I don't want his job, I want your job.ERIC GUY wrote:Adam has been with sky boxing for many years, working as a runner, then in the outside broadcast unit working with producers etc, then helped out on commentry, to where he is today, we would all love that job. but Adam has it,
Adam smith
Re: Adam smith
Re: Adam smith
I can't think of another sport in sky or on any network where the head of department/exec producer is a commentator, presenter, and making decisions and managing a team and its output. Seems a strange case to me.
Sky chopped ringside and dumped most of their boxing content online. They now seem to be pushing all their resources to ppv (see gloves are off etc). When smith said at the AJ whyte pressed that "this shows our sport is in a great place etc" I think he was first trying to convince himself.
I think boxing will change in the next 5 years and it might only be a ppv sport. Sounds a little ridiculous but fights even like fielding v smith can't be getting big numbers. A few years ago brook v Hatton did 400k and Hearn was delighted with that. I doubt smith fielding got in the 100ks so sky will soon be asking what's the point.
Sky chopped ringside and dumped most of their boxing content online. They now seem to be pushing all their resources to ppv (see gloves are off etc). When smith said at the AJ whyte pressed that "this shows our sport is in a great place etc" I think he was first trying to convince himself.
I think boxing will change in the next 5 years and it might only be a ppv sport. Sounds a little ridiculous but fights even like fielding v smith can't be getting big numbers. A few years ago brook v Hatton did 400k and Hearn was delighted with that. I doubt smith fielding got in the 100ks so sky will soon be asking what's the point.
Re: Adam smith
I agree, boxing is a racket in the UK, too few people making big decisions that affect the sport as a whole in the country. I can't think of many other sports where so few people wield such power over a whole sport.dbf wrote:I can't think of another sport in sky or on any network where the head of department/exec producer is a commentator, presenter, and making decisions and managing a team and its output. Seems a strange case to me.
-
TheLeprechaun
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 5173
- Joined: 27 Jun 2013, 20:42
Re: Adam smith
With the advent of illegal streams and how prevalent and unstoppable they are in surprised ppv is flourishing
Re: Adam smith
I don't know another sport were their main presenter fumbles at least half of his links. Johnny Nelson, very good pundit, awful presenter. Surely Smith can see this and put him in the right role.
Re: Adam smith
Smith just looks a wrong 'un to me.
He just looks slimey and creepy - I bet he has one of them sweaty limp wrist handshakes as well.
He just looks slimey and creepy - I bet he has one of them sweaty limp wrist handshakes as well.
Re: Adam smith
Problem is boxing tends to take place on Friday and Saturday nights, the two nights when most people like to go out, plus there's a lot more on TV which people are likely to watch over boxing.dbf wrote:I can't think of another sport in sky or on any network where the head of department/exec producer is a commentator, presenter, and making decisions and managing a team and its output. Seems a strange case to me.
Sky chopped ringside and dumped most of their boxing content online. They now seem to be pushing all their resources to ppv (see gloves are off etc). When smith said at the AJ whyte pressed that "this shows our sport is in a great place etc" I think he was first trying to convince himself.
I think boxing will change in the next 5 years and it might only be a ppv sport. Sounds a little ridiculous but fights even like fielding v smith can't be getting big numbers. A few years ago brook v Hatton did 400k and Hearn was delighted with that. I doubt smith fielding got in the 100ks so sky will soon be asking what's the point.
Re: Adam smith
Poor Adam Smith, you'd think he changed his name from Jon Venables the way he's being massacred on here.
He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm not sure how he draws so much venom from people ?
I've seen more love for Scrappy Doo.![[icon_e_biggrin.gif] :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
He may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm not sure how he draws so much venom from people ?
I've seen more love for Scrappy Doo.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23147
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Adam smith
When it's done right, everyone wants to watch.banjo wrote:Problem is boxing tends to take place on Friday and Saturday nights, the two nights when most people like to go out, plus there's a lot more on TV which people are likely to watch over boxing.dbf wrote:I can't think of another sport in sky or on any network where the head of department/exec producer is a commentator, presenter, and making decisions and managing a team and its output. Seems a strange case to me.
Sky chopped ringside and dumped most of their boxing content online. They now seem to be pushing all their resources to ppv (see gloves are off etc). When smith said at the AJ whyte pressed that "this shows our sport is in a great place etc" I think he was first trying to convince himself.
