BoxRec

Agree with the Majority.
Sky Sports is slick, professional and seem to pick staff who love their respective sports.
(I particularly enjoy their cricket coverage). Sky Sports is not a boxing channel, but to my knowledge IS showing more fights than terrestrial.

BBC and ITV DUMPED Boxing hard in recent times. Sky have stayed commited and for me have really got into the groove in recent times.

PPV fights show up to normal subscription holder a few days laters.
Big US fights get shown over the next few days, 4 or 5 times.
Domestic coverage is good. All for a sport which has no single governing body and lacks mass market appeal for the majority of it's product.

It seem like some posters want to pust a bike up a hill with a freshly baked loaf of hovis in the front basket.

Look guys this is getting away from my point.

I was refering to how Sky use us boxing fans guinea pigs over other sports and also how when it came to Froch they abandoned both Froch and us as veiwers.
I was reminded by a knowledgeable fan recently how they moved an important fight to Sky sports 4 also, which of course wasnt being broadcast on analouge thus forcing you all to buy a HD box, they have been doing this type of shit to boxing fans since their inception, some of you choose to forget but I wont, I'm a Scottish mizer and I hate being used by Murdoch.
But hey what can you do when you passionalty love a sport and your only curent outlet is your pimp?
It was GREAT when setanta was around and it kept Sky on thier toes.
Ringside magazine show is pretty good but lets face it, it aint HBO.

All this BS about "not having the budget for Froch" is 110% horseshit, I buy national TV adverts and I know how much they make from Boxing etc.

Froch would have made them a shit load of money and they 'chose' not to show him.
When I read the well lubed interview with the head of Sky Sports in BM I wanted to reach into the page and punch him in the mouth for trying to feed us all bullshit.

No budget for an all action fighter who would have made them good PPV money?
Get the fornicate outa here you lying douchebags.

A few other things...

1 Get Ian Darke back he was great.
2 Get some decent MC's we need a UK Michael Buffer not some dudes who sound like they should be introducing fornicating strippers.
3 the Lennox Lews show sucked balls, they spent all night licking his ass rather than asking the questions like "who was the hardest puncher you ever faced" "what victory was the sweetest"? "did you think that the US judges would take the Mercer fight away from you"? "do you think Tyson would have beet Foerman"? "were you really hurt in the Briggs fight" "did you believe deep down you had ruddocks number based on your sparring sessions?" "why ds Larry Merchant give you a hard time" OR "how do you feel about Riddick Bowe's life after boxing, do you think you would have Ko'ed Bowe?" simple questions.
4 Go watch Buncey's show as that had real passion, you own magazine is a step forward but it needs an of the wall Buncey style ad libber to provide a laxitive to a very constipated format.

And lastly (and this part really gets my goat)
If the home fighter loses dont forget to interview the fornicating winner, time and time again they leave out the guy who was the most imporant an in the ring, mean are the fornicating thick or what?

I need to go buy myself a cable TV channel as no one seems capable of fixing this shit.


PS to the guy who said I'm a "troll" I'm not mate I just love this sport but I hate all the "politricks" & the insider trading.

Jon I agree with some of what you're saying. It is galling that Sky make us pay twice for our subscription. It seems that Sky are going the American route and putting many fights on PPV nowdays which is wrong imo. Although the Mag 7 show was good, it wasn't PPV worthy imo but I still bought it cause I didn;t want to miss it.

I remember the days when Bruno beat Mcall for WBC title at Wembley, with Nigel Benn and others on the undercard. That would be PPV now for definite. Lewis Vs Bruno was also on ordinary sky if I remember correctly, that would be PPV nowdays aswell. Unfortunalty boxing fans don't have a big enough voice to change things. Boxing is a minority sport these days, so we have to take what we can get and Sky know it.

I also agree with you Jon about not interviewing the away fighter if he unexpectedly wins. I'm sure that happened recently, can't remember which fight it was. And your questions for Lennox are vastly superior to the ones they asked him on Ringside.

I'd like Ed Robinson to tell us why Sky are going the PPV route. Is it the boxers and promoters demanding more money for big fights or is it simply Sky chancing their arm because they know the hardcore fans will buy regardless?

majority of forum fan's are tightwad's & put nothing into the sport watching poxy stream's & have the cheek to complain. i do think sky should clamp down & get more involvement on promotions.

It is what it is. Sky is pretty much the only show in town for a boxing fan. They should have Carl Froch; it seems that Henessey is frozen out regardless of how talented and exciting his fighters are. The Haye v Harrison PPV was crap value for money. The December 11th looks very good value and I hope that Sky stick with Maidano if he gets the win.

Hennessy's fighters always have genuine fights for the most part.

Whilst apart from Mathroom, Hennessy has been shunned from the British promotional goldfish bowl - but he is doing regular business with the likes of Gary Shaw and Lou Dibella stateside. He is pals with the boss of Showtime and has always played everything with a straight bat.

Not many of his shows have featured some horsesh*t scooped up from the eastern bloc to come over and fall down.

I hate the snow

good for you but know this, regarding Sky TV it will forever rain in my heart.
They have to get better and stop picking on the weak.


