BoxRec

I cancelled sky sports last year - Havent missed it as much as I thought I would - I was only into it for the boxing.

Now with the latest price hike being announced, i'll probably dump SKY altogether, there is such a thing as catering to your market, and SKY must be the only company hiking their prices in the middle of a recession.

It's a piss take, especially when you add in work in progrees fighters like Khan being put on as a PVP star - What a fkin joke that is.

Nothing against you Frank Maloney, you do put on some reasonable value fights, but unfortunately there is too much shit being put on a lot of these bills, and no one is a winner when that kind of action is being peddled as value for money.

i love watching mooresy close in on his world title fight - in totally professional beatdowns - , i really like watching darren sutherland, already looking like a polished pro. and imo a future world champ. and it was good to see martin murray learning, on those cards. but no way can i afford to keep sky, not just to see 2 or 3 fighters.

unfortunately i think there were some cancelled fights. wasn't johanesson going to make a lightweight debut, wasn't castle fighting lawton or johanesson? - there was a good lightweight fight coming up that sadly got called off. i was really looking forward to that and i never bothered watching the replacement (if there was one).

they had exactly the type of fight we all want in bahtia/arthur and never showed it!also,they cut sykes/crolla.this shows whoever is in charge of the production doesent really know their boxing

I miss Ringside. Surely they got the budget to get that back on from next season? Maybe with one S Bunce at the helm? To be fair to Maloney his shows are normally prety solid. Some cracking fights on ITV and Sky this weekend. Am positively semi-erect in anticipation.

nobby_nobbins wrote:Sky is not a lifeline to boxing in this country. They took a mainstream sport that casual sports fans enjoyed, and hid it away on subscription channels that only hard core fans were prepared to fork out for. If boxing had been on subscription channels when I was growing up in the 80s I wouldn't have got the bug. Boxers were household names before Sky arrived. The only one they can claim to have groomed from the start was Hatton (and I suppose they should some credit for Naz, even though his early fights were on the free Screensport). All their other big names: Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe, Lewis, had established a following on terrestrial TV before Sky poached them.

Naz was more established through terrestial TV than JC. Naz was a big hit on ITV boxing.... I remember when FW first signed for Sky - Gary Norman mentioned their championship level fighters (Bruno, Benn, Robinson) but called Naz the golden egg.

I suppose Paul Ingle and Spencer Oliver were in the process of establishing themselves... but sadly, it just didn't happen.

FtmPress wrote:

rhino222 wrote:

FtmPress wrote:Why not just stop british boxing all together, Sky have be the life line of british boxing. You call yourself fans all you ever do is moan on this web site.
It would be a lot cheaper for sky to just take usa fights and drop british boxing all together, So what would happen if they did to british boxing is that what you all want on here...............Any way sky give to a great lot more that just boxing they have help british sport right across the field.

unfortunately frank, if sky did not insist on having the likes of amir khan on PPV fighting against opponents for no significant title, then i think we are entitled to moan, we already pay a subscription, why should we pay more, some of us are on tight budgets in this day and age.

imagine the british public, of sky subscribers, who were suddenly told they would have to pay an extra 15 quid PPV to watch man utd v liverpool (or chelsea or arsenal or any of the 4 combined!!) next season, there would be absolute effing uproar !!!!

i rest my case.

You have the choice to say no, No one makes you buy it or part with your cash, all i am trying to get over to you lot is that with out sky many british boxers may never had more forward. Not all fights are going to be the best or world beater, But over all the british title fights are good. Like in oct. i will bring you Booth vs Hunter are next one is Davis vs Napa, Yes some do not live up to what you want but if a fight gets a chance to fight for the title you cant stop him, They work hard and train hard to get to that point of there careers.

so long as the fights are 50/50 ish frank we have no complaints, unfortunately, if the top of the bill is not 50/50 then im dam sure the undercard wont be. in no way am i pointing the finger at you mr maloney, you are probably second to hennessy for bill entertainment, and thats no bad thing.

but ... we arnt half served up some dross on undercards, sky must really struggle to fill in 2 hours sometimes !!

FW's fightskool or Panix 'real class' were decent ideas for shows, where we could watch a 'team' of fighters progress and watch the development. unfortunately we dont get this often.

frank, for gods sake open a website, featuring maybe 4 bills a month, live, (not always your own shows) make it decent reliable stream, as for 10 quid per month off the punters, and people will subscribe..im sure..

oh.


and where is eugene? ....

