Warren: "You complete idiot Claude"

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 18 Mar 2006, 05:16

from allegedly TV - Iain Axon 17/03/06

allegedly has hit out at Boxing News and branded editor Claude Abrams a "complete idiot" following claims Joe Calzaghe's clash with Jeff Lacy was a "ratings flop".

This week's edition of the trade paper said Calzaghe's win over Jeff Lacy was only watched by 1.2million viewers - and the audience figures were a disappointment.

But Warren insisted the show as a massive hit - and ITV were "absolutely delighted" with the number of people who tuned in despite the 2.30am start time.

American TV Network Showtime, who screened the fight live in America, have also confirmed that Calzaghe-Lacy was their highest rating sports show of the year.

"Isn't it typical that there is always someone who wants to paint a negative picture, however successful something is," said Warren.

"And it's even more galling to think that the trade magazine who should be
championing the sport in this country is in fact sticking the knife into it in such a disgraceful way.

"In fact, although the viewing figures dropped to 1.2million at one point in the broadcast they were back up to 2million when Joe climbed through the ropes.

"That gave ITV an unprecedented 57% audience share for a FOUR HOUR boxing show and advertising revenue they wouldn't normally have received.

"Coupled with the repeat on Sunday, which also got two million viewers, plus reruns on ITV Wales and ITV4, the viewing figures were extremely good.

"Boxing News also said we did badly compared to boxing's golden era of the 1990s, but television broadcasting has fragmented since then and there are now hundreds of channels.

"It's worth pointing out that Davina McCall's new chat show, aired prime time on BBC1, is struggling to pull in audiences of 2million.

"When Ricky Hatton fought Kostya Tszyu, we had 205,000 pay per view buys, while Naseem Hamed at his peak was averaging 300,000 to 400,000 buys.

"Those shows were hailed as massive successes, but the PPV buys were just a fraction of the total number of people who saw Joe's fight with Lacy.

"The simple truth is that we couldn't have done the fight without American TV, and that meant we had to have a 2.30am start time.

"Of course, I would have loved to have had the fight on at prime time - as would ITV - and we would have drawn a huge, huge audience.

"But if Abrams knew a little bit more about the political side of the sport, or taken the courtesy of phoning me, he would have understood that wasn't possible.

"For starters, Lacy was contracted to Showtime and without them, he wouldn't have been able to fight.

"But then Abrams is ignorant of how the boxing business works and an anorak and frequently demonstrates it in his paper, most embarrassingly claiming Roy Jones Jnr was the greatest boxer of all time and David Haye was one of the best evers.

"And on the topic of his paper, perhaps he should be worrying more about his circulation figures than how many people are watching ITV. How do those figures compare with the 1990s, when all you get is old news and out of date stories on Fridays."

Ouch!!

funso banjo baby · Post by **funso banjo baby** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:03

we shouldnt have to stay up till the early hours for a fight on our own doorstep.......

ILikeBeer · Post by **ILikeBeer** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:31

funso banjo baby wrote:we shouldnt have to stay up till the early hours for a fight on our own doorstep.......

I agree.

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:52

Warren is an idiot. Abrams is not sticking the knife in anyone, the Lacy fight drew less than Williams-Skelton and Williams-Harrison. Less people will watch a great fight at 2:30am than a decent one at 22:00.
Whats all the fuss? Why is Warren overreacting?

fist · Post by **fist** » 18 Mar 2006, 10:17

bigzab wrote:Warren is an idiot. Abrams is not sticking the knife in anyone, the Lacy fight drew less than Williams-Skelton and Williams-Harrison. Less people will watch a great fight at 2:30am than a decent one at 22:00.
Whats all the fuss? Why is Warren overreacting?

Warren has a point - 2 million viewers is an excellent draw at 2 in the morning. Putting aside the fact it could not be held earlier, that number of viewers is huge for that time of night. It gave Calzaghe huge coverage in the US and the UK combined, much more than if it were pay per view. ITV will have been able to put a premium on adverts and will be pleased with a majority draw.

Boxingnut · Post by **Boxingnut** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:05

I think you have to remember there is a bit of "history" between Warren and Abrams

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:27

Why is he bringing in Hamed and Hattons PPV viewing figures? If he is to compare stats, then he should be doing it like for like.

For instance, how many viewers would Lacy/Calzaghe have gotten if it had of been PPV? - I would suspect not much more, and most probably less than the Hatton/Hamed figures he quotes....

Moving on slightly - If we take into consideration the massive user base difference between ITV1 (free tv) and Sky Sports (ppv tv) then there is a definite case to suggest that the figures being published aren't actually that great when put up against the SKY PPV numbers.

