BoxRec

Lenny wrote:Hatton became a star despite being on Sky, fighting his regular WBU defences, knocking guys out on the BBC would have made him huge.

With Froch, I don't think he was helped by getting injured so frequently, his marmite personality which has been mentioned and the fact he hasn't had a proper rival. Yeah he and Calzaghe have had some verbals but the fight was never close to happening. Eubank and Benn who are the pinnacle of what can be achieved in this sense, wouldn't have made it so big without one another. You were either a Benn or Eubank fan, their contrasting personalities, believable dislike for one another, plus both being "world champs".

Degale could pull it off. I have always warmed to the guy and can't really understand the dislike that gets levelled at him. In an ideal world you'd have Degale on the BBC, Groves on ITV, building up their careers with an eye on each other.

Brilliant post... Especially the Eubank-Benn point, there are many examples of this where a rivalry pushed the popularity of both fighters beyond what it might otherwise have been.

DeGale and Groves could be huge one day, but the offer/counter offer situation makes you think it won't happen anytime soon, probably rightly so. I was sceptical on all of the offers really, but matching DeGale with Smith leads me to believe that Warren would have matched him with Groves for his big show if it was feasible.

JamesH wrote:

Lenny wrote:Hatton became a star despite being on Sky, fighting his regular WBU defences, knocking guys out on the BBC would have made him huge.

With Froch, I don't think he was helped by getting injured so frequently, his marmite personality which has been mentioned and the fact he hasn't had a proper rival. Yeah he and Calzaghe have had some verbals but the fight was never close to happening. Eubank and Benn who are the pinnacle of what can be achieved in this sense, wouldn't have made it so big without one another. You were either a Benn or Eubank fan, their contrasting personalities, believable dislike for one another, plus both being "world champs".

Degale could pull it off. I have always warmed to the guy and can't really understand the dislike that gets levelled at him. In an ideal world you'd have Degale on the BBC, Groves on ITV, building up their careers with an eye on each other.

Brilliant post... Especially the Eubank-Benn point, there are many examples of this where a rivalry pushed the popularity of both fighters beyond what it might otherwise have been.

DeGale and Groves could be huge one day, but the offer/counter offer situation makes you think it won't happen anytime soon, probably rightly so. I was sceptical on all of the offers really, but matching DeGale with Smith leads me to believe that Warren would have matched him with Groves for his big show if it was feasible.

Don't forget that FW has both Smith & DeGale so it's literally win/win for him. Matching an unbeaten, untested prospect that you've invested money and time in against a rival promoter who you don't really have much time for is a far, far bigger risk - No matter how you slice it. That's ultimately why the fight hasn't come off.

DeGale and Groves have certain questions marks hanging over both of them, that will be answered in time. If one or both turns out to be a bust, then that's how the cookie crumbles but at this point, their fight is potentially worth more down the line.

The point about Benn & Eubank is a great one - People forget that by the time they fought each other than had over 50 fights between them, and one was at least a known quantity whereas the other appeared to be the goods but was somewhat of an enigma and NEEDED the Benn fight to establish his credentials and legimise himself with the trade. There was also genuine needle, Benn says he still hated him some time after quitting boxing.

Yeh I agree with that Orb. I wasn't saying it was a 'like for like' situation, but I feel Warren is prepared to take more of a risk with De Gale at the moment ("if it was feasible"), than Hayemaker are with Groves. Just an opinion, and one that is no doubt likely to change back and forth over the millions of offers and counter offers to come!

It would only work on ITV or BBC. How would you feel about ITV/BBC building a star, and then when it comes to a big world title fight they stick it on their own new PPV channel to recoup some of their spend? As well as the usual suspects buying the PPV, you will have a new customers drawn in from the fact it was on a terrestrial channel. I think that seems quite fair.

Saturday night in most peoples homes they only use BBC, ITV & C4 unless they are a die hard sports fan.

carlbcfc wrote:Saturday night in most peoples homes they only use BBC, ITV & C4 unless they are a die hard sports fan.

That is the key point that so many fans fail to recognise. Building a boxer, or boxers, into a superstar is not on any digital-terrestrial exec's agenda at the moment. Making a case for boxer x, y or z is moot.

Moshe_Crescas wrote:

carlbcfc wrote:Saturday night in most peoples homes they only use BBC, ITV & C4 unless they are a die hard sports fan.

That is the key point that so many fans fail to recognise. Building a boxer, or boxers, into a superstar is not on any digital-terrestrial exec's agenda at the moment. Making a case for boxer x, y or z is moot.