I pray that another Setanta come along soon.

earsjohn wrote:OK, an accusation of trolling is probably harsh but to compare the choice that everyone has to pay or not to pay to watch sport with the real hardships imposed by an unfair poll tax was disingenuous at best.

A number of posters on here seem to think that TV companies exist only to serve the specific needs of boxing fans. They don't. In fact, boxing fans, generally speaking, are low to middle earning working class males that are not particularly attractive to advertisers. Boxing does not have a significant family or female audience (anecdotal evidence besides) and therefore it will be regarded behind the likes of football, rugby, cricket, golf when it comes to scheduling, service to viewers, etc.

It would be great is everything was free but this is both fantasy-land and arguably not in the best interests of the sports (lack of subs=lower revenue received by TV comps=lower payments to promoters=fewer cards/smaller cards). There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when we watch all TV on a pay as you go basis (ie paying only for those programes that you will watch, rather than for hundreds of channels you don't), but in the meantime, Sky probably offer the best intermediate solution.

It may be that way now but it used to be the most watched sport in the world. Its the very thing we're debating about here that has cost the sport its exposure. Boxing is the highest paid sport in the world and all the TV fat cats etc want their cut.
This is whay boxing is dying as a mainstream sport (or you could say has died)

Ezzard wrote:

StevenB wrote:

Ezzard wrote:The pro-SKY arguments boil down to them making quality TV programmes. This is not in question.

The people who work for SKY work hard. The content is good if not excellent. But SKY are not a paternal figure here. These arguments are a smokescreen.

The core audience of boxing has changed. McGuigan's win over Pedroza was the most watched sporting event of the 1980s. Everybody watched that fight: men, woman and children. It has become a sport that attracts little sponsorship because it has been removed from regular TV.

The people who follow the sport even from their armchairs are decdiated boxing fans or dedicated sports fans. You have to work hard to find any info about boxing.

Compare McGuigan to Hatton. Hatton was popular but the average person didn't know who he was or if they did had never seen him fight.

The fanbase has got smaller since SKY rode into town. The coverage has got worse. You can't argue with these two points.

BUT, SKY is here to stay and by and large they do a good job. But let's not pretend that they didn't hi-jack the sport and reduce it's popularity.

I think you are doing Sky a massive disservice saying the coverage has got worse! Based on what?

And it's not Sky's fault that the fanbase has dwindled. It's the BBC and ITV who are answerable on that one...

Based on the fact that nobody knows who Carl Froch is. Based on the fact that SKY signed the boxers who had been brought along on ITV and BBC making it almost impossible for them to compete. McGuigan's title fight would have been snatched up. Isn't this what happened with Khan?

The fanbase has dwindled because boxing is not on BBC and ITV and it's not sustainable for those 2 channels to promote rising stars so another company can lap up all the cream.

This is all self-evident. Why would you argue otherwise?

I don't hate SKY. I like their shows. I like the build up. I like the punditry. They do a great job. But to pretend that boxing's decline in the UK is only linked to SKY by coincidence... Come on, you're better than that.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that the terrestrial channels cannot compete. They can - they just choose to spend their money elsewhere.The BBC spends millions of pounds covering sports such as horse racing, bowls, cycling, badminton etc. They also spent a million quid on Audley Harrison.

There is a market out there that doesn't just involve the likes of Khan and co but the Beeb choose not to get involved.

Terrestrial television in Germany does an incredible job with boxing - ok they don't have PPV there and it's a slightly different market but it can be done.

Sky shouldn't be made a scapegoat for the BBC's ineptitude and general shithouse sports coverage.

I don't know the business well enough... But why pay to promote someone at the thin end for them to leave for a channel with more purchasing power when they actually start bringing in the big audiences?

It doesn't make sense.

It's pretty obvious to me that terrestrial TV cannot operate in a market place with PPV, which is why Germany works.

SKY isn't a scapegoat. It offers us high quality boxing television progs. But, again, it's rise and boxing's decline is not a coincidence.

I think the BBC could pick up British Title fights, that much I agree with.

Jon Saxon wrote: I pray that another Setanta come along soon.

Like PremierSports channel 433?

No new sports company is going to be able to compete with the might of Sky Sports though, as the original Setanta proved when they tried. New companies can only live off Skys scraps

Jon Saxon wrote:You know I have used this forum for a few years now and I have i may have created one or two topics that were for some reason removed, hence the reason that I dont really post on a regular basis on here, i have spent a wee while drafting this and I'm going to posts this up on another forum that I am a member of that I know will keep it up.

Don't get me wrong I like this place however as of late this forum is turning into a Sky TV love nest and I'm sorry while I like Adam & co I think that maybe "Ya'll musta forgot"
You see no amount of good PR from their employees and or backpedalling from Sky will ever hide the fact that they are 100% scum.

The Super Six should have been on ITV, when it wasnt (and Sky didnt jump on it) was when Sky again failed their subscribers and let the British boxing scene down AGAIN.


