BoxRec

Carbo wrote:I suggest we all start a campaign against PPV, and subcription-based channels like Sky and Setanta. They take our money and don't buy every single fight in the world -- what a rip off.

I say we all boycott Setanta, Sky, PPV, and any ITV match with long advert breaks -- basically any TV channel that tries to actually make money. That way -- with a bit of luck -- we can get back to the good old days when boxing was restricted to far-less-frequent-than-we-like-to-remember live fights of big British stars fighting against other british stars, and the occasssional highlights of fights on Sportsnight and Granstand.

Ahhh... they were the days "...we pick up the action in the fourth." Hardly any boxing -- but at least we didn't have to pay.

I would much rather go back to that than be, you know, given a choice.

He's off on one again.

Setanta's doing a marvellous job. ITV's cutbacks are understandable and PPV is here to stay, Sky or otherwise.

The singular problem is, and has been for a while, that a behemoth of broadcasting like SKY are charging an arm and a leg for piss poor coverage of the sport.

Dont pay good money for shit service, it's that simple.

beano wrote:Get a eurovox for phuk sake

Get 'em told, lol.

sweetscience wrote: & SP used to show the big Yank shows for 'free' until Setanta bought them

Oooohhh... The Bounders! The scoundrels!

charlieb wrote:

Carbo wrote:I suggest we all start a campaign against PPV, and subcription-based channels like Sky and Setanta. They take our money and don't buy every single fight in the world -- what a rip off.

I say we all boycott Setanta, Sky, PPV, and any ITV match with long advert breaks -- basically any TV channel that tries to actually make money. That way -- with a bit of luck -- we can get back to the good old days when boxing was restricted to far-less-frequent-than-we-like-to-remember live fights of big British stars fighting against other british stars, and the occasssional highlights of fights on Sportsnight and Granstand.

Ahhh... they were the days "...we pick up the action in the fourth." Hardly any boxing -- but at least we didn't have to pay.

I would much rather go back to that than be, you know, given a choice.

He's off on one again.

Setanta's doing a marvellous job. ITV's cutbacks are understandable and PPV is here to stay, Sky or otherwise.

The singular problem is, and has been for a while, that a behemoth of broadcasting like SKY are charging an arm and a leg for piss poor coverage of the sport.

Dont pay good money for shit service, it's that simple.

Yes, quite. But if you're not willing to pay, don't bemoan the paucity of boxing coverage. You can have one or the other; you can keep your cake (that's a metaphor for your money in your wallet) or you can eat your cake (that's a metaphor for taking that money in your wallet and spending it to get boxing).

But, in this world of democracy and capitalism, nobody is forced to give their labour without recompense, and the profit incentive is integral to encouraging risk taking. Given that boxing does not have the massive popularity of football (and thus can not attract either the advertising revenues, official apparel sales, or gargantuan and regular gate receipts), it is therefore unlikely that loads of boxing would come your way for free.

And, in fact, history has born this out. When there was no subscription TV, there were very few fights and their scope was limited to those involving domestic fighters of certain promoters, so one had a choice: pay to go to more boxing, or miss it. Now subscription TV has brought a massive expansion of choice: regular domestic action on Sky; regular stateside action on Setanta; and internet sites which offer further action for a small fee. So, one has the same choice: pay (now to watch as well as to go live) or don’t watch boxing.

You’re faced with the same choice, only the options for real fans are exponentially larger, which I would think was a good thing.

Simple.

But I would suggest that if you’re not willing to pay for a fight of the outstanding quality of Hatton – Pacquiao you’re either not much of a boxing fan, have no friends, or are genuinely broke, because you can’t knock the value in a fight like this.

Now, stop your whining, and face up to the realities of adult life: choose what you spend your money on. But don’t moan that sh1t ain’t coming your way for free.

I will buy this because I want to see Moore fight and the Williams Vs Mcdermott fight ( is this the same card?) and Pacman.

Cancel SKY Sports and only get the PPVs you want, its the way to go!

I have SKY ( not SKY SPORTS) with free telephone line rental and free unlimite broadband ( for £16.50 a month- just realised the broadband is also free!).

I also pay for Setanta.

I buy the odd PPV

Better than £44.00 to watch shit every month on SKY Sports.

Carbo wrote:

charlieb wrote:

Carbo wrote:I suggest we all start a campaign against PPV, and subcription-based channels like Sky and Setanta. They take our money and don't buy every single fight in the world -- what a rip off.