Tommy Gunn13 wrote:

FtmPress wrote:

stujones wrote:I won't be complaining about Napa vs Davis or Booth vs Hunter.

Thank you , i would not complain about watching Man Utd vs Liverpool or Chelsea Vs Arensal every week,
But we know they cant play each other every week so i judge sky on the over all package of sport.The same with boxing.

Very true good point

you are missing the point.. sky are NOT asking for more wonga when decent teams do meet, and we know its not every week.

so why does boxing??, and why do sky fleece the (already subscribing) uk audience with PPv !!!

rhino222 wrote:

you are missing the point.. sky are NOT asking for more wonga when decent teams do meet, and we know its not every week.

so why does boxing??, and why do sky fleece the (already subscribing) uk audience with PPv !!!

The conclusion a neutral observer would surely draw from this is that they (SKY) think boxing fans are mugs. Reduce the service they are already subscribing for and start charging for other half-decent fights.

Complete mugs actually.

Goz wrote:

FtmPress wrote:

nobby_nobbins wrote:Sky is not a lifeline to boxing in this country. They took a mainstream sport that casual sports fans enjoyed, and hid it away on subscription channels that only hard core fans were prepared to fork out for. If boxing had been on subscription channels when I was growing up in the 80s I wouldn't have got the bug. Boxers were household names before Sky arrived. The only one they can claim to have groomed from the start was Hatton (and I suppose they should some credit for Naz, even though his early fights were on the free Screensport). All their other big names: Eubank, Benn, Calzaghe, Lewis, had established a following on terrestrial TV before Sky poached them.

I am afraid it is, If sky pull the plug on British Boxing were would it go, As there no other tv company showing it. You all keep on about Terristrail TV but i do not see ITV or BBC showing much ints. in the sport of Boxing. Whit out Sky we would not see the dev. of young British Boxers coming through And who knows we must see the end of the sport as we know it, Is hard enought now with the way thing are in this country and the same in the USA. Not every fight can be a super star, but with the help of Sky we might find one. Jamie Moores career has be dev. on Sky and his knock on the door of a world tilte. Lewis only had 4 or % fights on terrestrail tv most of his career and big fights were on Sky, Terrestrail tv did not want Lewis we all got on because i did a deal with matchroom to work together with Lewis in the early days.

Lewis still built a following on terrestrial TV. I think probably all of his fights before Ruddock were on terrestrial.

Then Sky saw the opportunity because the brand/reputation/whatever you want to call it had been built and stepped and showcased the Ruddock fight having let terrestrial do the ground work. They've pulled the same trick with Amir Khan, let ITV build up the national interest because they couldn't be fucked.

(You say terrestrial isn't interested in boxing but SKY took it away from them and now have gradually reduced the service to us, it's SKY that removed the choice in the first place.)

I don't understand it - by looking to market 'big' fights at £15 PPV they are clearly acknowledging there is a big market there for big fights, but then they do eff all to build up the interest in what's coming through bar a bit with the Olympians now.

If they had half a brain they would work with terrestrial, let them show some of the Olympians so the interest is built up again so when they want to charge people £25 for James Degale's WBU 'world' title shot in 2019 people will give a poop.

Your comment about Sky taking it away from terrestrial is laughable, you get more soccer on Sky but you still get soccer on terrestrial, the point you fail to see is that the controllers of terrestrial do not like boxing or do not think it is worth paying for.

As well as the rights fees to the promoter there is also production costs, so it is obvious terrestrial do not think there is a value in showing boxing but I have noticed some of the terrestrial channels shows old fights as they can pick these up for next to nothing.

Without sounding patronising I do believe some of you on here are missing the point and the value of Sky to British Boxing.

Going back to the point who has sky built from the start? there was Paul Ingle and Scott Harrison.

FtmPress wrote: Your comment about Sky taking it away from terrestrial is laughable, you get more soccer on Sky but you still get soccer on terrestrial, the point you fail to see is that the controllers of terrestrial do not like boxing or do not think it is worth paying for.

As well as the rights fees to the promoter there is also production costs, so it is obvious terrestrial do not think there is a value in showing boxing but I have noticed some of the terrestrial channels shows old fights as they can pick these up for next to nothing.

Without sounding patronising I do believe some of you on here are missing the point and the value of Sky to British Boxing.

