BoxRec

exittored wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:I don't want to piss on the parade, because the figures look good....but Match of the Day wasn't on last Saturday night was it? That may have helped C5 too....

There's always one negative fornicator ha

It may have had a slight knock on effect but i don't think by much in a age where people can record everything and watch it at anytime

I'm actually just astonished by the figures for Pac-Marquez, 40 million viewers in Mexico and 90 million in the Phillipines.

It's not negative, it's a factor......great viewing figures and all power to C5 and Team Fury for getting them if they're accurate....but MOTD is on a Saturday night in a slot between 10pm-12am and gets millions of viewers. It wasn't on that night.

Hopefully C5 and co can keep the figures up in the future.

Imagine what the viewing figures would be like if 5 actually promoted the fight.

Remember, Harrison vs Williams 1 got 12 million viewers. Okay, not so much in the digital age as now.... but that is bigger figures than the likes of the x factor.

There is a scope for boxing on TV - why oh why can't terrestial TV not see this I don't know. Although it is alarming what Ade Edmundson said yesterday about how the BBC want to cut on costs.

Good stuff well done Channel 5 for continuing with the boxing - here's hoping that they continue on -

Madison Square Garden a bit of late night Council Telly Boxing?

I putting a link up to a great thread on tv boxing figures on eastside worth a look at. This is why allegedly will struggle see the figures on sky. FIrst page tv figures have been updated.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/sho ... p?t=231724

Guys, I've pointed this out on previous threads but most people seem to forget it's a critical part of the equation. Those numbers are good, but the only numbers that truly matter to a commercial station like Channel 5 are the advertising revenue numbers.
It's for that reason that the likes of Big Brother will still get preferential treatment - advertisers (rightly or wrongly) perceive it as being a great channel to engaging with a desirable youth audience. Boxing, by contrast, struggles with a perception issue in the UK and advertisers rarely want to be associated with it, despite the potential reach given the size of the audience.
To use a comparison from my previous world of publishing, even when a magazine like Loaded was selling twice as much as GQ (so had twice as big an audience), I 100% guarantee you that GQ was generating far more ad revenue, because advertisers perceived GQ to be read by a more affluent demographic.
Unfortunately it's a similar story here. Channel 5 will be pleased by the numbers, but the challenge for them now will be working out how to convert it into ad dollars. The one advantage is the station is now run by a cut-throat man who has a very populist approach (Richard Desmond), so there's no danger of the type of middle-class liberal who dominates at the BBC killing off boxing coverage just because it's not their 'cup of tea'.

Does that barb site show the average as Chisora fight shows 2.22 million and the Firtha fight only 1.03 million. I'd be really suprised if the Pajkic fight did more than the Chisora fight.

broomy7s wrote:Does that barb site show the average as Chisora fight shows 2.22 million and the Firtha fight only 1.03 million. I'd be really suprised if the Pajkic fight did more than the Chisora fight.

Yes. Really interesting figures don't how allegedly will work with sky and Setanta figures like that. Only very big fights got the viewers thats helped by casual fans!

1.74 the average was then. Still in channel 5's top 10 ratings.

broomy7s wrote:1.74 the average was then. Still in channel 5's top 10 ratings.

Good figures better than the last one.

3.5 million is good nowadays

but think compared to benn vs eubank 2 which got 30 million uk viewers

Fury vs Price - especially if Price KO's mcdermott looks like it shall get the viewing figs

Boxing Addict wrote: but think compared to benn vs eubank 2 which got 30 million uk viewers

Sorry, but that figure simply isn't accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... programmes

Deserter wrote:

Boxing Addict wrote: but think compared to benn vs eubank 2 which got 30 million uk viewers

Sorry, but that figure simply isn't accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... programmes

I never understand the comparisons to that particular fight. It was a monumental one-off. It was the biggest fight ever staged in this country, unrivalled either before or since (with the possible exception of Lewis - Bruno a week earlier). That one-off fight was indicative of an era, but it would have been huge whenever the fight took place. I have no doubt that, in similar circumstances, the fight would have a huge profile nowadays because Eubank and Benn both had the personailties and the rivalry to capture public imagination. Everyone was either Benn or Eubank.

