BoxRec

How are sky going to increase there coverage then?

DavidPayne wrote:
And the reason is, its an organisational mess.

And we all contributed to that mire when we recognised people who never won a world title fight or beaten a world champion as a world champion themselves.

Boxing sold its soul to the sanctioning bodies and to the satellite companies, its just taken a generation for the effect to hit home.

And with so many baubles around, there are so many easy-to-navigate routes to a belt where you build up regionalised support for your star attraction, Khan, Calzaghe, Hatton. Most fight cards featuring the fighters who actually interest the national media are processions, a 10 fight list of 10-0 fighters versus 4-34 fighters from Lithuania.

Boring. Fkking boring.

Bang on. The organizational nonsense is only getting worse. We have WBA super champ, WBA emeritus champ, WBA regular champ, WBA interim champ etc. How bad does it look when the recognized heavyweight champion Wlad tells the WORLD in his post fight interview "Who is the WBA champ? I don't know, is it Valuev or Chagaev?". If the heavyweight champ is confused about who the WBA champ was, how are the regular punters going to have a clue. I really cringed when Wlad said that but had to agree with him.

WBA are the biggest joke right now. Bernard Dunne counts himself as a world champ, when he is the regular champ, behind Caballero. How can you have two or three world champions per organisation? As far as I am concerned, Valuev is WBA champ, because when Chagae pulled out first time, Valuev fought for the vacant belt vs Ruiz.

lirva wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:
And the reason is, its an organisational mess.

And we all contributed to that mire when we recognised people who never won a world title fight or beaten a world champion as a world champion themselves.

Boxing sold its soul to the sanctioning bodies and to the satellite companies, its just taken a generation for the effect to hit home.

And with so many baubles around, there are so many easy-to-navigate routes to a belt where you build up regionalised support for your star attraction, Khan, Calzaghe, Hatton. Most fight cards featuring the fighters who actually interest the national media are processions, a 10 fight list of 10-0 fighters versus 4-34 fighters from Lithuania.

Boring. Fkking boring.

Bang on. The organizational nonsense is only getting worse. We have WBA super champ, WBA emeritus champ, WBA regular champ, WBA interim champ etc. How bad does it look when the recognized heavyweight champion Wlad tells the WORLD in his post fight interview "Who is the WBA champ? I don't know, is it Valuev or Chagaev?". If the heavyweight champ is confused about who the WBA champ was, how are the regular punters going to have a clue. I really cringed when Wlad said that but had to agree with him.

Don't forget the WBA "champion in recess" title which was given to Chagaev(I think) last year.

I've given up legitimising the WBA. They're now officially 5th on the sanctioning body list.

This multiple champions lark is a worse crime than dodgy ratings.

Terry D wrote:Wasn't last week's Maidana fight for the interim WBA light-welterweight title currently held by Kotelnik, who recently defeated Maidana

Yes, and Sky used the HBO graphics which ignored 'interim' and claimed the fight was 'WBA light welter title'. Can't blame the punters being confused when that is the title all the Khan ads (during this bout!) use!

DavidPayne wrote:I've given up legitimising the WBA. They're now officially 5th on the sanctioning body list.

This multiple champions lark is a worse crime than dodgy ratings.

I'm surprised it took you so long.

The sanctioning bodies are to boxing what "financial innovation" (like CDOs, SIVs, CDSs, Sub-prime mortages, etc) is to the economy. Despite those who make money from them trumpeting them as a positive influence, they contribute, in fact, the grand total of nothing, except to those who control them, who make vast quantities of money. Meantime, they rot the system from the inside, ruining it for the common man.

The sanctioning bodies are the investment bankers of boxing, making money from creating the veneer that they actually do something, when really they're sucking money out of the sport while contributing to its slow demise.

Just as investment banking needs to be made by force simple again so they can get back to doing what really is useful -- the allocation of capital, and being effective financial intermediatories and providing people with a way to save money and make money from their savings -- so boxing needs to be made simple again, with one title for each division, honest, independent and transparent rankings free from lobbying from powerful promoters, as well as having the clout to mandate the fights the fans want to see and look out for the medical and financial welfare of fighters.