Exactly, plus they never put all their money/promotion/building behind just ONE fighter, they had many! They pumped money into the whole scene, spread between promoters and fighters and that allowed fighters to come through on undercards. Not that you always saw the UC, but it did happen.

Anyway, moot now, things have moved on. ITV's agenda seems to be stick to one or two fighters. BBC's was too piecemeal before they withdrew for good.

I think the record for a sporting event in the UK still stands with McGuigan/Pedroza, I can't find the exact figure but it was quoted only last year as still being the record. Those days are gone, I like SKY's coverage but it's not conducive to giving massive exposure to fighters.

Just found this with a google search. Times have changed though

Ali v Frazier 1971 BBC 27.3
McGuigan v Cabrera 1986 BBC 18.3
McGuigan v Pedroza 1985 BBC 18.0
Eubank v Benn 1993 ITV 16.3
Malinga v Eubank 1992 ITV 13.3
Benn v McClellan 1995 ITV 13.1
Rocchigiani v Eubank 1994 ITV 12.3
Eubank v Close 1993 ITV 11.5
Eubank v Thornton 1992 ITV 10.3
Eubank v Holmes 1993 ITV 10.1, Bruno v Marin 1995 ITV 10.1

Moshe_Crescas wrote:That is the key point that so many fans fail to recognise. Building a boxer, or boxers, into a superstar is not on any digital-terrestrial exec's agenda at the moment. Making a case for boxer x, y or z is moot.

So true. What they are doing is filling their own schedules but no more. There is no thought for the future. Barney Francis says that it is up to boxing whether the sport sinks or swims, the implication being that him/Sky providing a platform is all they can do. To a degree that's true, boxing needs to provide the talent. But the TV networks are the ones with the power to create stars from that talent. A little more than lipservice is required from the TV outlets. Creative thought, planning for the future is what's lacking.

You can see why though as there is a risk involved in the creation of any star. It is easier to stick Xfactor on, and have the guaranteed whole female population watch it. Women buy things they see on adds, and spend money voting for the next winner. Win Win tv exec.

Irrespective of the personalities involved, it would clearly be a good for boxing to be on terrestrial TV, and I genuinely think it should be. The argument has been made many times over, but if much more marginal sports can be covered by the BBC then the only reason that boxing isn't has to be institutional bias. It's hypocrisy though because they do cover the amateurs, and you can guarantee that they will be all over any successes we have at the Olympics.

Also, I don't think it's possible to say that the fighters we have today wouldn't be as popular as those in the 80s because it's a totally different set of circumstances. Those fighters had terrestrial TV supporting them from the early days in many cases, building their profile and allowing them to capture the public's imagination. Sometimes you just don't know if someone will be popular until they are actually put in front of a mainstream audience. Froch always brought good viewing figures to ITV and there can't have been many non-boxing fans who knew he was before he appeared on their tellies...

I'm confident that if boxing was on TV on a Saturday night it would do excellent viewing figures and two or three major stars would emerge in no time at all.

Who are the people we need to convince? How many names could we actually get on a petition? Would we be a small minority not worth worrying about? I think we should all vote annually for what the BBC spend their sports budget on. After all, we pay for it.



It would have to be BBC1 or ITV1. I say this as ITV3/4 will just not cut it. The general public look past those channels, just as they do SP1/2/3 on a Saturday night.

19:30 Harry Hills TV BURP!
20:00 XFactor
21:00 Piers Morgan (big events could start at 9pm)
22:00 Big Time Boxing!

Not many men out there get the chance to turn over from ITV on a Saturday night due to their winging Mrs. But if it is already on..

How many dads will sit their with their sons reminiscing about the great nights of the 90s. There were many many more fans back then, and they are still there, they just need it shoved in their face again.

I can't be arsed to make my dinner, but if you put it on my lap I'll quite happily eat it. Get my point?

The X Factor is on for 2 hours.Anyway,i think a lot are overestimating the power of terrestrial T.V nowadays.As others have said,Froch,Haye,Khan and Harrison have all had extensive coverage yet Khan and Harrison remain the most well known,after achieveing less,due to their Olympic success.How many of the target audience dont have Sky these days?When the fight is big enough(Hatton/Mayweather/Pac,Haye/Audley)the public will get behind it.Next weekend will be a prime example,the whole country will be interested in that fight.

mickey1975 wrote:The X Factor is on for 2 hours.Anyway,i think a lot are overestimating the power of terrestrial T.V nowadays.As others have said,Froch,Haye,Khan and Harrison have all had extensive coverage yet Khan and Harrison remain the most well known,after achieveing less,due to their Olympic success.How many of the target audience dont have Sky these days?When the fight is big enough(Hatton/Mayweather/Pac,Haye/Audley)the public will get behind it.Next weekend will be a prime example,the whole country will be interested in that fight.

