BoxRec

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

palooka wrote:It's not an outright monoploy but it looks like a cartel. If Adam Smith is the one in charge of the boxing on SKY then he ought to sit down with his advisers, decide how many shows/hours of boxing are available; how much money is in the kitty and which bouts would be the best (most likely to be entertaining on TV). They ought then to offer the bout to the manager/agent of the boxer.

The promoters seem on the whole to come up with what they want most and then take it to the TV company who broadcast it.

If Smith is in charge he ought to be able to work with whoever he wants and not just the fighters contracted to one mans firm.

So you want Adam Smith to break legally binding contracts to make whatever fights he wants?
That would make him above the law, and I'm not sure Adam Smith should be the only man in the UK who is not subject to the law.






I'm not sure you understand how the world actually works, frankly.

Maybe not but I can dream can't I?

The current way of working does not really seem to be working all that well. I would like Adam Smith to be able to put good, ambitious and exciting boxers on SKY. If the legal contracts are so binding they are choking British boxing of good match ups. The current set up is unbalanced, open to abuse and against the best interests of competitive sport - being 'tied' to the boxers within one outfit is plain silly - though it may make for less hassle re invoicing etc.

palooka wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

palooka wrote:It's not an outright monoploy but it looks like a cartel. If Adam Smith is the one in charge of the boxing on SKY then he ought to sit down with his advisers, decide how many shows/hours of boxing are available; how much money is in the kitty and which bouts would be the best (most likely to be entertaining on TV). They ought then to offer the bout to the manager/agent of the boxer.

The promoters seem on the whole to come up with what they want most and then take it to the TV company who broadcast it.

If Smith is in charge he ought to be able to work with whoever he wants and not just the fighters contracted to one mans firm.

So you want Adam Smith to break legally binding contracts to make whatever fights he wants?
That would make him above the law, and I'm not sure Adam Smith should be the only man in the UK who is not subject to the law.






I'm not sure you understand how the world actually works, frankly.

Maybe not but I can dream can't I?

The current way of working does not really seem to be working all that well. I would like Adam Smith to be able to put good, ambitious and exciting boxers on SKY. If the legal contracts are so binding they are choking British boxing of good match ups. The current set up is unbalanced, open to abuse and against the best interests of competitive sport - being 'tied' to the boxers within one outfit is plain silly - though it may make for less hassle re invoicing etc.

OK, good effort.

In the future please try and confine your ideas for British boxing to within the limits of the laws of the UK.

Your plans for Adam Smith as some kind of Judge Dread figure is not at all helpful.

I'm not really sure why a television station couldn't make direct contact with a manager to negotiate the availability of a boxer. If that's against the law, why is it? A contract ought to be of benefit to all sides, not just one - (the promoter).

As for Smith being a Judge Dredd figure I mooted the prospect of a self confessed boxing fan with power and influence choosing good fights and fighters to showcase not giving him a gun and leather outfit. Though if he did sort out some really good fights I'll chuck in for an outfit and get him a NERF.

In defence of Sky and Smith Alexander - Brook fell apart through no fault of theirs. They just need to start making decent matches they know the sport and as Froch v Bute proved 'Build it and they will come'.

Boxingcutsman wrote:

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

Quick quiz for you:

What channel was Calzaghe vs Lacy on ?

What about Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Enzo Macc vs David Haye ?

I wouldn't mind the Matchroom events so much if SKY complimented their British action with 1 or 2 international events each month. Whilst allegedly have deals with Goldenboy and Sauerland I don't think they have an exclusive deal with Top Rank. If SKY picked up the likes of Brando Rios Vs. Mike Alvarado II on the 30th of March or Nonito Donaire Vs. Guillermo Rigondeux on the 13th April I'm sure boxing fans who subscribe to SKY Sports would be much happier. Even if the shows weren't live and broadcast on a tape delay at 10am on a Sunday morning I'd be fairly pleased.

chad wrote:I wouldn't mind the Matchroom events so much if SKY complimented their British action with 1 or 2 international events each month. Whilst allegedly have deals with Goldenboy and Sauerland I don't think they have an exclusive deal with Top Rank. If SKY picked up the likes of Brando Rios Vs. Mike Alvarado II on the 30th of March or Nonito Donaire Vs. Guillermo Rigondeux on the 13th April I'm sure boxing fans who subscribe to SKY Sports would be much happier. Even if the shows weren't live and broadcast on a tape delay at 10am on a Sunday morning I'd be fairly pleased.

Me too chad - it is irritating when very good fights don't get shown when we pay SKY subscription, it's not on really.

G0mez wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

Quick quiz for you:

What channel was Calzaghe vs Lacy on ?

What about Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Enzo Macc vs David Haye ?

I'm no good at quizzes my friend, I leave that to the intelligent people
But the point I'm making is the consistently poor quality sky boxing shows since teaming up with one single promoter.
Also a certain other promoter has been getting a rough time of late, rightly or wrongly.
But here's a short quiz for you, has I assume you must be a quiz master ?
Them fights you mentioned in your quiz for me, who was the promoter ?????
And was they better quality than the sky shows of recent ?????

