BoxRec

Cotto wins a SD.

Fearful_Freddie wrote:Cotto wins a SD.

Well done Freddie - nice spoiler

TerribleTerry wrote:James Buddy McGirt v Simon Brown. Buddy put a boxing clinic on the weight drained Jamaican. Never tire of watching that one!

buddy was effing knackered in the 2nd half. he was all wrong for brown, but i reckon if brown wasn't weak at the weight he would have got him

Autobarn wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote:James Buddy McGirt v Simon Brown. Buddy put a boxing clinic on the weight drained Jamaican. Never tire of watching that one!

buddy was effing knackered in the 2nd half. he was all wrong for brown, but i reckon if brown wasn't weak at the weight he would have got him

This was a version of McGirt post shoulder surgery - he had no left hook to speak of but still put on a clinic. Great, great performance from him. Brown was weak at the weight but Buddy was punch perfect that night.

What do you lot think about McGirt v Whitaker 1?

What 30 did he use in the end?
Any links to Emersen's mention?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SEIDojjk_w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B257dzKamE

Coco wrote:What 30 did he use in the end?
Any links to Emersen's mention?

Coco, you got a name drop, so did I and a few others.

Well Emerson got a name drop for having a fantastic name.

stujones wrote:

Coco wrote:What 30 did he use in the end?
Any links to Emersen's mention?

Coco, you got a name drop, so did I and a few others.

Well Emerson got a name drop for having a fantastic name.

Really! Haha, i'm actually quite pleased now thats made my day
Is it on You tube or anything?

Spud wrote:

Hagler2002 wrote:

Spud wrote: Bring back the good old days - they got the money from somewhere in those days!!! without all of this PPV b*llocks

And the fighters didn't get paid what they are today.

Benn, Eubank, Collins, Watson, McGuigan, Bruno to name a few did very well out of the sport on our terrestrial screens.

yeah okay they went onto Sky eventually - but terrestrial tv did stump up the cash.

Undercard fighters for 4-6 round fights get paid anything between 1800 and 3000 - Boxing has some very hard choices - stop being greedy and get the sport stabilised that means a bit of cost cutting - but we simply have to keep the sport on our screens.

Because it was a LOCKED in audience. Crickey some of the shows on UK Gold used to attract audiences of 25million - some of them we're dog-turd. Audiences were locked into two-three channels, no Internet, not satellite and TV was in its golden age of new found affordability for all and colour programming. Advertising spend was there, because the large, definite audience was there. The advent of digital television, the remote control and latterly the Internet smashed this duopoly to pieces, its just taken twenty years for the ripple to become a tidal wave to sink the big players in the same way high-street music stores before them.

Its like saying ooh, yes it was better with British Leyland, British cars and I once got all the way to Harrogate doing nearly sixty without breaking down. Times move on, boxing has to adapt like every other sport to present itself and make itself relevant and attractive to an audience, the old one and a new one. You cannot simply wave history at Ad Agencies, TV networks et al to make a case for a return to prime-time Saturday night shows. Boxing cannot defy the progress of technology and the way we all interact with the world. They've stopped making HeartBeat for fkks sake, what chance showcasing a 'world-title' fight recognised by 25% of the sanctioning bodies to whom existence or relevance only 1% of the British public could conceivably try to explain.

The reason it became a TV sport in the 1950's is because it permits regular AD breaks without breaking the pace of a fight or the spectacle, it has natural advantages over other sports but BOXING hurts itself, and everyone of us that succumbed to paying extra subs for satellite, paid for PPV, right back to Bruno v Tyson have contributed to its downfall as a mainstream spectacle.

The quality of operator in the ring remains strong, and the overt but highly camouflaged corruption which stifles boxing now has always been endemic in one format or another, but the current manifestation - the sanctioning bodies create the biggest obstacle to understanding and interest to the potential consumer. Every time we've referred to a belt holder as a WORLD champion on here or in conversation, we've hurt the sport, you cannot blame everyone or everything else, if FANS are the true drivers of the sport - after all its all about supply and demand - then surely we have to accept, ultimately, through delayed and indirect ways that we, the fans casual and otherwise, are the architects of the sports fall from popular, mainstream viewing.

It has comebacks because networks are tempted by the TV friendly format, they're tempted by tales of yore and Benn v Eubank's millions but I don't think it is any surprise that in the digital age with the retirement of British boxing's golden couple - JC and RH - boxing finds mainstream coverage to be a reluctant lover. Boxing is now different to any other programming here or in the States which is feeling the credit crunch and underlying collapse of commercial television as a mass-audience medium.