Basically, what I'd like to do is start a campaign to get them out of boxing. Maybe start a blog or something, cataloguing their abominations, exposing their hypocrisy and lies and obfuscation, and generally drawing attention to their pernicious ways while building support for getting rid of them.

The thing is, the companies are obviously not going to get rid of themselves, because they're making all this money; the TV companies quite like it, because they can promote almost anything as a world title fight, and believe (mistakenly) that people just don't want to watch anything that doesn't have world title attached to it; the promoters love it, because having an alphabet title does bring more people through the gate; and even the boxers love it, because they can negotiate easier routes to the top, and if they're anywhere halfway decent, they're almost guaranteed a world title shot.

So with virtually everyone in the industry kind of ahppy with this cosy, but possibly fatally myopic, situation, the only way it's going to change is if fans mobilize their power -- which is greater than the TV companies, promoters and sanctioning bodies put together, if it was ever organized properly -- to get something done about this terrible situation.

We need to write, post, blog, Tweet, whatever. But we need to organize to get them kicked out.

Maybe we could start by picking one match for a world title that clearly isn't -- like both fighters are nowhere near the top of their division, or it's for an interim title, or it's for a world title when there's also a super-title outthere -- and then say we'll boycott it. Don't buy tickets, don't watch on TV, and write to Sky or whoever to let them know.

The outher route could be to persuade the BBBofC not to sanction any fight for an alphabet belt in the UK. But that would be more difficult.

Terry D wrote:The Beeb has become a laughing stock, they are barely better than ITV these days, reality shows and make over programmes galore, a news service that tells us F all, all we get is an announcement, then they put us through to some daft old bat who has recorded the 'event' on her camera phone, or they beg us for texts about the latest news story, cover it yourself you lazy feckers.

The BBC have just been 'Diddlied'! was saying almost eaxctly the same thing to my friend who works for the BBC making films.

She is editing at the moment - but I bet even that is a repeat!

Yeah coverage of fights in papers have been poor in recent years and was surpised arguello didn't get a mention in some of the papers.

Yeah internet sites/writers/photographers don't usually get paid and treat it as more of a hobbie but they are a help hand for the promoters. In the last 4 years of taking photos at fights i have been to 44 cards, not bad for someone who has to travell on average 3 hours per venue.
I ask some local papers if they are interested in photos but more and more are replying these days that they can't pay me but will credit the photo when it goes to print. Hopefully one day a company will send me around the world to cover cards. (whens the next big lottery draw)

No BBC don't have the money for boxing same as ITV. Will be interesting who FW and Hayemaker sign with next season.

David,

I have no problems in debating with you

You bring out some extremely valid points concerning what is wrong with boxing - I actually do not think there is a single boxing fan on here who will argue with that some of the points you highlight are good ones!!

Whilst I am honest enough to admit I have extreme pejudices against journalists - I am sorry if you wish to side with them then thats up to you!!! - I will give you some examples - Michael Jackson - there are some papers who prefer to discuss him on the front pages with endless drivel - yet look at the doubts shrouded about him in his later life!!! - than the extreme bravoury and death of our troops in Afghanistan - even more importantly they prefer to make headlines about basic b*llocks than condem scumbag criminals who beat up old people and prey on young children - they are just an after thought on one of the middle pages - we then go to sport - I am sorry you and others may state its up to boxing but there has been fantastic world title fights, european and domestic clashes on in recent years but some have been again condemmed to a few words because the fight is not being covered by a certain promoter.

Yes I completely agree - boxing has some fundamental problems which need sorting and that needs to happen now but please do not give me sh*t that journalists are doing all they can for boxing - absolute complete b*llocks!!!

I don't think its siding with the journo's though, its the editors who have the say, and that works with news also.

I don't know if you watched Newswatch on BBC News yesterday, but one woman was in the studio complaining about the OTT coverage of Jackson's death. It was WALL to WALL on BBC News 24 on Friday, Saturday and most of Sunday, still classed as "breaking news" at 4 pm on Friday - some 14 hours after it had been confirmed he was dead.