Boxingcutsman wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

Quick quiz for you:

What channel was Calzaghe vs Lacy on ?

What about Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Enzo Macc vs David Haye ?

I'm no good at quizzes my friend, I leave that to the intelligent people
But the point I'm making is the consistently poor quality sky boxing shows since teaming up with one single promoter.
Also a certain other promoter has been getting a rough time of late, rightly or wrongly.
But here's a short quiz for you, has I assume you must be a quiz master ?
Them fights you mentioned in your quiz for me, who was the promoter ?????
And was they better quality than the sky shows of recent ?????

Spud?

Boxingcutsman wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote: F

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

Quick quiz for you:

What channel was Calzaghe vs Lacy on ?

What about Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Enzo Macc vs David Haye ?

I'm no good at quizzes my friend, I leave that to the intelligent people
But the point I'm making is the consistently poor quality sky boxing shows since teaming up with one single promoter.
Also a certain other promoter has been getting a rough time of late, rightly or wrongly.
But here's a short quiz for you, has I assume you must be a quiz master ?
Them fights you mentioned in your quiz for me, who was the promoter ?????
And was they better quality than the sky shows of recent ?????

Spud?

it's got to be said that B-N are picking up a lot more quality fights in general and for a tenner a month you can't argue with it. Sky are in a great position and they've given Smug Eddie this position that he lords over the rest of boxing with. In the US, the network has a lot more to do with the matchmaking and can approve or otherwise the fights that it helps to fund - although Showtime seem to have given Schaefer and De La Hoya far more of a free reign with some awful fights recently. HBO overall are more stringent although they've been complicit with some poor Broner matchups in order to help build him towards a PPV-worthy career.

It doesn't feel like Sky are putting any pressure on Hearn to make the sort of matches that we really want to see, the Kessler/Froch fight was clearly driven by Carl and hardly out of step with his recent career and the fact that he only has a few fights left and they all need to be big ones. In fact Hearn making the Mack fight was an interruption to Froch's legacy if anything and Froch's first bad matchup in a long time.

Hearn's overall attitude and attention seeking is enough to make anyone puke, the arrival of social media has made the egotistical side of promoters even worse than it was back in the day - De La Hoya is a constant embarrassment on twitter and Hearn follows suit and it's got 100x worse since he was given the Sky monopoly. There's no doubt boxing on our main sports cable channel has got worse as a result and Hearn has no intention of making the fights that people want to see - shoving his lesser fighters into title shots abroad as cannon fodder doesn't count.

Obviously it makes it worse that we're in the midst of our own "cold war" which has seemingly harmed FW and made some good fights in recent times unmakeable - these network/promoter issues are throttling boxing everywhere - but as has already been said, Frampton aside there's been barely a matchup worth discussing and Smith should really be brutalising Hearn for that. After this run of shite for them to make Froch/Kessler PPV is a kick in the teeth for subscribers.

Withdrawing support for Hatton when he had some decent-ish propects was brutal, especially after all he'd done for boxing in terms of the audience he brought. They could have tailored their new deals to give the smaller promoters some opportunities and supported the likes of Hatton, Dave Coldwell and Greaves, then British boxing would be in a healthier state with more competition and more choices for boxers. There comes a point where promoters are spread thin because they're just signing everything and only paying attention to their 'big ticket' fighters.

Hearn has found himself in the right place at the right time, when FW didn't have a spectacular world champion and had also taken the decision to build B-N which brought issues of it's own.

For what it's worth I'm not sure Froch v Kessler will do stellar PPV numbers. The casual fight fan was burned by the Haye disasters and we all know that Froch has never had the mainstream attention of most PPV attractions. I think the public is already out of the 'habit' of buying PPV and this is a boxing fans fight. Fast Eddie doesn't build PPV fighters he's not got a clue how to do it and no experience of it.

They've done a fantastic job with Darts no denying that, and Sky have trusted them with boxing - but he sneaked in and got a few fighters at a lucky time when they thought the grass might be greener, the Sky deal has made it easier for him to pinch some more and act like he's the new guru of boxing.

Even his twitter picture is that of a narcissistic buffoon.

Smith made his bed and got talked into letting fast eddie join him in it. Hopefully he will do something about it and put pressure on Hearn to up his game.

G0mez wrote:

Boxingcutsman wrote:

Listen, like it or not it is a FUC#KING MONOPOLY that Hearn and Sky have got going on, on that Channel, you my friend every time there seems to be some negative towards the for named people/company's jump to there defence, could that be that your blinkered in that you have a association with them in some way ? Because I'm damn sure if your just a boxing fan and you seem to be happy with these consistently Sh#t shows, which is exactly what they are then you obviously have not got a clue.

Quick quiz for you:

What channel was Calzaghe vs Lacy on ?

What about Calzaghe vs Hopkins and Enzo Macc vs David Haye ?

ITV

Setanta

Sky's boxing coverage is the worst it has ever been. It's Channel 5 but with a few more dates and a pointless weekly "news" show. But at least Channel 5 doesn't pretend to have more involvement with the sport that it actualy does.