I say we all boycott Setanta, Sky, PPV, and any ITV match with long advert breaks -- basically any TV channel that tries to actually make money. That way -- with a bit of luck -- we can get back to the good old days when boxing was restricted to far-less-frequent-than-we-like-to-remember live fights of big British stars fighting against other british stars, and the occasssional highlights of fights on Sportsnight and Granstand.

Ahhh... they were the days "...we pick up the action in the fourth." Hardly any boxing -- but at least we didn't have to pay.

I would much rather go back to that than be, you know, given a choice.

He's off on one again.

Setanta's doing a marvellous job. ITV's cutbacks are understandable and PPV is here to stay, Sky or otherwise.

The singular problem is, and has been for a while, that a behemoth of broadcasting like SKY are charging an arm and a leg for piss poor coverage of the sport.

Dont pay good money for shit service, it's that simple.

Yes, quite. But if you're not willing to pay, don't bemoan the paucity of boxing coverage. You can have one or the other; you can keep your cake (that's a metaphor for your money in your wallet) or you can eat your cake (that's a metaphor for taking that money in your wallet and spending it to get boxing).

But, in this world of democracy and capitalism, nobody is forced to give their labour without recompense, and the profit incentive is integral to encouraging risk taking. Given that boxing does not have the massive popularity of football (and thus can not attract either the advertising revenues, official apparel sales, or gargantuan and regular gate receipts), it is therefore unlikely that loads of boxing would come your way for free.

And, in fact, history has born this out. When there was no subscription TV, there were very few fights and their scope was limited to those involving domestic fighters of certain promoters, so one had a choice: pay to go to more boxing, or miss it. Now subscription TV has brought a massive expansion of choice: regular domestic action on Sky; regular stateside action on Setanta; and internet sites which offer further action for a small fee. So, one has the same choice: pay (now to watch as well as to go live) or don’t watch boxing.

You’re faced with the same choice, only the options for real fans are exponentially larger, which I would think was a good thing.

Simple.

But I would suggest that if you’re not willing to pay for a fight of the outstanding quality of Hatton – Pacquiao you’re either not much of a boxing fan, have no friends, or are genuinely broke, because you can’t knock the value in a fight like this.

Now, stop your whining, and face up to the realities of adult life: choose what you spend your money on. But don’t moan that sh1t ain’t coming your way for free.

You condescending prick.

I'm well aware of the nature of supply and demand. I dont need it spelt out to me for absolutely no relevant reason other than an excuse for you to 'go off on another rant'. Based on what you've just rambled on about, explain to me why I get a great service from the likes of Setanta for less money than I get from Sky Sports for a shedload more?

Let me answer that for you - it's because Setanta has made a conscious decision to vy for the fight fan's subscription, whereas SKY have offered forth an absolutely piss poor schedule with the cream being PPV ,which I dont like but will buy, because that's the nature of supporting a non-mainstream sport.

Back to the original point, which had no bearing on your little tirade, if you are being dealt shit on a silver platter, dont order again, dont pay for it!

I have always held a serious grudge against PPV events. I believe they are a total fcuking rip off, no matter how important the fight (or event) is deemed to be. If you subscribe to the sports package, which has always been a premium price, then you should have access to all the major sporting events. The same goes for the movie package, sky box office is just another way of squeezing our pockets. The tv companies realise that people will put up with it therefor they do it.

Thank the lord for the internet and P2P, its a gift from above. Its all about principals, being asked to cough up 20 quid on top of the 40 quid monthly subscription fee just does not sit right with me and never will, regardless of earnings.

ALI wrote:I have always held a serious grudge against PPV events. I believe they are a total fcuking rip off, no matter how important the fight (or event) is deemed to be. If you subscribe to the sports package, which has always been a premium price, then you should have access to all the major sporting events. The same goes for the movie package, sky box office is just another way of squeezing our pockets. The tv companies realise that people will put up with it therefor they do it.

Thank the lord for the internet and P2P, its a gift from above. Its all about principals, being asked to cough up 20 quid on top of the 40 quid monthly subscription fee just does not sit right with me and never will, regardless of earnings.

I agree.

charlieb wrote:

Carbo wrote:

charlieb wrote: He's off on one again.

Setanta's doing a marvellous job. ITV's cutbacks are understandable and PPV is here to stay, Sky or otherwise.

The singular problem is, and has been for a while, that a behemoth of broadcasting like SKY are charging an arm and a leg for piss poor coverage of the sport.

Dont pay good money for shit service, it's that simple.