However, as the chief guy of BBC News said - ratings were up, 15% of all messages on twitter was about it, and Jackson now as 13 songs in the top 40. Rediculous I know, but in todays climate that was big news. I was agreeing with the woman, but she was in the minority.... there were reporters out in Afghanistan, but deemed not news worthy by their bosses. If you were incharge of Coronation Street and you personally hated the character of Jack Duckworth, but you knew every episode he was in.. it would be a significant rise in ratings... what to you do? Make more episodes involving Jack Duckworth. It was clear that this chief guy could sympathise with this woman, but ratings dictated.

Boxing is in the same predicament.... I aint saying the journo's are perfect, but the blame needs to be on the editors, but have to say - they would probably back their decisions with figures. They just care about what sport/event sells... if it was tiddlywinks, then tiddlywinks would fill the inches - its clear its not boxing.

Spud wrote:David,

I have no problems in debating with you :TU:

You bring out some extremely valid points concerning what is wrong with boxing - I actually do not think there is a single boxing fan on here who will argue with that some of the points you highlight are good ones!!

Whilst I am honest enough to admit I have extreme pejudices against journalists - I am sorry if you wish to side with them then thats up to you!!! - I will give you some examples - Michael Jackson - there are some papers who prefer to discuss him on the front pages with endless drivel - yet look at the doubts shrouded about him in his later life!!! - than the extreme bravoury and death of our troops in Afghanistan - even more importantly they prefer to make headlines about basic b*llocks than condem scumbag criminals who beat up old people and prey on young children - they are just an after thought on one of the middle pages - we then go to sport - I am sorry you and others may state its up to boxing but there has been fantastic world title fights, european and domestic clashes on in recent years but some have been again condemmed to a few words because the fight is not being covered by a certain promoter.

Yes I completely agree - boxing has some fundamental problems which need sorting and that needs to happen now but please do not give me sh*t that journalists are doing all they can for boxing - absolute complete b*llocks!!!

Don't buy the papers which focus on Jacko over the real stories then. In the same way, don't refer to Clinton Woods as a World Champion before he beaten one.

Its the same argument, everything is about supply and demand. If you don't buy they wont sell it.

David - I do disagree that its the state of the belts that are the main problem with boxing. Two of the biggest fights in Boxing history were made bigger because of a bit of a mess with the sanctioning bodies - Ali vs Frazier (okay not the sanctioning bodies fault here) and Tyson vs Spinks.

The Heavyweight championship tournament of the mid 80's - was well received here and well understood. There were general fans in the street questioning the legitmasy of Eubank and Benn 1 as a world title fight.

I think far bigger problems are the constant mismatches, fighters pull outs, Lewis and Eubank (2 of the four biggest stars in UK boxing at the time) going to Sky at the prime, Warren following suit, Boxing being in the news to many times for the wrong reasons (e.g. Tyson's rape, bite etc). Yes, the current state of the titles is a mess - the WBA's Super Chapion/Ordinary champion thing is a joke, and there are to many sanctioning bodies. I think having 4 credited champions maximum per devision is actually a good thing - cause unifications is alot more appealing than title defences.

Boxing WASN'T an unpopular minority sport, otherwise Sky wouldn't have come in with their millions and use Lennox Lewis as a marketing strategy to start their business. I remember a Sky advert in the early 90's basically saying the only place you can watch Lennox Lewis and porn.... problem is, they did sell out, and its killed the game.

I also have a trail of thought if the Journalists write about things then the public get to know about the sport or subject they are writing about and then it becomes the topic of conversation etc etc etc

What I am trying to state here is - its not down to public demand what the journalists write on our sports pages - they dictate to us not the other way around - endless football transfer rumours - f*cking badminton, who caught the biggest fish, which snob fell off their horse at the toffs horse trials etc etc etc and thus I do not believe for one minute its our jobs to lobby editors etc etc etc - thats the job of the journo's - and if they are genuinally interested in boxing which in some cases - are they b*llocks!!! - the papers off its own back could create more interest in the sport - of that I have no doubts.

Time and time again the press have been accused of whipping up the public into a frenzy about whatever subject matter they choose - the tabloids are renowned for it.

David - again on your point about not buying the papers which continually write certain sh*t - Whilst on one hand I agree - I also have to be honest - and this is where I know I am being hypocritical and am honest enough to admit it - I love reading The Sun - I just wish they get their priorities sorted out

So - what I am stating is if a paper like "The Sun" dedicated at least one page of its sports pages to boxing - that would be a start - people would get more interested more in boxing - whilst I appreciate the editors argument would be the other way around - no interest so we are not going to write about it.