Boxing needs to rationalise itself rapidly through unification or find a way to squeeze the sanctioning bodies from control of the sport. I hoped Marco Antonio Barrera's election not to pay a sanctioning fee in a fight with, I think Erik Morales, and therefore debunk the notion a belt was required to sell a fight about 4 years ago was the beginning of the end for the bodies - that fighters and fights could be made without the trinkets - but it has proven unfounded.

To return to the original point you make Spud.

You need to find a new argument for boxing or a new solution. Singing lyrics to old Barbara Streisand songs aint going to turn the TV and advertising world on its axis.

Good post Dave - whoops Mr Payne!!!

This subject deserves a thread on its own - many of your points are extremely valid - however what is utterly clear is people within boxing will be complete idiots if they do not realise now that with the ever decreasing/diminishing opportunity of TV deals - something has to be done differently.

Because it was a LOCKED in audience. Crickey some of the shows on UK Gold used to attract audiences of 25million - some of them we're dog-turd. Audiences were locked into two-three channels, no Internet, not satellite and TV was in its golden age of new found affordability for all and colour programming. Advertising spend was there, because the large, definite audience was there. The advent of digital television, the remote control and latterly the Internet smashed this duopoly to pieces, its just taken twenty years for the ripple to become a tidal wave to sink the big players in the same way high-street music stores before them.

Its like saying ooh, yes it was better with British Leyland, British cars and I once got all the way to Harrogate doing nearly sixty without breaking down. Times move on, boxing has to adapt like every other sport to present itself and make itself relevant and attractive to an audience, the old one and a new one. You cannot simply wave history at Ad Agencies, TV networks et al to make a case for a return to prime-time Saturday night shows. Boxing cannot defy the progress of technology and the way we all interact with the world. They've stopped making HeartBeat for fkks sake, what chance showcasing a 'world-title' fight recognised by 25% of the sanctioning bodies to whom existence or relevance only 1% of the British public could conceivably try to explain.

The reason it became a TV sport in the 1950's is because it permits regular AD breaks without breaking the pace of a fight or the spectacle, it has natural advantages over other sports but BOXING hurts itself, and everyone of us that succumbed to paying extra subs for satellite, paid for PPV, right back to Bruno v Tyson have contributed to its downfall as a mainstream spectacle.

The quality of operator in the ring remains strong, and the overt but highly camouflaged corruption which stifles boxing now has always been endemic in one format or another, but the current manifestation - the sanctioning bodies create the biggest obstacle to understanding and interest to the potential consumer. Every time we've referred to a belt holder as a WORLD champion on here or in conversation, we've hurt the sport, you cannot blame everyone or everything else, if FANS are the true drivers of the sport - after all its all about supply and demand - then surely we have to accept, ultimately, through delayed and indirect ways that we, the fans casual and otherwise, are the architects of the sports fall from popular, mainstream viewing.

It has comebacks because networks are tempted by the TV friendly format, they're tempted by tales of yore and Benn v Eubank's millions but I don't think it is any surprise that in the digital age with the retirement of British boxing's golden couple - JC and RH - boxing finds mainstream coverage to be a reluctant lover. Boxing is now different to any other programming here or in the States which is feeling the credit crunch and underlying collapse of commercial television as a mass-audience medium.

Boxing needs to rationalise itself rapidly through unification or find a way to squeeze the sanctioning bodies from control of the sport. I hoped Marco Antonio Barrera's election not to pay a sanctioning fee in a fight with, I think Erik Morales, and therefore debunk the notion a belt was required to sell a fight about 4 years ago was the beginning of the end for the bodies - that fighters and fights could be made without the trinkets - but it has proven unfounded.

To return to the original point you make Spud.

You need to find a new argument for boxing or a new solution. Singing lyrics to old Barbara Streisand songs aint going to turn the TV and advertising world on its axis.[/quote]

Unfortunately, whilst Barrera was able to cock a snook at the sanctioning bodies when he was already a big name, he wasn't so willing on the way up, and therin lies the problem. Fighters ascribe to the sanctioning bodies when they want their title shot, as the racket is big and established, and how exactly do they ever make a name and make a buck without them?

Additionally now, boxers a more likely to drop the "official" title, if they can have the ring title - which is now sanctionable and actually equally as much of a problem.

Chris Eubank earned 800K for his rematch with Benn, Been = 1 million.... Not fantastically amazing money.

stujones wrote:Additionally now, boxers a more likely to drop the "official" title, if they can have the ring title - which is now sanctionable and actually equally as much of a problem.

Chris Eubank earned 800K for his rematch with Benn, Been = 1 million.... Not fantastically amazing money.

Eubank earned more money fighting the likes of Schommer, but that was when Sky money kicked in