Going back to the point who has sky built from the start? there was Paul Ingle and Scott Harrison.

But why should people continue to pay for a product that they're not happy with? British boxing is not a charity and the quality delivered needs to be improved. Well done to Sky for building fighters such as Scott Harrison, it was great when we had his WBO fights on Saturday night at no extra cost but those days are long gone.

I think the issue here is that if SKY fail to show boxing that people are interested in watching, then people are not going to watch it.

Yes, a lot of ticket sales at a small hall event will be mates, family etc of the fighters... But the home viewer needs some level of quality, otherwise he simply isn't going to watch or buy a subscription.

At some point the promoters of SKY shows need to realise that they need to put on something that is, put bluntly, worth watching.

FTM - You say terrestrial tv controllers don't think boxing is worth it but over the years they keep coming back to it. BBC and ITV have made several attempts to get back into the sport, most notably with Audley and Khan - but Sky raised the stakes.

Fair enough, I didn't actually have a problem with that, just like with footy, they raised the stakes and now we don't get live Premiership games on terrestrial, fine. But if Sky now started to show less and less games whilst still charging the same subscription AND started charging a premium rate for top matches - then this would be taking the piss.

And it's exactly what they are doing with boxing....

Its unfortunate the World champions doesn't necessarily mean stars now - and thats cause of Sky. Scott Harrison, Herbie Hide, Paul Ingle, Alex Arthur, Nicky Cook, Robin Reid, Glenn Catley, Jason Matthews, Paul Jones can all lay claim to being world champions of the big four... how many of these would any of my mates know.....none.

As for your football analogy... yes its true in parts, but lets be realistic - there is not a single "manchester united" equivalent in British boxing shown on Friday fight night.

Sure - Hunter vs Booth and Davis vs Napa are good fights... but that essentially "fulham vs Wigan". Level...... Edwards vs Ahmed was more like Hull vs Accrington Stanley. Without meaning to sound disrepectful, but Edwards should not be involved in a FNF mismatch (which was predicted, not just transpired) in which he is the one supposed to be the class above.

Having Hull vs Accrington most weeks with the occasional Fulham vs Wigan would soon turn its football punters away.

FTM you asked before, what would we rather have - a weekly British boxing show, or the best from the US which would be cheaper..... sorry, I know my answer - if Sky had to chose (and with four dedicated sport channels I still don't see why they don't show both) then give me a HBO/Showtime deal than their current output. You say that this will kill British boxing - I think the current coverage is doing the same - what has an 11 year old lad got to be inspired about.... Lee Haskins, Ricky Burns? Ask Jamie Moore who is boxing idol was... will he say Mark Kaylor, or is he more likely to say Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran or Ray Leonard?

Seeing a fighter beat up an African import in 3 one sided rounds infront of a quarter full Leisure Centre is hardly the most motivational factor for a kid.... now, seeing a 12 round thriller in Cesar Palace is the stuff that gets people to lace them up.

Goz wrote:FTM - You say terrestrial tv controllers don't think boxing is worth it but over the years they keep coming back to it. BBC and ITV have made several attempts to get back into the sport, most notably with Audley and Khan - but Sky raised the stakes.

Fair enough, I didn't actually have a problem with that, just like with footy, they raised the stakes and now we don't get live Premiership games on terrestrial, fine. But if Sky now started to show less and less games whilst still charging the same subscription AND started charging a premium rate for top matches - then this would be taking the piss.

And it's exactly what they are doing with boxing....

Yes, and who remember "prem plus" - that didn't work out to profitable for Sky.

stujones wrote:Its unfortunate the World champions doesn't necessarily mean stars now - and thats cause of Sky. Scott Harrison, Herbie Hide, Paul Ingle, Alex Arthur, Nicky Cook, Robin Reid, Glenn Catley, Jason Matthews, Paul Jones can all lay claim to being world champions of the big four... how many of these would any of my mates know.....none.

As for your football analogy... yes its true in parts, but lets be realistic - there is not a single "manchester united" equivalent in British boxing shown on Friday fight night.

Sure - Hunter vs Booth and Davis vs Napa are good fights... but that essentially "fulham vs Wigan". Level...... Edwards vs Ahmed was more like Hull vs Accrington Stanley. Without meaning to sound disrepectful, but Edwards should not be involved in a FNF mismatch (which was predicted, not just transpired) in which he is the one supposed to be the class above.