To also point out that ITV grossed a 57% audience share isn't exactly pant wettingly exciting - I mean what where ITV up against? - End of transmission Ceefax on the beeb?

On saying that, it's awesome to see boxing back on terrestial tv ;)

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:30

Boxingnut wrote:I think you have to remember there is a bit of "history" between Warren and Abrams

they fell out last time over a ricky hatton article i seem to recall.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:33

For instance, how many viewers would Lacy/Calzaghe have gotten if it had of been PPV? - I would suspect not much more, and most probably less than the Hatton/Hamed figures he quotes....

If it was PPV it would of been well less than 1 million.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:44

WARREN, FRANK JOHN.

YOU ARE TOO fornicating SENSITIVE.

CLAUDE MIGHT BE AN ANORAK BUT HE CARES ABOUT THE GAME.

FACE IT THE VIEWING FIGURES FOR A TERRESTRAIL TOP FIGHT WERE DOG SHIT.

STEVE DAVIS V DENNIS TAYLOR GOT 19 MILLION VIEWERS AT PAST MIDNIGHT, AND PEOPLE HAD WORK THE NEXT DAY.

HELL, SNOOKER IS WASHED UP THESE DAYS BUT THE FINALS STILL GET WAY OVER 2 M VIEWERS, MORE LIKE 5 - 7MILLION.

ITV MUST HAVE BEEN DISSAPOINTED.

THEIR HEAD OF SPORT IS ON RECORD SAYING HE WAS DISSAPOINTED WITH THE FIGURES. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO FRANK? CALL HIM AN ANORAK AND SLAG HIM OFF? NO, YOU WONT CAUSE HE WILL TELL YOU TO DO ONE.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 18 Mar 2006, 19:53

[quote="MightyWarrior"]from allegedly allegedly TV - Iain Axon 17/03/06

allegedly allegedly has hit out at Boxing News and branded editor Claude Abrams a "complete idiot" following claims Joe Calzaghe's clash with Jeff Lacy was a "ratings flop".

This week's edition of the trade paper said Calzaghe's win over Jeff Lacy was only watched by 1.2million viewers - and the audience figures were a disappointment.

But Warren insisted the show as a massive hit - and ITV were "absolutely delighted" with the number of people who tuned in despite the 2.30am start time.

American TV Network Showtime, who screened the fight live in America, have also confirmed that Calzaghe-Lacy was their highest rating sports show of the year.

"Isn't it typical that there is always someone who wants to paint a negative picture, however successful something is," said Warren.

"And it's even more galling to think that the trade magazine who should be
championing the sport in this country is in fact sticking the knife into it in such a disgraceful way.

"In fact, although the viewing figures dropped to 1.2million at one point in the broadcast they were back up to 2million when Joe climbed through the ropes.

"That gave ITV an unprecedented 57% audience share for a FOUR HOUR boxing show and advertising revenue they wouldn't normally have received.

"Coupled with the repeat on Sunday, which also got two million viewers, plus reruns on ITV Wales and ITV4, the viewing figures were extremely good.

"Boxing News also said we did badly compared to boxing's golden era of the 1990s, but television broadcasting has fragmented since then and there are now hundreds of channels.

"It's worth pointing out that Davina McCall's new chat show, aired prime time on BBC1, is struggling to pull in audiences of 2million.

"When Ricky Hatton fought Kostya Tszyu, we had 205,000 pay per view buys, while Naseem Hamed at his peak was averaging 300,000 to 400,000 buys.

"Those shows were hailed as massive successes, but the PPV buys were just a fraction of the total number of people who saw Joe's fight with Lacy.

"The simple truth is that we couldn't have done the fight without American TV, and that meant we had to have a 2.30am start time.

"Of course, I would have loved to have had the fight on at prime time - as would ITV - and we would have drawn a huge, huge audience.

"But if Abrams knew a little bit more about the political side of the sport, or taken the courtesy of phoning me, he would have understood that wasn't possible.

"For starters, Lacy was contracted to Showtime and without them, he wouldn't have been able to fight.

"But then Abrams is ignorant of how the boxing business works and an anorak and frequently demonstrates it in his paper, most embarrassingly claiming Roy Jones Jnr was the greatest boxer of all time and David Haye was one of the best evers.

"And on the topic of his paper, perhaps he should be worrying more about his circulation figures than how many people are watching ITV. How do those figures compare with the 1990s, when all you get is old news and out of date stories on Fridays."

