P1ssed off with Sky again

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 25 May 2007, 08:17

After showing almost all of Cottos fights over the past couple of years, Sky apparently are not showing Cotto-Judah, and instead will continue to happily serve us up with fights like Wright-Soliman, Wright-Quartey, Taylor-Ouma, Taylor-Spinks, and on June 22nd, us lucky subscribers are going to get to see Lovemore Ndou vs Paulie Malignaggi.

I'm always happy to see fights like all of those mentioned above, but not at the expense of some of the better fights out there. Is it that now Sky have lost (the seemingly greedy) Hatton, they no longer see it worth their while to showcase the likes of Cotto, who Hatton would never have wanted to fight anyway?

Amazing how much Sky are willing to invest in the likes of Calzaghe by showing all these opponents (Wright, Taylor and Hopkins) that he's unlikely to ever even fight.

Missing Cotto-Judah is bad enough, hopefully they won't pass over the Welter HBO tripple header on July 14th that shows Margarito-Williams, Cintron-Mattysse and Gatti-Gomez.

Anybody have that email address for Sky boxing?

zeroprobe · Post by **zeroprobe** » 25 May 2007, 09:41

Sky broke the bank paying for de la hoya vs mayweather.

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 25 May 2007, 10:06

At least SKY are out there doing a bit for bringing boxing to our tv screens.

When you consider what ITV have served up, and the total neglect on the part of the BBC, then SKY shouldn't really be the one's at the top of people's shit list.

THEBUTCH · Post by **THEBUTCH** » 25 May 2007, 10:20

Correct. It ain't Sky that need a kick up the pants.

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 25 May 2007, 10:43

Twinkle Toes wrote:At least SKY are out there doing a bit for bringing boxing to our tv screens.

When you consider what ITV have served up, and the total neglect on the part of the BBC, then SKY shouldn't really be the one's at the top of people's shit list.

Yeah but the difference there is that ITV and BBC don't cost me almost £40 per month on top of licensing fees. The problem I have with Sky is not that they don't show enough boxing, but the fact that whomever selects what fights they bid for clearly isn't the most informed person for the job. I don't understand how they can regularly shell out for some fights that are PPV in the States yet and show them to us as part of our normal subscription, but then they also miss out on many of the regular non-PPV HBO and Showtime shows.

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 25 May 2007, 11:14

I've always had the feeling Cotto v Judah wouldn't be shown. The other semi final between Margarito and Williams is just as intriguing, I doubt we'll get that either.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 25 May 2007, 11:18

Why can't they show these fights as PPVs?

johnswan1 · Post by **johnswan1** » 25 May 2007, 14:58

johnswan1 wrote:After showing almost all of Cottos fights over the past couple of years, Sky apparently are not showing Cotto-Judah, and instead will continue to happily serve us up with fights like Wright-Soliman, Wright-Quartey, Taylor-Ouma, Taylor-Spinks, and on June 22nd, us lucky subscribers are going to get to see Lovemore Ndou vs Paulie Malignaggi.

I'm always happy to see fights like all of those mentioned above, but not at the expense of some of the better fights out there. Is it that now Sky have lost (the seemingly greedy) Hatton, they no longer see it worth their while to showcase the likes of Cotto, who Hatton would never have wanted to fight anyway?

Amazing how much Sky are willing to invest in the likes of Calzaghe by showing all these opponents (Wright, Taylor and Hopkins) that he's unlikely to ever even fight.

Missing Cotto-Judah is bad enough, hopefully they won't pass over the Welter HBO tripple header on July 14th that shows Margarito-Williams, Cintron-Mattysse and Gatti-Gomez.

Anybody have that email address for Sky boxing?

I realise my own mistake here. Calzaghe isn't even with Sky any more so this makes it all even more baffling.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 25 May 2007, 15:42

TV coverage of boxing is crap nowadays. The recent ITV shows have been dire, or cancelled! Sky should be showing Cotto-Judah, we do pay extra for sky sports and this is one of the most intriguing match ups of the year. No wonder UFC is getting so many fans

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 25 May 2007, 16:49

We should get them all for "free" - were already paying for a sky package, the PPV fees are a rip off. Its a disgrace if they dont show Cotto-Judah

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 25 May 2007, 17:38

At the risk of stating the obvious.
1/ Sky sports is a sports channel, not a boxing channel.
2/ It has a budget.
3/ Like it or like it not, boxing is no longer a majority sport.
4/ If you are paying £40 plus, you have a full package not just the sports option.

Get over it !
Sky haven't done too bad by the boxing enthusiast.

Hagler2002 · Post by **Hagler2002** » 25 May 2007, 17:43

I am pissed at them cause they have decided to take £96 out of my bank for a months subscription

and left me short on beer tokens for the weekend :(

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 25 May 2007, 18:26

twenty six wrote:Get over it !

Shut it!

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 26 May 2007, 04:41

God knows wh Sky are/were putting so much emphasis on Hatton (since gone) and Taylor. Hate to say it but they've been rubbish champions. Perhaps because they are Ring mag, universally recognized champs? I'd rather see someone with an actual future, such as Cotto (Sky stopped showing Cotto JUST AS his career was heating up) or Juan Diaz than young fighters on borrowed time that bore us.

