BoxRec

silly statement. in this current climate were job's & spending are being axed degale can afford to drop 50% he's promoter has marketed him & got him what he wanted to declare this statement
it mean's he's on too much & he's ripping his current paymaster's off. i cant see what good is coming from such a silly statement. i like degale but he's naive & need's some media training as he doesnt really know what he should & shouldnt be saying, but it is funny he can put it down to exageration

If he loses against Smith he very well may just get his wish - the pay cut bit but not the BBC portion.

The cynical old trout in mind wonders if someone nameless is get sick of shelling out 'Chunky' wedges of cash to a guy that isn't a ticket seller and knows that a. if he loses there may very well be an alteration to the minimum purse payable to the mercurial mouthy Harlsdonian, or b. if he wins it fast-tracks his career into more lucrative TV fights.

Just a idol thought from an idiot.

Its not all about terrestrial tv its not even all about the fights the fighter is in. Its about ticking a few marketing boxes enough so to switch on the attention of the casual fan to embed it in their psyche.

There are only a few number of things that people latch onto. The olympics, terrestrial tv exposure, being "the best"/ fighting "the best"

Take Calzaghe his crossover came because after the Lacy fight/ his lengthy world title reign the press started to click on that we might have "the best" whilst never quite having a Hatton fanbase the man in the street immediately came interested

Haye had the mouth which got the press interested i think Macca attendance was more to do with Warrens promoting which was very good for that fight "battle of britain" national advertising then he fought "the biggest heavyweight champ ever" the casual fan immediately became interested 1 because it was the heavies 2 because of the size of Valuev who was built up as this monster who was the man to beat when in teality he was a top 10 fighter.

Froch on the other hand fell between two stools he had the exposure and to a certain extent the fights Pascal Taylor. Pascal was not an opponent who the public could view as a formidable win as he was unknown and not built up. Same again with Taylor + Dirrell great wins and the first two were great fights but who you are fighting is important to make the crossover appeal regardless of the performance

For whatever has happened on sky, imagine if the same hype, promotion, etc happened re a BBC prime time slot. Immense.

Definitely true that while the BBC did televise boxing, it was only paying lipservice. You could smell the distaste in their broadcasts. Terrestrial TV done well would have different results. That said, ITV didn't exactly create a star during its most recent foray. Were the fighters of the '90s just more charismatic perhaps? Benn, Eubank, Hamed etc?

Glyn Leach wrote:Definitely true that while the BBC did televise boxing, it was only paying lipservice. You could smell the distaste in their broadcasts. Terrestrial TV done well would have different results. That said, ITV didn't exactly create a star during its most recent foray. Were the fighters of the '90s just more charismatic perhaps? Benn, Eubank, Hamed etc?

Anybody with a modicum of personality, sufficient exposure, and the required spin can become a star. This includes people who are willing to perform for free or for a smallish fee in an attempt to either establish a career or resurrect one that is flagging. Why pay millions to somebody at the top of their game when you can make millions out of using somebody who is desperate for fame?

TV executives don't get rich out of boxers; they can out of wannabe popstars, celebrity hasbeens, voting lines and downloads etc..!

He's a twat. End of.

Moshe_Crescas wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Definitely true that while the BBC did televise boxing, it was only paying lipservice. You could smell the distaste in their broadcasts. Terrestrial TV done well would have different results. That said, ITV didn't exactly create a star during its most recent foray. Were the fighters of the '90s just more charismatic perhaps? Benn, Eubank, Hamed etc?

Anybody with a modicum of personality, sufficient exposure, and the required spin can become a star. This includes people who are willing to perform for free or for a smallish fee in an attempt to either establish a career or resurrect one that is flagging. Why pay millions to somebody at the top of their game when you can make millions out of using somebody who is desperate for fame?

TV executives don't get rich out of boxers; they can out of wannabe popstars, celebrity hasbeens, voting lines and downloads etc..!

Exactly, the proverbial "will w@nk for coins".

Rebecca Loos did exactly that with the swine on C5's The Farm. Who needs Hagler vs. Hearns when you've got a footballer's ex-mistress tossing off a pig!?

The most literal meaning to money shot for some time.

Have you got a link moshe?