Ouch!![/quoteYou are absolutely right - To make comparisons all factors and conditions have to be the same - The fight was a success for ITV without doubt and boxing in general on ITV is also a success

Foggy · Post by **Foggy** » 18 Mar 2006, 20:05

I think Warren makes valid points, maybe most people think he's a dick but i think he talks sense in that article, mind you i have just come in from the pub

WayoftheCass · Post by **WayoftheCass** » 18 Mar 2006, 20:55

I am NO fan of Warren. But the fact is that I'd rather watch a top quality fight at half 2 that at 5am. Thats what time it would have been on if staged stateside. I have fallen asleep before umpteen big fights because of having to stay up all frickin night.
Abrams should be allowed to point out that figures were not what was expected. But what really is the alternative? Would you guys prefer to pay 15 quid to see it 4 hours earlier on PPV?
2 million is still way more than 400,000. It still gets exposure to non fans. It still broadens the appeal of the sport. And it was still FREE. Whilst the American had to fork out 30 bucks to see it.
People who say "we shouldn't have to wait to 2am to watch a fight." are being nieve. A fight of that caliber has to have American TV backing. No way they are putting a PPV on in the afternoon. Like it or not they have the cash and nobody this side of the pond is giving strong financial backing to the sport so you are at the mercy of the pay masters.
I really enjoyed the Clazaghe-Lacy fight and just before it the Enzo Mac-Hobson fight. As for the people who didn't tune in.....well thats their loss.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 19 Mar 2006, 08:19

It's a classic of using the same stats and taking a different stance.

Ant Evans - a good writer who knows his stuff - did a positive story over at Seconds Out and the Boxing News lad chose to take the same figures and run a negative piece.

You can look at it two ways and that's what's happened.

The Boxing News writer probably caught Mark Sharman when he was knackered and he's said he'd rather watch the fight at 10 rather than 2. Well, who wouldn't? But I suppose you can't knock a big share of the viewing audience that they had at that time.

In an ideal world, we'd be watching the match at 10 and I'm sure Warren would like that too. But if it's American TV money or no fight....what do you do?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 19 Mar 2006, 18:57

KO Artist wrote:WARREN, FRANK JOHN.

YOU ARE TOO fornicating SENSITIVE.

CLAUDE MIGHT BE AN ANORAK BUT HE CARES ABOUT THE GAME.

FACE IT THE VIEWING FIGURES FOR A TERRESTRAIL TOP FIGHT WERE DOG SHIT.

STEVE DAVIS V DENNIS TAYLOR GOT 19 MILLION VIEWERS AT PAST MIDNIGHT, AND PEOPLE HAD WORK THE NEXT DAY.

HELL, SNOOKER IS WASHED UP THESE DAYS BUT THE FINALS STILL GET WAY OVER 2 M VIEWERS, MORE LIKE 5 - 7MILLION.

ITV MUST HAVE BEEN DISSAPOINTED.

THEIR HEAD OF SPORT IS ON RECORD SAYING HE WAS DISSAPOINTED WITH THE FIGURES. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO FRANK? CALL HIM AN ANORAK AND SLAG HIM OFF? NO, YOU WONT CAUSE HE WILL TELL YOU TO DO ONE.

\

Poor comparison, the snooker final didn't start at 2am did it?

I think Warren has a fair point, fact is Joe was watched by more people on ITV at 4 am, than he ever would have been on Sky.

What's the problem?

E · Post by E » 19 Mar 2006, 19:24

I think Worren has a point - it was a weird and quite poor article. When I read it - I thought it was wrong to say it was a ratings flop. everyone was talking about it down the pub and the figures were good for that late.

But I disagree with Worren's poisonous and personal tone - it is unprofessional and inappropriate.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 20 Mar 2006, 04:22

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I think Warren has a fair point, fact is Joe was watched by more people on ITV at 4 am, than he ever would have been on Sky.

What's the problem?

Well there is no problem as such.

But it's easy to neglect the fact that SKY Sports have a far smaller user base than ITV and also in addition to that, Frank is comparing the ITV (free tv) figures to SKY Sports PPV figures.

Compare it by all means, but to neglect two glaringly obvious difference's is very poor form.

Of course, it's better for boxing to be back on terrestrial TV, but the point is in the detail of his comparisons, which as is usual are more than open to counter arguement :)

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:07

I think the whole point he is making is that being seen on ITV he is being viewed by way more people than would ever have seen him on Sky.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:21

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
KO Artist wrote:WARREN, FRANK JOHN.

YOU ARE TOO fornicating SENSITIVE.

CLAUDE MIGHT BE AN ANORAK BUT HE CARES ABOUT THE GAME.

FACE IT THE VIEWING FIGURES FOR A TERRESTRAIL TOP FIGHT WERE DOG SHIT.