Let's see what Sky can come up with in the post-Wicky era. Abraham-Demers is a decent start. And let's see if they can hot up the domestic scene with Olusegun and Munyai kicking British arse.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 27 May 2007, 07:36

Ooooh that post brought a lot to the debate Horse.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 27 May 2007, 07:59

despite my taylor bashing , i have to say that taylor-pavlik is a MUST

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 27 May 2007, 08:51

twenty six wrote:At the risk of stating the obvious.
1/ Sky sports is a sports channel, not a boxing channel.
2/ It has a budget.
3/ Like it or like it not, boxing is no longer a majority sport.
4/ If you are paying £40 plus, you have a full package not just the sports option.

Get over it !
Sky haven't done too bad by the boxing enthusiast.

I buy Sky Sports for boxing, so Sky aren't valueing my business and I'm going to have it switched off

Your right they are not a boxign channel. Maybe British fight fans need a dedicated boxing channel that gets all the big US fights live.

PS it seems your maybe a Sky employee

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 27 May 2007, 10:57

twenty six wrote:Ooooh that post brought a lot to the debate Horse.

How long have you worked for Sky then??... because you're obviously not on the side of the fans.... if you dont like the debate feck off!!... 8)

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 27 May 2007, 14:01

I don't work for Sky.
In fact the many posters who know me will be pissing themselves with such a suggestion.
As for the suggestion of Silkov that I don't like the debate - on what basis ?
What are you going to do if ITV ditch boxing ? Accuse them of not being on the side of fans ?
Business is business.
I maintain that Sky haven't done too bad since - 1/ reducing significantly the budget for boxing.
2/ Ditching certain Promotors and seeking to go for quality rather than quantity with more emphasis on bigger fights from abroad.
OK maybe they've failed in some people's eyes but if you'd have asked two years ago if you would be able to watch PBF V DLH live without a PPV fee you'd have been laughed at.
Sadly boxing is now a minority sport and as such Sporting budgets for TV Companies no longer include a significant slice for our sport.
Be thankful we're seeing anything !

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » 28 May 2007, 06:49

You only have to look at the crowds at live fights (when we get a decent card) to see the interest is there.

The recent Cardiff bouts (Calzaghe, Mac etc)..

And I know people who aren't even big boxing fans who stayed up until the early hours to watch ODLH v Mayweather....

Sky does it's bit and has 3/4 sports channels so a bit more boxing would be great, and well received IMO...

Much more so than bowling, skiing,

And I feel it is a waste of money on the whole, I scrolled through over 100 channels last night and couldn't find a bloody thing to watch so I put on an Aaron Pryor DVD in the end

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 28 May 2007, 06:55

twenty six wrote:I don't work for Sky.
In fact the many posters who know me will be pissing themselves with such a suggestion.
As for the suggestion of Silkov that I don't like the debate - on what basis ?
What are you going to do if ITV ditch boxing ? Accuse them of not being on the side of fans ?
Business is business.
I maintain that Sky haven't done too bad since - 1/ reducing significantly the budget for boxing.
2/ Ditching certain Promotors and seeking to go for quality rather than quantity with more emphasis on bigger fights from abroad.
OK maybe they've failed in some people's eyes but if you'd have asked two years ago if you would be able to watch PBF V DLH live without a PPV fee you'd have been laughed at.
Sadly boxing is now a minority sport and as such Sporting budgets for TV Companies no longer include a significant slice for our sport.
Be thankful we're seeing anything !

Yes that would be such a funny joke

Actually they have done badly, choosing to show the likes of Taylor instead of Cotto, showing Barrera-Fana instead of Pacman-Morales and so on and so on, they really have no idea what they're doing and putting a poor product offering out for the money.

And no Mayweather-DLH would never be PPV worthy in this country, it would probably get 1000 sales if that - the advertising revenue on sky sports is worth far more.

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 28 May 2007, 12:55

You are so naive, it's not true.
How much do you think it costs Sky to get the rights to these fights ?
They CANNOT AFFORD them all.
Maybe just maybe, it came down to what they could AFFORD not what they'd CHOOSE.
You are not paying your sports subsription just to watch boxing.
The element of choice still exists - switch off and don't pay if you don't like.
We all love our boxing - but we are all very close to the edge of having nothing on TV.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 28 May 2007, 13:06

twenty six wrote:You are so naive, it's not true.
How much do you think it costs Sky to get the rights to these fights ?
They CANNOT AFFORD them all.
Maybe just maybe, it came down to what they could AFFORD not what they'd CHOOSE.
You are not paying your sports subsription just to watch boxing.
The element of choice still exists - switch off and don't pay if you don't like.
We all love our boxing - but we are all very close to the edge of having nothing on TV.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

I'm ot saying you are not wrong, but my question to this is WHY is boxing so close not to be on tele.

I'm not sure of the exact viewing figures, but Williams vs Harrison 1 did better than the six nations Rugby. Why is boxing considered a minority sport by the TV executives when it can (when promoted properly with good contests) to great viewing figures.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 28 May 2007, 13:11

twenty six wrote: You are not paying your sports subsription just to watch boxing.
.

Yes I am

twenty six · Post by **twenty six** » 28 May 2007, 13:14

Then you're a mug.

P1ssed off with Sky again

P1ssed off with Sky again

Re: P1ssed off with Sky again