I think boxing will change in the next 5 years and it might only be a ppv sport. Sounds a little ridiculous but fights even like fielding v smith can't be getting big numbers. A few years ago brook v Hatton did 400k and Hearn was delighted with that. I doubt smith fielding got in the 100ks so sky will soon be asking what's the point.
Re: Adam smith
Not as many as in the past.mickey1975 wrote:When it's done right, everyone wants to watch.banjo wrote:Problem is boxing tends to take place on Friday and Saturday nights, the two nights when most people like to go out, plus there's a lot more on TV which people are likely to watch over boxing.dbf wrote:I can't think of another sport in sky or on any network where the head of department/exec producer is a commentator, presenter, and making decisions and managing a team and its output. Seems a strange case to me.
Sky chopped ringside and dumped most of their boxing content online. They now seem to be pushing all their resources to ppv (see gloves are off etc). When smith said at the AJ whyte pressed that "this shows our sport is in a great place etc" I think he was first trying to convince himself.
I think boxing will change in the next 5 years and it might only be a ppv sport. Sounds a little ridiculous but fights even like fielding v smith can't be getting big numbers. A few years ago brook v Hatton did 400k and Hearn was delighted with that. I doubt smith fielding got in the 100ks so sky will soon be asking what's the point.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23147
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Adam smith
Floyd-PAC was pretty big.
-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Adam smith
Barney Francis is in charge.
Sky were close to pulling the plug on boxing completely.
The Matchroom deal was a sop to Barry so his son had a new role to concentrate on.
Commercially other than PPV boxing is a loss leader.
Boxing is a minority sport.
Sky run a businees they don't give a fornicate about fans.
Conclusion ? Use the on off button and make your choice regardless of Presenters etc.
Sky were close to pulling the plug on boxing completely.
The Matchroom deal was a sop to Barry so his son had a new role to concentrate on.
Commercially other than PPV boxing is a loss leader.
Boxing is a minority sport.
Sky run a businees they don't give a fornicate about fans.
Conclusion ? Use the on off button and make your choice regardless of Presenters etc.
Re: Adam smith
There are hundreds of minority interest sports and subjects that get air time without having to pay extra to view. The reason wrestling and boxing are chosen is because there is a substantial number who will pay extra to watch, why that is I don't know. I'm considering packing the sports package in though Crolla is on next week, as a long time fan I'm at a loss what to do and am thankful for biscuit nation.
Re: Adam smith
I've been with a friend of mine today, so out of curiosity I asked him what he thought about boxing and he said he enjoys the odd fight but he says for a casual fan it's such a hard sport to follow because there's seemingly a dozen world champions in each weight class with the "super" belts, "regular" belts, "interim" belts etc. At least with football, rugby, F1, golf, tennis etc. you at least know who the best is. Which is something that can't be said for boxing when there's 3 or 4 fighters in a division claiming to be a "world champion".
He's right as well, as boxing fans that is something that drives us insane so it's no wonder most people show very little interest in it.
He's right as well, as boxing fans that is something that drives us insane so it's no wonder most people show very little interest in it.
Re: Adam smith
The problem with Smith is that he's Sky's representative of boxing, and always ensures to get his mug in everywhere so there also seems to be a bit of ego involved. There's a smugness about him. Add to that, he's on Twitter, but doesn't engage with fans unless it's questions about his book. He claims to be a fan, but a sport cannot be built on PPVs. Sky are only interested in milking boxing for whatever they can as opposed to looking after the health of the sport and taking a long term view and plan of trying to build momentum and take boxing more mainstream.
As soon as boxing came off terrestrial TV and onto Sky, that immediately alienated the majority of fans. To then move to PPV is a killer blow. Yeah you might be able to make a quick few quid from the diehards and casuals, but you're not really going to get many new fans on board.
I know people have been saying for years that boxing is a dying sport, and others disagree and then you have the odd breakthrough fight that everybody talks about like Floyd-Pacman and Froch-Groves at Wembley. I think boxing will more than ever become a super event sport where only a small few guys at the top are making most of the money, and with other champions making even less than they ever have before. If even world champions are not even making enough to last a retirement then there's not really much draw to the sport as a career.