"Oh Jon your being a bit harsh, the Sky team of Ed, Adam etc etc seem like really nice guys"
I'm sure they are BUT does anyone remember that initailly you had to subscribe to Sky/Bsb to see Tysons fights, then the scum decided to brieifly put them on the movie channels,(which required an additional subscription) then on sports channels (again more money) then of course lets not forget that we were the first fans to get but fuked with PPV.


The Tories tested the pol tax out on Scotland now thanks to Sky I now what it's like to get royally fucked in the ass twice.
Face it folks Sky fucked over every boxing fan since day one.

So get it right up you Murdoch & Co.

agree with you on everything. Both in regards to your comments on sky and also this forum.
Rupert murdoch is an aussie and so are most of the scum worthless posters on here.
I hate the way sky put out propoganda about primetime. I think prime time dont get enough credit for the great job they have done. Basically making every super 6 fight available to brits at mostly very good prices altho the 14.95 for froch-aa was a leaf out of skys book. That said they do show free reruns of all the fights and the great showtime documentaries about the super 6. On the downside their picture is poor. But hey i have lost count of the great bills i have bought off them for 4.95 and the initial connection fee was 2.50

im afraid im cancelling my sky subscription since i bought it for boxing and now all the decent fights are on box office.

King Geedorah wrote:Maidana is going to get his ass handed to him on Saturday (not sure why I got all 'hyped-up Yank' there), Gomez, so put your dosh away! The guy is far too 1-D and after a few swings he'll be out of ideas and is likely to lose a landslide points decision.

http://www.livefight.com/news.php?news_id=1096

The Flushing Flash, Kevin Kelley 60-10(39ko) has disclosed to a recent radio show, the experience he had when he encountered Amir Khan's next challenger to his WBA light welter title.

A couple of years ago, the veteran was in the gym when he was asked to go a few rounds of sparring with a young gentleman from Argentina known as 'El Chino'. The former WBC featherweight champion was happy to oblige and found the experience to be a memorable one.

"I'm in the gym one day and (his trainer) Miguel Diaz asked me to spar this kid (Maidana)

"I'm boxing the first round and he never throws a punch and I'm thinking what's going on here. Then the second round begins and he throws a punch that feels like he has kicked me." said Kelley who was shocked by his heavy hands.

"He hits like a building fell on you. He is the hardest puncher I ever been in the ring with. I sparred people like Sam Peter (the heavyweight) and you know man, this kid (Maidana) hits abnormally hard." Kelley concluded.

Kelly's words will not be music to Freddie Roach's ears, who alluded to Maidana being a high risk, low reward fight for Amir Khan when the two first joined forces following Khan's brutal destruction at the hands of the big-punching Breidis Prescott.

Here is Kelley talking about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpLro1esci8

BIGMARK wrote:i know you are not a Khan fan but if he sticks to the game plan this will be an easy night as Madiena may be one hell of puncher but isnt exactly Mr Mobile. I go for Khan let stoppage or wide UD

Agreed I said since it was announced Khan would demolish him with fast combo's and lateral movement, Maidana is crude and Ortiz was outboxing him clearly until he KD MM and that was the changing point, Roach won't let Khan fall into that trap he'll make Khan box and win decidedly on points!

alexpaterson wrote:

BIGMARK wrote:i know you are not a Khan fan but if he sticks to the game plan this will be an easy night as Madiena may be one hell of puncher but isnt exactly Mr Mobile. I go for Khan let stoppage or wide UD

Agreed I said since it was announced Khan would demolish him with fast combo's and lateral movement, Maidana is crude and Ortiz was outboxing him clearly until he KD MM and that was the changing point, Roach won't let Khan fall into that trap he'll make Khan box and win decidedly on points!

I agree. Roach will not let Khan open up at any point in this fight because he knows it could be over in a second if he makes a mistake. I expect Khan to work the jab well and stay on his bike for 12 rounds, picking off Maidana using his superior footwork and handspeed as he walks in straight. But, and this is what makes the fight so fascinating, if Khan makes that one mistake and leaves his chin out then it's game over.

I just think so much is being made of Maidana being crude, bad footwork, slow etc. Whilst Freddie Roach has become a sort of million-dollar lucky charm for hire. I just think flattering victories of Salita and Malignaggi have brought about that swagger and cocksure approach from Khan we saw prior to his last fall from grace.

Khan has the power and skills to take Maidana out. He is easy to hit and read. But when the likes of Limmond, little Gomez, Drilzane and Prescott and putting you down and unconcious - then you have to give Maidana a decent chance.

He has been working on cutting off the ring and timing. Khan will be looking for the minimum of action in each round, picking his shots, circling away from the right hand and will be clinching if he's not back peddalling.

If Maidana works hard he could catch up with Khan in the last 3 rounds.

My feelings buck the trend - I think if it ends early it will be Khan - and the longer it goes on, I think Maidana. With possibly some 10-8 knock-down rounds or a stoppage.

My main bugbear with the PPV efforts is that Sky have the cheek to fornicating show adverts on top! Even the yank PPv's don't do that, sort it out.

also they shouldn't cut to adverts between rounds.
If I'm paying for something i dont want ads

Terrible production values.

From memory, the old SKY PPVs didn't have adverts.