Yes, quite. But if you're not willing to pay, don't bemoan the paucity of boxing coverage. You can have one or the other; you can keep your cake (that's a metaphor for your money in your wallet) or you can eat your cake (that's a metaphor for taking that money in your wallet and spending it to get boxing).

But, in this world of democracy and capitalism, nobody is forced to give their labour without recompense, and the profit incentive is integral to encouraging risk taking. Given that boxing does not have the massive popularity of football (and thus can not attract either the advertising revenues, official apparel sales, or gargantuan and regular gate receipts), it is therefore unlikely that loads of boxing would come your way for free.

And, in fact, history has born this out. When there was no subscription TV, there were very few fights and their scope was limited to those involving domestic fighters of certain promoters, so one had a choice: pay to go to more boxing, or miss it. Now subscription TV has brought a massive expansion of choice: regular domestic action on Sky; regular stateside action on Setanta; and internet sites which offer further action for a small fee. So, one has the same choice: pay (now to watch as well as to go live) or don’t watch boxing.

You’re faced with the same choice, only the options for real fans are exponentially larger, which I would think was a good thing.

Simple.

But I would suggest that if you’re not willing to pay for a fight of the outstanding quality of Hatton – Pacquiao you’re either not much of a boxing fan, have no friends, or are genuinely broke, because you can’t knock the value in a fight like this.

Now, stop your whining, and face up to the realities of adult life: choose what you spend your money on. But don’t moan that sh1t ain’t coming your way for free.

You condescending prick.

I'm well aware of the nature of supply and demand. I dont need it spelt out to me for absolutely no relevant reason other than an excuse for you to 'go off on another rant'. Based on what you've just rambled on about, explain to me why I get a great service from the likes of Setanta for less money than I get from Sky Sports for a shedload more?

Let me answer that for you - it's because Setanta has made a conscious decision to vy for the fight fan's subscription, whereas SKY have offered forth an absolutely piss poor schedule with the cream being PPV ,which I dont like but will buy, because that's the nature of supporting a non-mainstream sport.

Back to the original point, which had no bearing on your little tirade, if you are being dealt shit on a silver platter, dont order again, dont pay for it!

Well, quite.

Which is why it always surprises me that people here are the first to blubber about there being not enough televised boxing or to hysterically berate specific channels when a certain fight doesn't get shown. Now, perhaps it's a separate group. Perhaps there's one distinctive group which doesn't want to pay because they believe the boxing they're paying for is of poor standard -- and aren't really bothered if they don't get to see much -- and quite another group which is interested in televising and paying for everything from the Friday night brawls on the local high streets upward.

But I suspect not. I suspect there's much crossover, and, infact, it's often the same people who begrudge paying and then whimper because XYZ fight isn't being shown.

But you never know: much as it may shock you, I have been known to be wrong before.

I think it was 1987.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and get a thicker fishing wire, because it seems as though I have a big bite here.

If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

banjo wrote:If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

I just can't imagine a boxing fan who doesn't think this is wroth paying for. Even if you can't afford it outright, surely you have one or two friends who would be willing to chip in?

If people are blubbering about feeling ripped off with this, I wonder what kind of fight they would think was worth PPV?

Goz wrote:Thought a little about posting this but decided to.

Boxing on Sky is now shite. I pay £40 a month and they serve up uninspiring shite (see the 'Friday Fight Night' thread as a case in point) so object to coughing up another £15 on principle.

I don't want to watch the fight live as I can't really do it these days and I resent paying £30 a year to watch Ricky Hatton fight so I will be downloading the fight first thing on Sunday morning and watching it around lunchtime when the download is ready.

I know some people drew criticism for refusing to pay for the Froch-Taylor stream and wondered how people felt about this, perhaps differently because Froch has cashed far less than Hatton?

Don't know, all I know is how I feel and Sky can phuck right off to be blunt.

Agree with the others mate I just have Setanta and pay for the big pay per view fights like this one, though you're completely right.....in no other sport do the TV fans get so ripped off. Bastards...

Carbo wrote:

banjo wrote:If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

I just can't imagine a boxing fan who doesn't think this is wroth paying for. Even if you can't afford it outright, surely you have one or two friends who would be willing to chip in?

If people are blubbering about feeling ripped off with this, I wonder what kind of fight they would think was worth PPV?

Godzilla v King Kong.....

PS you're coming across as a twat Carbo, though I must admit I find you quite amusing :)

I have climbed my ladder & swung my dish west to 1w, Sport 1 Romania has it live & hell am I paying when i can get it for free - all be it without English audio.....