As soon as boxing came off terrestrial TV and onto Sky, that immediately alienated the majority of fans. To then move to PPV is a killer blow. Yeah you might be able to make a quick few quid from the diehards and casuals, but you're not really going to get many new fans on board.
I know people have been saying for years that boxing is a dying sport, and others disagree and then you have the odd breakthrough fight that everybody talks about like Floyd-Pacman and Froch-Groves at Wembley. I think boxing will more than ever become a super event sport where only a small few guys at the top are making most of the money, and with other champions making even less than they ever have before. If even world champions are not even making enough to last a retirement then there's not really much draw to the sport as a career.
-
mickey1975
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 23147
- Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54
Re: Adam smith
Is terrestrial TVs THAT important these days? Virtually everyone I know has access to SKY.
Re: Adam smith
Smith was dreadful when he first started at Sky, then improved, then got promoted or whatever and is now awful, bringing in the even more dreadful Johnny Nelson and has the ruined boxing on SkySports. I stopped subscribing ages ago to Sky and switched to allegedly and thank god I did. The sport is alive and well, but not on Sky.
-
black panther
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4097
- Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 07:06
Re: Adam smith
CharlesListon wrote:Maybe Smith should start throwing his weight around. As a renowned hard man he could probably bully Barney Francis and Eddie.
I heard he takes Jonny Nelson's dinner money and wedgied Jim Watt to a neutral corner post. Rumour has it he flushed Halling's head down the toilet at the Liverpool Olympia and was seen storming from the toilet shouting "I'm the daddy".
Refers to himself as "Left Hook Adam".
He went into Mick Henneseys office and slowly started knocking ornaments and photos off shelves telling him he'd have him and those girls at Channel 5 if they showed more than one fight and highlights of another.
This post is up there with the one from Froch's diary.
Re: Adam smith
To be fair, Adam Smith does like he could be a bad ass.


-
Parson Cross
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 1991
- Joined: 03 Dec 2012, 18:57
Re: Adam smith
Butch
If you stopped subscribing and watching ages ago how can you comment ?
Unless of course you are ........ which makes you sound a bit of a hypocrite.
If you stopped subscribing and watching ages ago how can you comment ?
Unless of course you are ........ which makes you sound a bit of a hypocrite.
-
ILoveHowardFoster
- Super Welterweight
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 10 Jul 2015, 10:34
Re: Adam smith
I'm not doubting that he's a nice guy, but he is definitely not a tv presenter or commentator. He should be behind the camera, and staying there. Same for Jonny Nelson!
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23231
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: Adam smith
I like Smith and i enjoyed his book,if it is him who decides PPV then my estimation will go down but i imagine it would either be Eddie or Barney Francis,probably the latter who decides that stuff
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45238
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Adam smith
I think he sounds like Douglas Hurd on Meth. I've always found his vocal delivery annoying as hell.reggaereggae wrote:Hahahhahaha!Tomasino wrote:banjo wrote:
Adam has recently farted and is delighted that Johnny is 'sniffing up'
I have always thought Adam is a good presenter; and I feel he gets undeserved stick because he's well spoken. I think his vocal delivery is very good.....
Sometimes I feel boxing fans are the hardest fans to please of any sports fans!
Re: Adam smith
That depends on where you're from I think. Hardly anyone I know has access to SKY.mickey1975 wrote:Is terrestrial TVs THAT important these days? Virtually everyone I know has access to SKY.
Re: Adam smith
It's pretty marginalised nowadays. A bit like print press competing with the internet. Look at the paris attacks, most heard first on FB or twitter - and were scanning websites before actually putting a news channel on. I'd be surprised if anyone learned of it first via a news paper Sunday morning.mickey1975 wrote:Is terrestrial TVs THAT important these days? Virtually everyone I know has access to SKY.
With regards terrestial TV, granny might love a mug of coco and the X-factor - but for most sports fans it's all about Sky, BT etc nowadays and has been for a long while.
Back when it was like 4 or 5 tv channels and that was it, they could command huge audiences. But even nowadays there are 100+ freeview channels on the go.
You'd have to go back to the early 2000's to see when Terrestial was a major force. Some would argue even earlier than that, with regards premium movies and sports.