If I didn't watch Darts, Football and Pool then I wouldn't hesitate to cancel Sky Sports. allegedly blows it clean out of the water, and represents the kind of channel I've always wanted.

Kilburn wrote:Sky's boxing coverage is the worst it has ever been. It's Channel 5 but with a few more dates and a pointless weekly "news" show. But at least Channel 5 doesn't pretend to have more involvement with the sport that it actualy does.

If I didn't watch Darts, Football and Pool then I wouldn't hesitate to cancel Sky Sports. Allegedly channel blows it clean out of the water, and represents the kind of channel I've always wanted.

Boxing, darts, football and pool. What do you talk about at work

Ste Hawkins wrote:

jonnyyorkshu wrote:i would rather watch a even,small hall,domestic fight than a big name fighting a no hope import any day.

The only way for boxing to survive and improve in the UK is for the regular fan to spend their money locally at their local small hall shows for fighters who are domestic level.
This is where the sport needs its fans, where it survives and some are dying on their arse cause regular fans only ever watch on telly. Seeing a fight first hand, the smell, the sounds and the comforting feeling of knowing you are paying to support the sport where it counts, locally is the only way to improve our sport at all levels. Rant over!

Well said,I also think allegedly should put on small hall fights for say an extra quid to stream them.But your spot on about the live fight experience,a few beers,a few bets can really bring the experience to levels way beyond anything you can get from a sky card unless your paying for PPV.Im very happy with allegedly work upto press but sky is bab,Im only a subscriber for the rugby,boxing is a added bonus and football can go suck a lemon .

Kilburn wrote:Sky's boxing coverage is the worst it has ever been. It's Channel 5 but with a few more dates and a pointless weekly "news" show. But at least Channel 5 doesn't pretend to have more involvement with the sport that it actualy does.

If I didn't watch Darts, Football and Pool then I wouldn't hesitate to cancel Sky Sports. Allegedly channel blows it clean out of the water, and represents the kind of channel I've always wanted.

May should be good on Sky,

Ricky Burns, Carl Froch, George Groves and Kell Brook vs Devon Alexander also in play for May 18th.

G0mez wrote:

Kilburn wrote:Sky's boxing coverage is the worst it has ever been. It's Channel 5 but with a few more dates and a pointless weekly "news" show. But at least Channel 5 doesn't pretend to have more involvement with the sport that it actualy does.

If I didn't watch Darts, Football and Pool then I wouldn't hesitate to cancel Sky Sports. Allegedly channel blows it clean out of the water, and represents the kind of channel I've always wanted.

May should be good on Sky,

Ricky Burns, Carl Froch, George Groves and Kell Brook vs Devon Alexander also in play for May 18th.

Burns with Matchroom or Goldenboy?

I thought the opening bout and the English title fight were entertaining. Purdy and Groves matches were made in the last week, so can be excused for not being great on the night. The Barker fight wasn't a pulse quickener on paper, and didn't prove competitive, but Barker deserves some credit for that. It was an average show, nothing more or less.

Matchroom are playing a long term game, where they are trying to manoeuvre as many as possibleof their headline fighters into high alphabet rankings. What they did with Brook, they are now trying to replicate with Barker, Bellew, Frampton etc. Sometimes that may result in good match ups (Frampton vs Martinez), more often it may mean beating on a limited South American or Italian to take his over-inflated ranking with one of the ranking bodies.

If in 12 months time the headline bouts are still poor, then I'll probably be shouting for a change, but I'm prepared to give Matchroom a chance for now.

dbf wrote:
Burns with Matchroom or Goldenboy?

G0mez wrote:

dbf wrote:
Burns with Matchroom or Goldenboy?

his lass"no,no,no.I like the finger better".

magnus wrote:It was an average show, nothing more or less.

It was an awful show, it was way below average.

Horse wrote:

magnus wrote:It was an average show, nothing more or less.

It was an awful show, it was way below average.

As I said, I found some of it entertaining enough, so for me "average" covers it.

Maybe I am being naive but to say "Adam Smith has killed boxing on Sky" seems a bit extreme.

I would be willing to stake a large amount that nearly all of the decisions that are made are above his head.

He might be head of boxing, but that's down the food chain.
Head of Sports is a boxing fan - thank the Lord - or maybe just maybe we wouldn't have any coverage.

Ste Hawkins wrote:

jonnyyorkshu wrote:i would rather watch a even,small hall,domestic fight than a big name fighting a no hope import any day.

The only way for boxing to survive and improve in the UK is for the regular fan to spend their money locally at their local small hall shows for fighters who are domestic level.
This is where the sport needs its fans, where it survives and some are dying on their arse cause regular fans only ever watch on telly. Seeing a fight first hand, the smell, the sounds and the comforting feeling of knowing you are paying to support the sport where it counts, locally is the only way to improve our sport at all levels. Rant over!

Good point and small hall/domestic level is losing out even more now that Sky only show a big card every few weeks, atleast with FFN's shows from york hall, leisure centres got airtime/revenue and we saw more (even if a lot of the time it was only certain rounds) domestic level 8 rounders etc