Having Hull vs Accrington most weeks with the occasional Fulham vs Wigan would soon turn its football punters away.

FTM you asked before, what would we rather have - a weekly British boxing show, or the best from the US which would be cheaper..... sorry, I know my answer - if Sky had to chose (and with four dedicated sport channels I still don't see why they don't show both) then give me a HBO/Showtime deal than their current output. You say that this will kill British boxing - I think the current coverage is doing the same - what has an 11 year old lad got to be inspired about.... Lee Haskins, Ricky Burns? Ask Jamie Moore who is boxing idol was... will he say Mark Kaylor, or is he more likely to say Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran or Ray Leonard?

Seeing a fighter beat up an African import in 3 one sided rounds infront of a quarter full Leisure Centre is hardly the most motivational factor for a kid.... now, seeing a 12 round thriller in Cesar Palace is the stuff that gets people to lace them up.

Agreed. Good post.

I wouldn't have a problem if Sky were putting on good FNFs, but you have pointed out the recent farces. They go back a long way. FTM is talking about Scott Harrison but we all remember Harrison vs Kebede and so do the scottish fans. That kind of stuff is why this attitude is had amongst boxing fans. It really damages the sport.

Personally, I would pay to watch the top fighters fighting. No problem paying PPV for the likes of PBF vs Marquez, PBF vs Pacman, Pacman vs Cotto etc. And Sky does a great job with that type of coverage.

But the FNF fights that are put on are usually very poor. Edwards vs Ahmad was an insult to fans and caused uproar on this and other boxing boards. We could all list the meaningless garbage and meaningless titles that are thrown around on FNF. The Haskins fight was hardly anything to write home about. And this is what we are paying for?

That's the reason people have canceled Sky. The boxing is just not up to scratch. They took the piss by throwing Khan on PPV so soon. I've no doubt Degale will be pumped onto PPV when he gets a title shot. I just hope it's not WBU.

Also, you made a great point about losing Sky "killing boxing". Indeed the likes of Edwards vs Ahmad would be less likely to inspire a youngster than Ortiz vs Maidana (which was shown on Sky delayed in fairness).

The fights just aren't competitive. FTM Press seems to think we should be happy with any boxing. Sorry mate, but we have standards.

FtmPress wrote:

Goz wrote:

FtmPress wrote: Going back to the point who has sky built from the start? there was Paul Ingle and Scott Harrison.

They were hardly household names were they? They had strong local followings and hard core boxing fans knew them, but nobody else. You're right that there is no alternative to pay TV. That's because Sky destroyed the alternative. Every time a boxer became an attraction on terrestrial he'd be poached by Sky. As Goz suggested, terrestrial must have been sick of doing all the ground work - like a bloke doing all the foreplay only to see some flash git from next door come in and shag the bird right from under him.

If Sky pulled out of boxing the sport would suffer in the short term, but it would have the opportunity to rediscover its mass appeal in the long term.

TheGoods wrote:I miss Ringside. Surely they got the budget to get that back on from next season? Maybe with one S Bunce at the helm? To be fair to Maloney his shows are normally prety solid. Some cracking fights on ITV and Sky this weekend. Am positively semi-erect in anticipation.

Has Buncey got a good relationship with Sky?

stujones wrote: Naz was more established through terrestial TV than JC. Naz was a big hit on ITV boxing.... I remember when FW first signed for Sky - Gary Norman mentioned their championship level fighters (Bruno, Benn, Robinson) but called Naz the golden egg.

I suppose Paul Ingle and Spencer Oliver were in the process of establishing themselves... but sadly, it just didn't happen.

You're right - I'd completely forgotten that Naz became a star on ITV. As usual, Sky just hijacked the bandwagon and ripped people off for riding on it.

I clearly remember sitting watching early Naz fights on ITV and my Dad coming in from the pub and I'd say "Dad, you've got to see this fella, he's amazing".

Dad would watch and say "He's not Ali though is he?"

"No, but look, they can't hit him, he's brilliant".

sligobhoy67 wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Premiership football, Champions league, the ashes, Lions tour, Ryder cup


I think SKY Sports is pretty darn good value for money

I have no interest in golf, rugby, speedway, WWE or cricket. I like football but could live with just MOTD and highlights on SSN. I get SKY for the boxing. Now if I am not going to be delivered boxing then why would I continue my subscription?

I have no idea, what are you asking me for?