ITV Big Fight Live: Then & Now

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 30 Oct 2006, 17:23

Another huge difference of course is also the amount of US title bouts screened. Okay, when Sky got interested these declined.... but still even in the 90's there was a few bills (sometimes live, sometimes delayed).

It makes a huge difference, why doesn't ITV look abroad also, not necessarily the states - but also Europe.

US TV seem to have got it pretty muched sussed, most shows now follow the same pattern and the amount of good commentators far outweigh the bad (its only Colonel Sheridan that gets on my wick). I have managed to watch a few of the newer channels (like Versus) and their presentation is excellent.... ITV (and Sky) could learn from them, there is no "lets start the action in round 2" malarky.

Incidently, for those who have seen Versus/OLN boxing, is that Mickey Vann in the opening credits as the ref.

THEBUTCH · Post by **THEBUTCH** » 31 Oct 2006, 07:07

ITV had better show Wright-Reid this weekend too. I'll be disappointed to miss that one.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 31 Oct 2006, 07:31

For a start ITV 10 years ago had WORLD fights, not just British.

However the bumbling Reg Gutteridge & his clutch of cliched & outdated catchphrases were tiresome especially compared to Ian Darke on Sky.

Jim Watt a good intelliegtn analyst.

Idea of these ancient old fashioned dandys like Harry or Dicky Davies returning is laughable. Can you imagine Harry Carpenter trying to communicate with Amir Khan.

Charisma-devoid John Rawling is arguably worse than Jim Neilly. Duke McKenzie doesn't have a scoobys, but Richie Woodhall, McGuigan etc are no better as they bite their tongue too often.

My pick for ITV is SIMON REED, used to do a great job on Sky back in the day. Doesnt talk too much and good sense for drama. Analyst in the absence of Watt should be GARY MASON, intelligent, articulate and wisecracking Mason would not bite his tongue.

Oh yeah & invest in some f#ckin US fights!!

Smit · Post by **Smit** » 31 Oct 2006, 17:04

overhand_right wrote: Oh yeah & invest in some f#ckin US fights!!

I thought ITV were only allowed to show SN cards as part of their contract? I sure hope not though.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 31 Oct 2006, 18:34

Smit wrote:
overhand_right wrote: Oh yeah & invest in some f#ckin US fights!!
I thought ITV were only allowed to show SN cards as part of their contract? I sure hope not though.

they showed a Hennessey show on ITV4, Witter & Froch looking awful AND showing off, vs Kotelnik and Barney.

But Warren has staged worse, like the heavyweight fights, Calzaghe-Bika/Ashira etc etc.

Smit · Post by **Smit** » 31 Oct 2006, 20:06

viciousmaussa wrote:they showed a Hennessey show on ITV4, Witter & Froch looking awful AND showing off, vs Kotelnik and Barney.

But Warren has staged worse, like the heavyweight fights, Calzaghe-Bika/Ashira etc etc.

Were the Witter & Froch fights after Warren went over to ITV though?

Hattons last fight promoted by SN was June 2005 ---- SN still on SKY
Witter & Froch were on ITV in July 2005 ---- SN still on SKY? Or SN on ITV by then?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 31 Oct 2006, 20:27

No one seems to know the context of this "exclusive" phrase is.

It has been branded that it is "Sports Network fights EXCLUSIVELY on ITV"

Now is that - ITV can show Sports Network fights exclusively.

or all Sports Network fights will be shown exclusively ITV (no mention about other promoters).

Doing a promoters search on BBN, I think SN's final fight with Sky was the Kevin O Hara vs Willie Limond on the 17th of June.

His first pro fight was Skelton vs Krence - 16th July.

Warren appeared to give a big indication in May (before the Witter date) that he would be signing a deal with ITV, this was with the Khan vs Kindelan amateur fight.

I do think as far as this exclusive issue is that it is encouraging that ITV showed actual footage of Beyer vs Kessler.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 31 Oct 2006, 21:00

viciousmaussa wrote:
Smit wrote:
overhand_right wrote: Oh yeah & invest in some f#ckin US fights!!
I thought ITV were only allowed to show SN cards as part of their contract? I sure hope not though.
they showed a Hennessey show on ITV4, Witter & Froch looking awful AND showing off, vs Kotelnik and Barney.

But Warren has staged worse, like the heavyweight fights, Calzaghe-Bika/Ashira etc etc.

Weres all the hype you gave Bika? Now your saying it's a worser fight than Froch V Barney!

Nels · Post by **Nels** » 01 Nov 2006, 07:24

I think, my clutching-desperately at straws friend, that Vicious meant:

"the fight in question was an ugly unedifying spectacle to sit through and was therefore unattractive to viewers."

-- Boxrec reading comprehension services

PS: If you ask him, he'll probably still tell you that Bika is better than his initial prediction.

I think Vicious actually has him tabbed for champ, should Kessler & Calzaghe move up.

Do try harder at parsing all this out, mate.

PPS: It was also, compared to fighting Beyer for the WBC belt, a shit choice of fight. Or do you dispute that as well?

