allegedly v Sky

[FIGHTFANs]

Never thought i would say this but i prefer allegedly now to sky boxing coverage ,

[leforge]

Never thought i would say this but i prefer Allegedly Channel now to sky boxing coverage ,

Was this worth a thread! There plenty of these pointless ones on eastside!

allegedly good for overseas fights but the uk fights have been poor since subscription.

[FIGHTFANs]

Never thought i would say this but i prefer Allegedly Channel now to sky boxing coverage ,

Was this worth a thread! There plenty of these pointless ones on eastside!

Allegedly channel good for overseas fights but the uk fights have been poor since subscription.

Well what are you answering for

[leforge]

Never thought i would say this but i prefer Allegedly Channel now to sky boxing coverage ,

Was this worth a thread! There plenty of these pointless ones on eastside!

Allegedly channel good for overseas fights but the uk fights have been poor since subscription.

Well what are you answering for

NO idea lol

[iamasadlittleboy]

Never thought i would say this but i prefer Allegedly Channel now to sky boxing coverage ,

Newsflash!
Dedicated boxing channel has better coverage than wider sports channel

Did we not expect, by virtue of it being a "Boxing channel" that it's coverage would be better? Do we not set our selves higher standards when something is a dedicated service?

The problem, like leforge has said is that the domestic stuff is terrible and often a waste of time because Warren keeps putting on meaningless mismatches, the kind that you'd find for free on Top Rank undercard streams.

[pyenest77]

Totally agree the American stuff is absolutely top drawer, but the British stuff isnt the best although there have been a few exceptions. Fridays actually look like the most one sided bill they have shown yet though. Not one home fighter has lost a fight, not one away boxer has a winning record.

[NazNaci1]

The problem, like leforge has said is that the domestic stuff is terrible and often a waste of time because Warren keeps putting on meaningless mismatches, the kind that you'd find for free on Top Rank undercard streams.

The domestic matches are dire, save for a few exceptions. One sided mismatches which end in a round or 2. Quite frankly (non pun intended), overseas fights apart, its a piss take. I dont or will ever subscribe to it, purely because the man running it doesn't give a s*** about the fans. SKY are far, far superior when they run Boxing, in my opinion. Premiership vs Blue Square. Even C5, for all their flaws, have Al Bernstien who 'buries' everyone of the experts over on allegedly, making even C5 more watchable (well it is, averaging 1.5-3.5 mill viewers).

[stujones]

I love how some people are classifying the "boxacademy" as a "concept" that is innovative, original and excellent.

Two things.

1) In all seriousness what is the difference between this and the other queensbury shows put on by Francis Warren before... other than a flashier name.

2) I see the title - "Boxacademy class of 2012".... Innovative? Hennessy did this ten years ago.

[bigB]

the american stuff they put on is decent but the british shocking - we want 50/50 match ups where possible and fighters who are coming to fight..

for me

1, Sky - 50/50 fights great u/c and set up also some stateside Berto vs Ortiz 2 etc (jim watt is annoying though)
2, CH5 - Poor coverage but decent fights
3, Allegedly - Great Stateside poor British (Paul Smith very decent commentator)

[Kilburn]

For the first time in years I'm actually considering cancelling my Sky Sports subscription.

[Kilburn]

I actually find it far too clinical and predictable. God forbid if anything happened on a Sky Sports show that wasn't in the script.

The CH456 format is much more to my liking.