BoxRec

banjo wrote:

ALI wrote:

TheCobra wrote:F1 bores me to tears, absolute tears. Faceless blokes driving fast cars round a track, whoever has the best car that year usually wins. Crap.

Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

You two have absolutely no idea what you are on about do you? and I'm not even a F1 fan 'cos as I always say "Racing cars is for people who can't race motorbikes" 8)

Racing cars are developed around drivers and the feedback they give to the engineers, so no a no mark at the back of the grid wouldn't win the title if he had Sebastien Vettels car because what Mr Nobody likes may be completely different to what Vettel likes.

Put simply the best cars are the best cars because of the driver developing it into the best car.

So the budgets have nothing to do with it? Get real.

banjo wrote:

ALI wrote:

TheCobra wrote:F1 bores me to tears, absolute tears. Faceless blokes driving fast cars round a track, whoever has the best car that year usually wins. Crap.

Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

You two have absolutely no idea what you are on about do you? and I'm not even a F1 fan 'cos as I always say "Racing cars is for people who can't race motorbikes" 8)

Racing cars are developed around drivers and the feedback they give to the engineers, so no a no mark at the back of the grid wouldn't win the title if he had Sebastien Vettels car because what Mr Nobody likes may be completely different to what Vettel likes.

Put simply the best cars are the best cars because of the driver developing it into the best car.

And if you buy that, you'd buy just about anything!

funtime wrote:

ALI wrote:

TheCobra wrote:F1 bores me to tears, absolute tears. Faceless blokes driving fast cars round a track, whoever has the best car that year usually wins. Crap.

Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

No appeal to you does not make it a sh*t sport.

The key here is that the Beeb are losing another set of fans, they have already sent the boxing community into the wilderness and in recent times if it wastn't for Sky Sports the sport would have been non-existant on TV full stop.

Now they have also decided that F1 is no longer a viable asset and have decided to piss off another community of sports fans by chucking that away to Sky TV. It's disgusting to see as a licence payer and a fan of both sports. I understand they can be expensive sports, but surely they have a duty to give people what they want, eff it just reduce the Deadenders wage bill and the Strictly appearence fees for a while or summat?!?!

angry young man.

By all accounts, licenses for showing F1 are incredibly expensive for the return in viewing figures - so I don't think F1 should have been on the BBC in the first place anyway. I too struggle with the concept of a 'sport' where having the best equipment means you win.

As for boxing on Sky, I'm not sure what direction they'll go. I get the impression they know they've been selling the british public mutton dressed as lamb recently and that can't go on forever as a business model. People would only subscribe if there remained genuinely exciting/interesting fights around.

ALI wrote:

banjo wrote:

ALI wrote: Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

You two have absolutely no idea what you are on about do you? and I'm not even a F1 fan 'cos as I always say "Racing cars is for people who can't race motorbikes" 8)

Racing cars are developed around drivers and the feedback they give to the engineers, so no a no mark at the back of the grid wouldn't win the title if he had Sebastien Vettels car because what Mr Nobody likes may be completely different to what Vettel likes.

Put simply the best cars are the best cars because of the driver developing it into the best car.

And if you buy that, you'd buy just about anything!

What so you think the drivers test the cars for weeks on end for no reason? They build the cars around the driver, it took Michael Schumacher 5 years to win a championship with Ferrari because they were crap when he joined them! If you believe Schumacher had no input into the development of that car then you'd believe just about anything.

If you don't like a sport then you don't like a sport there's no need to make up a load of bollocks to try and discredit it, that's the equivalent of somebody saying "Oh boxing's easy all you have to do is punch some bloke"

So the budgets have nothing to do with it? Get real.

Of course the budgets have something to do with it, do you think Ricky Hatton would have got anywhere near Kostya Tszyu if he was promoted by a nobody with no financial muscle? Or would Barcelona be as dominant as they have been if they didn't plow millions every year into signing new players and youth development?