It's like complaining that Eastenders is rubbish now because it only gets 8m viewers when back in the days of Den and Angie it got 30m.

If the sport in the UK had a genuine world class rivalry between two guys with polar opposite personalities, then it would be huge. People pretending that a couple of fledgling novices in the early stages of their careers (DeGale and Groves) are the second coming of Benn and Eubank miss the point of the originals. The fight was big because it was years in the making between two guys at close to the peak of their powers. DeGale - Groves could be massive, but they need to develop their careers first.

No way did Eubank vs Benn 2 generate 30 million viewers. Not even close.

Anyway another fundamental factor is there were only 4 channels to chose from in the majority of homes those days. So only 3 real alternatives (okay, Sky had a few options but it was a fledging organisation in those days).

I actually thought with the digital switch over then I thought Terrestial TV coverage wasn't such a big deal. Technically a non "terrestial" channel that is Free to Air on Sky, Freview or Virgin should technically attract as big an audience as one of the "terrestial" counterparts. However - the viewing figures highlights that I was thinking very much wrongly in those regards. Its amazing how many are being forced to move to different ways to watching TV - but still only consider the Terrestial options. Not as many as previously, naturally - but Fury vs a Canadian no hoper shows that it is still very important.

stujones wrote:No way did Eubank vs Benn 2 generate 30 million viewers. Not even close.

From memory it's around half that. I think McGuigan/Pedroza was the top live boxing event and that was sub 18 million (although if you added in Irish viewers it boosts it slightly). That's a cast iron fact too as it was in one of those Schott books but I've struggled to find it since.

Some people talk about Ali & Cooper but that wasn't live, it was delayed by almost a day.

stujones wrote:No way did Eubank vs Benn 2 generate 30 million viewers. Not even close.

Anyway another fundamental factor is there were only 4 channels to chose from in the majority of homes those days. So only 3 real alternatives (okay, Sky had a few options but it was a fledging organisation in those days).

I actually thought with the digital switch over then I thought Terrestial TV coverage wasn't such a big deal. Technically a non "terrestial" channel that is Free to Air on Sky, Freview or Virgin should technically attract as big an audience as one of the "terrestial" counterparts. However - the viewing figures highlights that I was thinking very much wrongly in those regards. Its amazing how many are being forced to move to different ways to watching TV - but still only consider the Terrestial options. Not as many as previously, naturally - but Fury vs a Canadian no hoper shows that it is still very important.

The figure I have seen for Eubank-Benn 2 is around 17million on ITV, it is a shame that Sky have muscled in with their money so we do not get to those figures again for boxing here in the UK, but that's the way it goes I am afraid.

IRLangmaid25 wrote:

stujones wrote:No way did Eubank vs Benn 2 generate 30 million viewers. Not even close.

Anyway another fundamental factor is there were only 4 channels to chose from in the majority of homes those days. So only 3 real alternatives (okay, Sky had a few options but it was a fledging organisation in those days).

I actually thought with the digital switch over then I thought Terrestial TV coverage wasn't such a big deal. Technically a non "terrestial" channel that is Free to Air on Sky, Freview or Virgin should technically attract as big an audience as one of the "terrestial" counterparts. However - the viewing figures highlights that I was thinking very much wrongly in those regards. Its amazing how many are being forced to move to different ways to watching TV - but still only consider the Terrestial options. Not as many as previously, naturally - but Fury vs a Canadian no hoper shows that it is still very important.

The figure I have seen for Eubank-Benn 2 is around 17million on ITV, it is a shame that Sky have muscled in with their money so we do not get to those figures again for boxing here in the UK, but that's the way it goes I am afraid.

But no tv gets audiences like it did. Eastenders get much less than it did. There more choice to watch now.