rarely have a conversation with anyone else about boxing unless its a huge fight OR a fight on free telly.

When meaty Mick was on ITV4, had a lot of conversations with neighbours, work mates etc about Darren Barker, Tyson Fury and most of all John Murray. Mick went and those conversations dried up. Now its back on C5, and the buzz is all about Tyson Fury, people were asking me what the hell the chicken comments were on Saturday night as outside of us lot it went over the casual fans heads on Saturday.

Sunday afternoon 4 or 5 of us in the corner shop had a chat about Kid Galihads performance the night before never had that before.

So I would say to build a fanbase free telly is the way forward.

Echo the comments above about when England won the ashes. had me gripped when on C4, move it to Sky Sports which I don't have and I've never watched it again.

[DavidPayne]

There is more boxing on telly now than ever.

Fewer people watch it then did in the 1980's if you tallied on sum total or unique views.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Subscription telly isn't the obstacle to mainstream viewers.

The governing bodies as the supplier of drugs, and the promoters as the street-vendors and the television networks as their addicts are the obstacle.

Make good fights, make it easy to understand who is who and let the boxing entertain and draw fans.

The Super-Middleweight Champion of Tuesday Afternoons when him from up the road isn't around and he's had a good dinner Continental Championship is the killer. I don't blame the sanctioning bodies. I blame the promoters for using them and the networks for insisting on a belt to sell a fight.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

There is more boxing on telly now than ever.

Fewer people watch it then did in the 1980's if you tallied on sum total or unique views.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Subscription telly isn't the obstacle to mainstream viewers.

The governing bodies as the supplier of drugs, and the promoters as the street-vendors and the television networks as their addicts are the obstacle.

Make good fights, make it easy to understand who is who and let the boxing entertain and draw fans.

The Super-Middleweight Champion of Tuesday Afternoons when him from up the road isn't around and he's had a good dinner Continental Championship is the killer. I don't blame the sanctioning bodies. I blame the promoters for using them and the networks for insisting on a belt to sell a fight.

Promoters are in the business of making money and use these micky mouse titles to sell tickets.

If these belts didnt draw fans, the promoters wouldnt bother using them.

Therefore these silly belts must draw more people so the public is basically voting with their feet and getting what it wants.

As with everything in life, the blame lies with the General Public.


Dreadful people.

[Lenny]

I dont remember Ricky (the biggest draw in the history of British Boxing) ever fighting on free TV.

A bigger draw than McGuigan, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Naz who all boxed on terrestrial ???? .......................

Yes, bigger in terms of PPV and live attendance i'd say.

What did Hatton - Mayweather do on PPV? 1,000,000 or something stupid.

Plus all those MEN sell-outs.

Hatton was bigger in PPV terms than fighters who fought on free tv?

I am shocked

McGuigan v Pedroza - 18m
Eubank v Benn - 16m

[bripez]

A bigger draw than McGuigan, Bruno, Benn, Eubank, Naz who all boxed on terrestrial ???? .......................

Yes, bigger in terms of PPV and live attendance i'd say.

What did Hatton - Mayweather do on PPV? 1,000,000 or something stupid.

Plus all those MEN sell-outs.

Hatton was bigger in PPV terms than fighters who fought on free tv?

I am shocked

McGuigan v Pedroza - 18m
Eubank v Benn - 16m

I agree - you could turn this on its head : how popular could Hatton have been if he had boxed on terrestrial tv ?

[DavidPayne]

There is more boxing on telly now than ever.

Fewer people watch it then did in the 1980's if you tallied on sum total or unique views.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Subscription telly isn't the obstacle to mainstream viewers.

The governing bodies as the supplier of drugs, and the promoters as the street-vendors and the television networks as their addicts are the obstacle.

Make good fights, make it easy to understand who is who and let the boxing entertain and draw fans.

The Super-Middleweight Champion of Tuesday Afternoons when him from up the road isn't around and he's had a good dinner Continental Championship is the killer. I don't blame the sanctioning bodies. I blame the promoters for using them and the networks for insisting on a belt to sell a fight.

Promoters are in the business of making money and use these micky mouse titles to sell tickets.

If these belts didnt draw fans, the promoters wouldnt bother using them.

Therefore these silly belts must draw more people so the public is basically voting with their feet and getting what it wants.

As with everything in life, the blame lies with the General Public.


Dreadful people.

Amen. Mind you its a bit like not liking supermarkets when all the corner shops are shut. How do you support boxing and yet avoid those with stupid titles. Even small halls have pissing Masters titles attached.

[whiskey]

Football, cricket, rugby have clubs or, what are really brands. As a kid you pin your hopes to a badge and scarf and you follow them. They existed before you and are an institution. Then you have internationals where you have an interest in your national side.

Boxing is different, you support or follow a boxer. if you don't know who the f**k he is then you'll have no interest.

Exactly.

We all read of footballers who caught the bus to the FA Cup final in the 'good old days' whereas now they get a helicopter taxi from their leafy Cheshire estate.

Sometimes you get a star that transcends the sport. Nobody cared much for La Liga until Becks went over - same goes for LA Galaxy.

Hatton was bigger than boxing for a while, but the rest of the big name boxers (as good as they are) are just making up the numbers in the sport.

Massive exposure is always the key, with a bit of talent. Hatton was prepared to do the stuff outside of boxing to build his name. Way way back he was doing dinner shows, pitch walks and tv shows were he could - whereas Calzaghe was criticised for not doing enough bar winning.

Terrestrial Tv gives a boxer and the sport a huge leg-up. Hatton never fought on terrestrial, but used it where he could otherwise.

I bet most 21-year old men have heard of Tyson Fury, but David Price ? Outside of boxing and Liverpool perhaps not.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

There is more boxing on telly now than ever.

Fewer people watch it then did in the 1980's if you tallied on sum total or unique views.

Frankly, I don't give a shit.

Subscription telly isn't the obstacle to mainstream viewers.

The governing bodies as the supplier of drugs, and the promoters as the street-vendors and the television networks as their addicts are the obstacle.

Make good fights, make it easy to understand who is who and let the boxing entertain and draw fans.

The Super-Middleweight Champion of Tuesday Afternoons when him from up the road isn't around and he's had a good dinner Continental Championship is the killer. I don't blame the sanctioning bodies. I blame the promoters for using them and the networks for insisting on a belt to sell a fight.

Promoters are in the business of making money and use these micky mouse titles to sell tickets.

If these belts didnt draw fans, the promoters wouldnt bother using them.

Therefore these silly belts must draw more people so the public is basically voting with their feet and getting what it wants.

As with everything in life, the blame lies with the General Public.


Dreadful people.

Amen. Mind you its a bit like not liking supermarkets when all the corner shops are shut. How do you support boxing and yet avoid those with stupid titles. Even small halls have pissing Masters titles attached.

The last time i was in Sainsburys in Bolton they had opened a "regional foods" section (Hunts Pies, Eccles cakes, all that crap) in an attempt to appease Hugh Fernley Whiitingstall and his gang of thugs.

Maybe in a few years time, on a small hall show featuring 7 world title bouts, they will have as a special attraction, an "olde tyme" non-title 10 rounder between 2 pro's with winning records, fighting to establish who is the better fighter.


You can wear period dress, if you like.

Flat-cap, etc

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

Football, cricket, rugby have clubs or, what are really brands. As a kid you pin your hopes to a badge and scarf and you follow them. They existed before you and are an institution. Then you have internationals where you have an interest in your national side.

Boxing is different, you support or follow a boxer. if you don't know who the f**k he is then you'll have no interest.

A very good point.