STEVE DAVIS V DENNIS TAYLOR GOT 19 MILLION VIEWERS AT PAST MIDNIGHT, AND PEOPLE HAD WORK THE NEXT DAY.

HELL, SNOOKER IS WASHED UP THESE DAYS BUT THE FINALS STILL GET WAY OVER 2 M VIEWERS, MORE LIKE 5 - 7MILLION.

ITV MUST HAVE BEEN DISSAPOINTED.

THEIR HEAD OF SPORT IS ON RECORD SAYING HE WAS DISSAPOINTED WITH THE FIGURES. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO FRANK? CALL HIM AN ANORAK AND SLAG HIM OFF? NO, YOU WONT CAUSE HE WILL TELL YOU TO DO ONE.
\

Poor comparison, the snooker final didn't start at 2am did it?

I think Warren has a fair point, fact is Joe was watched by more people on ITV at 4 am, than he ever would have been on Sky.

What's the problem?

Its not a poor comparison. The boxing didnt start at 2am either. It started at 11pm.

Either way the snooker got 18.5m viewers whilst Calzaghe acheived just over 10% of that.

Maybe the comparison is slightly unfair insofar as Joe is nowhere near as well known as STeve Davis was in the mid 80's.

Whatever, ITV are dissapointed and its they who matter.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:38

The main event wasn't on at 11.00 pm, and it is different also in that Davis and Taylor were household names, and the whole show was over at 12.30.

The event also had a whole week of coverage leading up to the final.

Snooker and boxing are totally different types of sporting events, watching the world championships is more like watching the olympics or world cup, a long event where people dip in and out of coverage over a long period of time culminating in a grande finale.

Have ITV said they are dissapointed? Where else would ITV have gotten 2 million viewers at 2am? I'm sure Showtime put up the vast majority of the money.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:42

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The main event wasn't on at 11.00 pm, and it is different also in that Davis and Taylor were household names, and the whole show was over at 12.30.

The event also had a whole week of coverage leading up to the final.

Snooker and boxing are totally different types of sporting events, watching the world championships is more like watching the olympics or world cup, a long event where people dip in and out of coverage over a long period of time culminating in a grande finale.

Have ITV said they are dissapointed? Where else would ITV have gotten 2 million viewers at 2am? I'm sure Showtime put up the vast majority of the money.

Mark Sharman of ITV has expressed his dissapointment at the figures.

Its not just about ITV getting good figures for an otherwise graveyard slot, its also about them getting a return on their cpaital investment.

They have charged x amount for advertising. Now the viewing figures have been published they may be concerned that they will not command the same advertising revenue for future shows.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 20 Mar 2006, 05:49

Yes, I realise that of course they have to justify their figures to their advertisters.

I just think that Warren is getting a rough ride here, after all, we just got to see Calzaghe win on free to air TV and turn in one of the best performances by a British fighter in a very long time. Of course everyone would have preferred a 10.00 pm slot, but there is no way that would have worked as the money wouldn't have been there, the money from American TV was needed to bring enough to the table to make the fight happen.

What exactly did Sharman say?

bigzab · Post by **bigzab** » 20 Mar 2006, 07:40

E wrote:I think Worren has a point - it was a weird and quite poor article. When I read it - I thought it was wrong to say it was a ratings flop. everyone was talking about it down the pub and the figures were good for that late.

But I disagree with Worren's poisonous and personal tone - it is unprofessional and inappropriate.

Well said, agree 100%.

Kelly young · Post by **Kelly young** » 20 Mar 2006, 17:23

surely when people want to watch boxing they expect it to be between 9pm-12pm the biggest problem is tv do dictate when boxers will box
they pay the money as for any promotor money talks the boxers would always want to box in front of a fullhouse and being watch by million of veiwers so i think the tv companys can help with this by puting it on at a reasnabile time i for won do not like itv coverage they tal to much atleast on sky the young up coming boxer got some exposure

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 20 Mar 2006, 17:30

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, I realise that of course they have to justify their figures to their advertisters.

I just think that Warren is getting a rough ride here, after all, we just got to see Calzaghe win on free to air TV and turn in one of the best performances by a British fighter in a very long time. Of course everyone would have preferred a 10.00 pm slot, but there is no way that would have worked as the money wouldn't have been there, the money from American TV was needed to bring enough to the table to make the fight happen.

What exactly did Sharman say?

Its quoted in Fridays BN, by Claude. He seemed pretty upset.

You at York Hall on Friday, James?

Warren: "You complete idiot Claude"

Warren: "You complete idiot Claude"

Re: Warren: "You complete idiot Claude"