To be successful in any sport you need money behind you and yes those with the most money behind them are usually at the top, there are exceptions occasionally but not often.

banjo wrote:

ALI wrote:

banjo wrote: You two have absolutely no idea what you are on about do you? and I'm not even a F1 fan 'cos as I always say "Racing cars is for people who can't race motorbikes" 8)

Racing cars are developed around drivers and the feedback they give to the engineers, so no a no mark at the back of the grid wouldn't win the title if he had Sebastien Vettels car because what Mr Nobody likes may be completely different to what Vettel likes.

Put simply the best cars are the best cars because of the driver developing it into the best car.

And if you buy that, you'd buy just about anything!

What so you think the drivers test the cars for weeks on end for no reason? They build the cars around the driver, it took Michael Schumacher 5 years to win a championship with Ferrari because they were crap when he joined them! If you believe Schumacher had no input into the development of that car then you'd believe just about anything.

If you don't like a sport then you don't like a sport there's no need to make up a load of bollocks to try and discredit it, that's the equivalent of somebody saying "Oh boxing's easy all you have to do is punch some bloke"

So the budgets have nothing to do with it? Get real.

Of course the budgets have something to do with it, do you think Ricky Hatton would have got anywhere near Kostya Tszyu if he was promoted by a nobody with no financial muscle? Or would Barcelona be as dominant as they have been if they didn't plow millions every year into signing new players and youth development?

To be successful in any sport you need money behind you and yes those with the most money behind them are usually at the top, there are exceptions occasionally but not often.

Hmm.. with talent cometh the parasites, I think your egg just laid a chicken my good man.

ALI wrote:

banjo wrote:

ALI wrote: Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

You two have absolutely no idea what you are on about do you? and I'm not even a F1 fan 'cos as I always say "Racing cars is for people who can't race motorbikes" 8)

Racing cars are developed around drivers and the feedback they give to the engineers, so no a no mark at the back of the grid wouldn't win the title if he had Sebastien Vettels car because what Mr Nobody likes may be completely different to what Vettel likes.

Put simply the best cars are the best cars because of the driver developing it into the best car.

And if you buy that, you'd buy just about anything!

Giancarlo Fisichella took jumped into Felipe Massa's car mid-way through the 09 season when Massa got KO'd by that flying part, and he was absolutely shite, but yet had one of the best cars on the track. F1 is great if you understand it, and what he says is correct. I don't like American Football because I am too ignorant to even try to understand the game, but hundreds of millions of Yanks can't be wrong can they?

the worlds ending in 2012 apparently so im guessing they will get out as much shows as possible if the world ends on dec 31 2012...

leforge wrote:With the rumours that there are going to be no more PPVs, Mayweather next fight on primetime. Will Sky cut back on boxing or stop after the current contracts with the four promotors are up in July 2012.

Sky have just won the rights to show live F1 share with BBC for some events. This is likely to increase subscribers would more boxing bring in signficant numbers now. Back in the early 90s when Sky pinched Warren stable and Eubank I think it did and was important to sky.

Now with Barney Francis in charge does he see Boxing as sport worthing spending money or as he stated in article "Boxing needs to sort itself out and the best fighters need to fight the best fighters. The punters and the broadcasters are sick of seeing some of the guys that are appearing on the right side of the bill,"

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 82,00.html

allegedly looks like coming in the mix, maybe for Warren, already his old shows on there, could be a case of preparing for the worst.

carlbcfc wrote: hundreds of millions of Yanks can't be wrong can they?

Dunno. How many voted for Dubya?

American football is a quality game, btw.

I would not rule out in all honesty. Because I would not be surprised if Sky are going to start taking a firmer line with allegedly, Frank Maloney et al and basically say them if you do not start giving us more competitive fights with decent undercards we are going to start cutting back the amount of shows that you are able to put on our air, because Sky have got subscribers who pay easily £40-£50 a month and want to see good value for money along with advertisers as well so I reckon their Boxing department might start feeling the heat as a result of this.

ALI wrote:

TheCobra wrote:F1 bores me to tears, absolute tears. Faceless blokes driving fast cars round a track, whoever has the best car that year usually wins. Crap.

Exactly, its nonsense, anyone of those drivers could win the title if they were sat in the best car. Sh*t sport, it has no appeal to me whatsoever!

Boxing my a mile, no argument.

But watch Senna http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1424432/ great F1 movie