Have the channel working away now and all

whiteboy wrote:

MRPLOW182 wrote:Why would you create a thread admitting been as tight as a ducks arse and not been able to stay awake?

x2

box office has become the norm since lewis & naz?? it is a liberty you haft to pay to watch subscription tv,but i dont want to miss it the excitement & white stuff keep me up

Captain Hook wrote:

Carbo wrote:

banjo wrote:If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

I just can't imagine a boxing fan who doesn't think this is wroth paying for. Even if you can't afford it outright, surely you have one or two friends who would be willing to chip in?

If people are blubbering about feeling ripped off with this, I wonder what kind of fight they would think was worth PPV?

Godzilla v King Kong.....

PS you're coming across as a twat Carbo, though I must admit I find you quite amusing :)

I have been perhaps a little glib on this thread, but I just get tired. This whole thing is the boxing equivalent of those who want lower taxes AND more government provided services: lower income taxes, and more benefits, cheaper transport, more schools, higher teacher wages, more expensive healthcare, and so on.

It's identical to the views of many here. Less PPV, lower subscriptions, fewer adverts, more boxing, bigger fights.

I get easily piqued, perhaps, but I cannot imagine why the forum consistently has threads demanding more boxing, and occasional threads hysterically bemoaning the absence of specific fights, and then the same forum complains about having to pay for fights, pay subscription, and watch adverts between rounds.

I don't mean to argue that we shouldn't demand the best coverage possible, and indeed, without our complaints and feedback, the TV companies can't improve their efforts. But the knee jerk reactions of some are beyond the pale, and fails to recognise some basic economic realities.

It's amazing for example, that when I explain that without money fights can't happen and nobody would televise them, I get told not to give lectures about supply and demand. Really? Why, then, does it seem to me that some posters don't think that this reality applies to boxing?

Ive got Sky and Virgin piped into my house.

Im toying with a eurovox but Virgin's picture is shoite compared to the crisp Sky picture.

But basically with the vox, you take it out the box and you plug in your Virgin TV feed and voila - every sport, movie, porn and PPV channel is available for nothing extra.

Every 6-9 months they will change around their encryption, but by the time they implement it, Eurovox have the software version ready to get your channels back on. At worse, you will be without all your free channels for 2-3 days until the patch comes out. You get a lead that plugs between your laptop and your box which, when connected to the net, automatically updates itself.

All the HD channels are received in full quality with no additional subscription required.

Recording of any shows is done via a USB connection at the rear. You can choose to use a 2gig memory stick and record 10 programmes, or you can invest in a 100gig device from PC world and record your brains out. There is no limit. You can even connect your PC up and record fight to that if you so desire.

£169.99



http://www.dvbjunkieuk.com/receivers-fo ... er-82.html

banjo wrote:If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

You'll only get the Hatton fight a few days later though, not the rest of the card. That's right, isn't it?

King Tubby wrote:

banjo wrote:If I wasn't going out to watch this fight I would pay for it as it's a quality bill, most PPVs are absolute shite though and I avoid them like the plague, it's on for normal subscription price a few days later all the time anyway.

You'll only get the Hatton fight a few days later though, not the rest of the card. That's right, isn't it?

True, forgot about that.

Goz wrote:Thought a little about posting this but decided to.

Boxing on Sky is now shite. I pay £40 a month and they serve up uninspiring shite (see the 'Friday Fight Night' thread as a case in point) so object to coughing up another £15 on principle.

I don't want to watch the fight live as I can't really do it these days and I resent paying £30 a year to watch Ricky Hatton fight so I will be downloading the fight first thing on Sunday morning and watching it around lunchtime when the download is ready.
I know some people drew criticism for refusing to pay for the Froch-Taylor stream and wondered how people felt about this, perhaps differently because Froch has cashed far less than Hatton?

Don't know, all I know is how I feel and Sky can phuck right off to be blunt.

u on dial up dude?

Foremost, I don't pay for PPV out of principle.

My question is, are any of the chipped or dodgy cable boxes showing the Hatton fight tonight. My mates have a vast variety of dodgy boxes (like NTL and Virgin), but we aren't sure which one will show the fight, if any at all.

Can anyone please enlighten me?

Yes, I know of one in particular that will be showing the fight tonight. :!:

And?

My question is, are any of the chipped or dodgy cable boxes showing the Hatton fight tonight.

Said "yes". :??