You proved the importance of terrestrial TV there mate.

carlbcfc wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:The X Factor is on for 2 hours.Anyway,i think a lot are overestimating the power of terrestrial T.V nowadays.As others have said,Froch,Haye,Khan and Harrison have all had extensive coverage yet Khan and Harrison remain the most well known,after achieveing less,due to their Olympic success.How many of the target audience dont have Sky these days?When the fight is big enough(Hatton/Mayweather/Pac,Haye/Audley)the public will get behind it.Next weekend will be a prime example,the whole country will be interested in that fight.

You proved the importance of terrestrial TV there mate.

The importance of The Olympics.Harrison was front page news,as was Khan,and Degale is an MBE.Froch had a FOTY World title victory on ITV and still is nowhere near the profile of those three.

If the Olympics was on Sky Sports, no fecker would of seen it.

carlbcfc wrote:If the Olympics was on Sky Sports, no fecker would of seen it.

Like The Ashes,Premiership football,Darts,Super League.....?I bet nobody knows Haye-Harrison is taking place next week either,cant see it generating publicity like Skelton-Sprott 2 did on ITV!

mickey1975 wrote:

carlbcfc wrote:If the Olympics was on Sky Sports, no fecker would of seen it.

Like The Ashes,Premiership football,Darts,Super League.....?I bet nobody knows Haye-Harrison is taking place next week either,cant see it generating publicity like Skelton-Sprott 2 did on ITV!

Fact is, boxing would be bigger on terrestrial TV. Footy & Cricket have a lot more fans as they are much easier to follow than boxing. Plus they are all over the back page. FFS Darts gets more coverage in the papers these days.

500k or whatever it is PPV buys is not 16.3 million for Eubank v Benn in 1993 on terrestrial ITV. Boxing on Sky attracts nowhere near what it did on terrestrial in the 90s. That is a fact!

That may be a fact,but times have changed.Its the digital era now and hardly anything will get the audiences they did when it was only the four channels.Another fact for you,Haye,Harrison,Froch,Khan,Williams,Skelton plus many more have all had extensive coverage on terrestrial T.V and none have come close to matching Ricky Hatton's nationwide popularity,a fighter who,ironically,has boxed exclusively on sattelite.

Hatton was like an extension if Manchester City to the majority of fans that followed him. That is not to say they were Man City exclusive.

If boxing was on ITV next sat, it would pull 10 million easily. What will it pull on Sky?

I don't think a lot of you get it yet - it doesn't matter if it pulled in 30 million people - the tv execs hate boxing, they think it is barbaric and savage. They hate us, they hate our demographic - why do you think you can get all the golf and tennis you want on the bbc? Its because they want to show us what they want - not what we want? Who gives a shit what we want? TV execs don't!

The Spanish state braodcaster TVE banned boxing from their scheduele in 1985 - 10 years after the likes of Perico Fernandez, Miguel Velasquez and the likes where winning world titles with 50000 fans in a bullring, the Swedes and the Norwegians banned boxing even though the likes of Ingemar Johansson packed out football stadiums in Gothenburg - the people at the top don't care if we like it or not... As one tv exec once said ' we could get ratings of 50 million if we put bear baiting on a prime time slot' and they see boxing as something similar.

I'd be interested to know just how "in demand" boxing is because I can count on one hand the amount of people I know who have a genuine interest in boxing(not including those who just watch it if there's nothing else on) and the vast majority of people - especially young people - have better things to do with their time on a friday or saturday night.

carlbcfc wrote:Hatton was like an extension if Manchester City to the majority of fans that followed him. That is not to say they were Man City exclusive.

If boxing was on ITV next sat, it would pull 10 million easily. What will it pull on Sky?

I first watched Hatton live on the Rhodes-Matthews undercard and he had about 50 fans there with possibly one or two Man City shirts.I also watched him at his peak and me and my mates(all Yorkshire lads) would be sat next to groups from all over the U.K.He attracted the fans with an engaging style and personality,nothing to do with who he supported.