Glyn Leach wrote:Have you got a link moshe?

Of course. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNb5ZPsNGzc

They try their best to mask the fact it is titilation at its lowest level. They fail.

How have you got from Chunky trying to single handidly bring boxing back to the masses to primetime beastiality?

Moshe_Crescas wrote:Rebecca Loos did exactly that with the swine on C5's The Farm. Who needs Hagler vs. Hearns when you've got a footballer's ex-mistress tossing off a pig!?

Jim (McDonnell, trainer) boos me now when I spar!

that made me laugh more than it should have

Chris W 1982 wrote:The only fighter who emerged from the BBC flirtation with his reputation massively enhanced for the right reasons was David Walker.

When they put him on against Karmazin?

I know the terrestrial argument, hell Calzaghe Lacy was huge (wasnt it?) but doesnt "everyone" have sky nowadays, or do a lot of people in the cities have cable etc... ? Cant get owt like that up in the sticks, so we all have sky or the very limited 10 channel freeview

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/james- ... -fight-bbc

Very refreshing attitude. Boxing NEEDS to be on terrestrial telly if it is to thrive.

How can the BBC verify what he is earning now?

Didnt someone on here once say that when the beeb were showing the likes of hoye woods etc... that one match of the day episode cost eclipsed their yearly boxing budget

i had the pleasure of sitting next to DeGale and McDonnell at a Charity Boxing Dinner last year and I have to say they were great company. I'm a big fan of Jim's and also been keeping a close eye on DeGale's progress so was a bit of a chatterbox, which could easily have been a pain in the arse for those lads, and they were incredibly welcoming and open - had great chats about boxing with both, especially with Jim who was up for talking about all the great fighters in the world in great detail, they both clearly love the sport and are truly dedicated.

I can see that JdG's ring/media persona can be annoying to some and obviously influenced by the likes of Naz and Floyd, but the lad loves the sport and was very personable to anyone who wanted a chat.

I think he's gone through the gears the last few fights and looks a really exciting prospect. I've seen most of his fights, and as a Smith fan (i've been to Smigga's last few fights) whilst i'm looking forward to Dec 11th and I'm hoping for a Smigga win, I'd like to see these 2 (as well as Froch who I think is terrific) continue to have great careers at SM for years to come. Both top fighters and good lads.

Would prefer to see DeGale smash Groves up really and Smigga get the World Title shot I believe he's earned. De Gale is young and has a great future in the sport - and he's right terrestrial telly is missing boxing badly. You think back to Eubank v Benn they even signed for the fight on live TV and had a Jonathan Ross special shown before the fight - Harrison v Haye could have been much bigger if on BBC or ITV - the channels are definitely missing a trick. Showing Khan at 3am is all very well but they need to invest more in the sport at primetime.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/james- ... -fight-bbc

Very refreshing attitude. Boxing NEEDS to be on terrestrial telly if it is to thrive.

If push come to shove do you really think he would do it?

chris s wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/james- ... -fight-bbc

Very refreshing attitude. Boxing NEEDS to be on terrestrial telly if it is to thrive.

If push come to shove do you really think he would do it?

Yes. He could make up the shortfall in personal appearance money, easy, if the BBC got behind him properly. It would be playing the long game.

Could and would issue?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/james- ... -fight-bbc

Very refreshing attitude. Boxing NEEDS to be on terrestrial telly if it is to thrive.

Dosnt say much for sky

Ricky Hatton made himself into a household name from appearing on Sky.

I think alot of it has to do with their personalities.

Hatton became a star despite being on Sky, fighting his regular WBU defences, knocking guys out on the BBC would have made him huge.

With Froch, I don't think he was helped by getting injured so frequently, his marmite personality which has been mentioned and the fact he hasn't had a proper rival. Yeah he and Calzaghe have had some verbals but the fight was never close to happening. Eubank and Benn who are the pinnacle of what can be achieved in this sense, wouldn't have made it so big without one another. You were either a Benn or Eubank fan, their contrasting personalities, believable dislike for one another, plus both being "world champs".

Degale could pull it off. I have always warmed to the guy and can't really understand the dislike that gets levelled at him. In an ideal world you'd have Degale on the BBC, Groves on ITV, building up their careers with an eye on each other.