I will state again it is not us the public who dictate what we read in our papers - its the journos and the editors - if they wrote about boxing more - the more boxing would become familiar and if I am so incorrect about Editors - why on earth do they allow Mr W arren to write his drivel on a weekly basis!!??

So: on the one hand R Lewis tells us of the difficulties that journalists have regarding getting boxing into the papers (in spite of his/their best efforts), and on the other Spud tells us that it is still purely/primarily incumbent upon the journalists to get boxing into the papers.

There's an obvious gap in the dialogue here. Spud - do you think that the problems described by R Lewis don't really exist? The only other possibilities that occur are that A) you accept them but think that they're no concern of anyone else and simply something the journalists have to find a way around, or B) you didn't read them and have just decided to repeat yourself.

Russ L wrote:So: on the one hand R Lewis tells us of the difficulties that journalists have regarding getting boxing into the papers (in spite of his/their best efforts), and on the other Spud tells us that it is still purely/primarily incumbent upon the journalists to get boxing into the papers.

There's an obvious gap in the dialogue here. Spud - do you think that the problems described by R Lewis don't really exist? The only other possibilities that occur are that A) you accept them but think that they're no concern of anyone else and simply something the journalists have to find a way around, or B) you didn't read them and have just decided to repeat yourself.

I was going to make a similar post. I think Spud isn't really taking everything RLewis has said on board.

Spud invented contradiction and missing the point. Russ L, you'll learn this is the way of the Spud.

He says the Sun should devote a page to boxing, that would be start he believes.

But precedes it with the revelation; he buys the Sun anyway.

Now if we suspend good sense for a nanosecond and project Spud as being representative of the boxing focused readership; perhaps EVEN Spud will accept that the Sun has little to gain from devoting a page to boxing.

YOU BUY IT ANYWAY.

I don't have Sky Sports because they put on weak cards, over-pay for football, have poor editorial policy on news reporting and demand an additional £15 to watch Amir Khan.

I refuse to be drawn.

I'm a drop in a fkking big ocean but I make my point with my money.

Spud meanwhile, planned to drop Setanta - the best boxing channel we've ever had - because it didn't fork out for Froch v Taylor, despite Setanta being in desperate trouble.

Ably demonstrating a lack of vision or the type of solidarity he's always clamouring for among boxing fans; "email this bloke, write to this bloke, all journalists rebel against their paymaster and fight for the good of boxing".

Make a statement with your money its the only language these people converse in. Feel insignificant doing it alone? I understand, but at least you'll have peace inside:-)

twenty six wrote:Khaosai,
You really have become bitter and twisted on these boards.
I miss your wit, because you've actually become tedious.
Booth is a Promotor. He has his licence.
What's your point ?

Agreed. You do usually point out some valid truths even if a lot of people either miss it or don't want to hear it, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Reduced TV coverage of boxing is NOT something to complain about?

DavidPayne wrote:
Make a statement with your money its the only language these people converse in. Feel insignificant doing it alone? I understand, but at least you'll have peace inside:-)

Very true. It is quite insane that people don't seem to understand how the world works really, innit?

It's an utterly fu*king ridiculous situation when I'm forced to pay for a TV channel I never watch. Barring the stupendous work done by the natural history unit, they can choke.

Haye needs to saddle up with HBO and leave the beeb to what they know best, pissing money they haven't earnt away.

RLewis wrote:It is outrageous, but write to the BBC about it. As a public funded body, they have to take your complaints seriously. The BBC spends an absolute fortune on football and has forked up millions more for Formula One, in which the only two drivers from the UK are both tax exiles.

Boxing's best hope for a bright future is for more presence in the mainstream and that means newspapers and magazines, not just TV. If you want to see more, don't just put your complaints up here where nobody in power reads them, but write to Sky or the BBC or to national newspaper sports editors. It is generally figured that for every person who bothers to write, threre are another 20 that feel the same. The more emails and letters they get, the more they will take notice.

Considering they make all of their money abroad I don't blame them, I'd do the same as well if I were in their position. I mean who the hell wants to live amongst a bunch of never-do-wells who even critcise you for going for a piss?