PPV annoyance

[Boxerbeetle]

how can you call yourself boxing fans if you dont even support the sport?

i paid 21 quid for HD on virgin, some of that cash will go into both men's pockets and the teams that keep the game going. i just dont get trying to rip it all off through streams for genuine fights like this.

i think you forget that people already work hard to pay for sky sports. do you not look for the cheapest garage to fill your car up? or do you go to one on the motorway so the owners coin it in?

I don't pay for sky sports, it's a rip off. As for your analogy it should be would you siphon some out of someone else's car rather than pay for it yoursen.

And to the other geezer...if you can't afford 21 quid for that then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror

Wtf? You say people who didn't buy the PPV don't support the sport, but you don't pay for Sky Sports? I'm sure you're aware that a percentage of Sky Sports subscription would go towards boxing? Your logic was completely wrong from the start, and you've already shown its inconsistency.

[rd350lc]

how can you call yourself boxing fans if you dont even support the sport?

i paid 21 quid for HD on virgin, some of that cash will go into both men's pockets and the teams that keep the game going. i just dont get trying to rip it all off through streams for genuine fights like this.

i think you forget that people already work hard to pay for sky sports. do you not look for the cheapest garage to fill your car up? or do you go to one on the motorway so the owners coin it in?

I don't pay for sky sports, it's a rip off. As for your analogy it should be would you siphon some out of someone else's car rather than pay for it yoursen.

And to the other geezer...if you can't afford 21 quid for that then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror

He might no be able to afford one .

[mickey1975]

i think you forget that people already work hard to pay for sky sports. do you not look for the cheapest garage to fill your car up? or do you go to one on the motorway so the owners coin it in?

I don't pay for sky sports, it's a rip off. As for your analogy it should be would you siphon some out of someone else's car rather than pay for it yoursen.

And to the other geezer...if you can't afford 21 quid for that then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror

He might no be able to afford one .

I bet he looks in other people's mirrors.

[Stuffs]

I can tolerate just about all the other crap but there shouldn't be any ad's between rounds for the main event or main support. Obviously it would be preferable to have no ads at all, but IF they are gonna shoe-horn them in, do it on their own time.

It's not like they're long stoppages. We've paid to watch the event and that's part of it. They don't have Ray Winston's stupid face pop up with the latest odds when there's an injury or substitution on Super Sunday, which takes just as long if not longer than the between rounds break.

[Boxing Prospect]

I can tolerate just about all the other crap but there shouldn't be any ad's between rounds for the main event or main support. Obviously it would be preferable to have no ads at all, but IF they are gonna shoe-horn them in, do it on their own time.

It's not like they're long stoppages. We've paid to watch the event and that's part of it. They don't have Ray Winston's stupid face pop up with the latest odds when there's an injury or substitution on Super Sunday, which takes just as long if not longer than the between rounds break.

Shut up before they get ideas...

[nh1]

[/quote] Sky also do ads in between rounds which is also well out of order, as a lot of important stuff happens in the break - what the corners say, the expression on the fighter, whether he's breathing hard.[/quote]
Also, they just showed long / high shots of the stadium too much between rounds all evening. I like the idea of listening to alternative corners between each round. This didn't happen enough last night.[/quote]

Yes, we rarely get to eavesdrop on what the corners are saying with Sky coverage. Us boxing fans know that this detracts from the coverage.
Trouble is, I imagine it's a conscious policy by Sky. It's not just about freeing up time for advertising revenue; it's because they're paranoid we might hear the corners eff and blind. (And then we get the inevitable 'Apologies for the language'...)
I imagine Adam Smith and co want to ensure sports coverage is fit for 'family viewing' and so anything they can do to lessen the chances of viewers hearing bad language they'll do.
A pity; nothing better than listening to the corners.

[Stuffs]

Yes, we rarely get to eavesdrop on what the corners are saying with Sky coverage. Us boxing fans know that this detracts from the coverage.
Trouble is, I imagine it's a conscious policy by Sky. It's not just about freeing up time for advertising revenue; it's because they're paranoid we might hear the corners eff and blind. (And then we get the inevitable 'Apologies for the language'...)
I imagine Adam Smith and co want to ensure sports coverage is fit for 'family viewing' and so anything they can do to lessen the chances of viewers hearing bad language they'll do.
A pity; nothing better than listening to the corners.

I'd put big money on you being right on that point, which bothers me a lot. Once again, if it's a football match on a Sunday afternoon where the crowd are calling players and referees effing this that and the other, it's just brushed away as "the crowd are expressing some displeasure towards that decision".

How people think boxing fans can't handle an eff or a jeff, in a sport where people punch each other in the face until the other one physically or mentally can't carry on, is ridiculous.

[CaptainSpacerod]

At some point roughly twenty years ago some media tw4t walked into a meeting with a cunning plan to double viewing figures - get women watching. He reasoned that women didn't watch sport back then not because they weren't really all that interested in it but because of the way it was broadcast.

So began the long inevitable descent to where we are now. Shrieking bimbos presenting, coverage dumbed down, constant "banter" in place of serious analysis , well informed journalists who've spent a lifetime covering their sport brushed aside and replaced by grinning simpletons with nice baps.

Aiming for a wider audience will inevitably lead to poorer coverage.

[Dirk Kelly]

I paid for a stream and it worked fine. Was my landlords last night so was a massive party in the pub so I thought I was being clever sticking it on in the back room.

When word got around that it was on, most of the pub crammed in to watch it. No fcuker bought me a pint to say thanks.

£21 for Joshua vs Wlad plus ad breaks is what you were paying for and I think that is disgraceful. Luckily it was a brilliant fight but could have easily been over quick or a bore fest.

When I go to the cinema i don't get ad breaks every 180 seconds, nor does it go to an ad break at pivotal / cliff hanger moments. Cinema costs not far less or more than the PPV, so how can it be justified or warranted?

[veriton]

i think you forget that people already work hard to pay for sky sports. do you not look for the cheapest garage to fill your car up? or do you go to one on the motorway so the owners coin it in?

I don't pay for sky sports, it's a rip off. As for your analogy it should be would you siphon some out of someone else's car rather than pay for it yoursen.

And to the other geezer...if you can't afford 21 quid for that then you need to have a long hard look in the mirror

Wtf? You say people who didn't buy the PPV don't support the sport, but you don't pay for Sky Sports? I'm sure you're aware that a percentage of Sky Sports subscription would go towards boxing? Your logic was completely wrong from the start, and you've already shown its inconsistency.

Sky sports is a vehicle for football with a bit of boxing tennis golf etc tagged on. Paying 60 quid a month for boxing on sky means you're a mug. I pay 12 quid for allegedly and get decent ppvs so all that goes straight into boxing. It ain't rocket science