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Nov 2006, 08:09

Max Molyneux wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
Smit wrote: I thought ITV were only allowed to show SN cards as part of their contract? I sure hope not though.
they showed a Hennessey show on ITV4, Witter & Froch looking awful AND showing off, vs Kotelnik and Barney.

But Warren has staged worse, like the heavyweight fights, Calzaghe-Bika/Ashira etc etc.
Weres all the hype you gave Bika? Now your saying it's a worser fight than Froch V Barney!

I didn't ever say Bika was a great fighter. I said he was better than Ashira and Pudwill for certain. Bika wasn't as good as I hoped he was, when I saw him in with Beyer. He was totally unable to adapt to Calzaghe's southpaw stance, and didn't land anything good until the last four rounds.

I'll admit, I gave Calzaghe too much of a pass for fighting Bika. Based on only Bika's 4 rounds vs Beyer AND an incorrect assumption that he would throw jabs.

I do feel that if they take him the Commonwealth route, or if he'd gone in the Shobox tournament, this very impressive specimen could've had a good development. But his Oz handlers keep wanting to put him in world title fights.

To answer the question, Calzaghe-Bika was a 'D' fight. okay okay, Froch-Barney might have been an 'E'.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Nov 2006, 08:30

Terence wrote:I had Toney a clear winner in that fight so was surprised to see a miserly fight report in the Boxing News the following week, I think they had him losing or had the fight close and the report should have been called 'Why I do not like James Toney (and why it messed-up my perception of the fight)'.

I still thought the commentary was awful, HBO may have been wrong (and I am due to watch the HBO version soon) but they are usually well-schooled. McKenzie is shit, and he usually misreads the situation.

I didn't think that fight was even close at all, Jirov was landing bugger all, and was getting countered ALL NIGHT LONG. Jirov may have thrown a tonne of shots, but you don't get credited for hitting the top of the head, elbows, forearms or shoulders, and that's about all he managed.

As an aside, does anyone else find it worrying, that Toney has gone from making Jirov look like a clown, to getting repeatedly tagged by a crude mauler like Peter, or is that just bravado from Toney trying to prove a point?

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:27

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Terence wrote:I had Toney a clear winner in that fight so was surprised to see a miserly fight report in the Boxing News the following week, I think they had him losing or had the fight close and the report should have been called 'Why I do not like James Toney (and why it messed-up my perception of the fight)'.

I still thought the commentary was awful, HBO may have been wrong (and I am due to watch the HBO version soon) but they are usually well-schooled. McKenzie is shit, and he usually misreads the situation.
I didn't think that fight was even close at all, Jirov was landing bugger all, and was getting countered ALL NIGHT LONG. Jirov may have thrown a tonne of shots, but you don't get credited for hitting the top of the head, elbows, forearms or shoulders, and that's about all he managed.

As an aside, does anyone else find it worrying, that Toney has gone from making Jirov look like a clown, to getting repeatedly tagged by a crude mauler like Peter, or is that just bravado from Toney trying to prove a point?

I think Toney was never the same after muscling up to heavy and then getting all those injuries. Now he's just a flabby hard nut living off his experience. A parody of his old self who is just about savvy enough to scrape by most of the current heavies, simply because they are slow, cumbersome and plenty of the are over 30.

It's an absolute tragedy that he didn't stay at cruiser for fights with Mormeck, Bell, Braithwaite, Nelson & a Jirov rematch which would've been exciting. He'd still be in shape now.

But then again, any bit of success and his ego was going to explode, so with im getting p4p rankings and Fighter of the Year honours (2003) the move to heavyweight probably couldn't have been stopped.

JC · Post by JC » 01 Nov 2006, 09:34

I think it was more the money than anything else that was behind the move to heavywieght, with the added bonus of more visits Burger King.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:41

J-C wrote:I think it was more the money than anything else that was behind the move to heavywieght, with the added bonus of more visits Burger King.

would've been good if he'd stayed at cruiser, & maybe lost a fight. That way he would've stayed longer because he'd have to try for a rematch.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:56

Yes, it is sad that Toney couldn't show the discipline to remain at cruiserweight, I would have loved to have seen him in with Bell and Mormeck.

Perversely though, I think he might have gotten beaten at Cruiser anyway, as one of his major assets at heavyweight, at least before his waistline explosion was greater handspeed and agility than his naturally bigger foes. Mormeck would have given him a great fight, though I think he'd have given Bell a spanking.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:59

Is it any surprise that Toney's performances have gone downhill since testing positive for steroids? Call me a cynic but its no coincidence as far as I am concerned.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 01 Nov 2006, 11:28

nickd wrote:Is it any surprise that Toney's performances have gone downhill since testing positive for steroids? Call me a cynic but its no coincidence as far as I am concerned.

Right on the money. Rahman was there for the taking and Toney was VERY lucky to escape that fight with a draw.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 01 Nov 2006, 15:47

Sorry I disagree Nick, for me its weight with Toney. He was a better vs Ruiz than he was vs Rahman and Peter, but he was equally as bad vs Rydell Booker the fight before Ruiz.

He was better vs Peter than vs Rahman. He was very unlucky to lose the Peter fight.