BoxRec

Hamed for one was made on terrestrial tv. Lewis fought at a time when the average guy still knew about boxing because he had seen it on terrestrial tv. It cannot be good for boxing if most can't see it it will gradually decline if that is the case as indeed it has already to an extent.

rm1 wrote:Hamed for one was made on terrestrial tv. Lewis fought at a time when the average guy still knew about boxing because he had seen it on terrestrial tv. It cannot be good for boxing if most can't see it it will gradually decline if that is the case as indeed it has already to an extent.

Lewis fought Gary Mason on BBC.

The biggest ticket seller in the history of British boxing never once fought on free TV.

Sent

earsjohn wrote:
It's not just viewing figures that count though is it?

Surely it's the nature of the numbers watching that matters more than the actual numbers themselves? What I mean is that your teenage girl who texts in to vote and shares her viewing experiences across multiple social platforms is going to be a more valuable viewer (to advertisers in particular) than your average boxing fan (lower income, older, less "connected" online). I just don't see that boxing, in its current state, appeals to the masses in a way that TV companies consider valuable.

A depressing yet accurate summary.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

earsjohn wrote:
It's not just viewing figures that count though is it?

Surely it's the nature of the numbers watching that matters more than the actual numbers themselves? What I mean is that your teenage girl who texts in to vote and shares her viewing experiences across multiple social platforms is going to be a more valuable viewer (to advertisers in particular) than your average boxing fan (lower income, older, less "connected" online). I just don't see that boxing, in its current state, appeals to the masses in a way that TV companies consider valuable.

Nothing to do with what you're on about but I'm surprised the texting in vote thing hasn't happened yet. A minute to text between rounds who you think won the last round and a graphic to show what the public are thinking, it will happen eventually, maybe it already has and I've just not seen it.

Isn't there a variation with McCrorys scoring app and the BN equivalent? It won't be long until the WBA sanction the first socially voted World Champion.

Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB. These are the last 4 events on Channel 5:

DeGale Vs. Zuniga - 970,000 (22nd most viewed show on 5 that week)
Fury Vs. Johnson - 1,370,000 (6th most viewed show on 5 that week)
DeGale Vs. Mohoumadi - 1,150,000 (9th most viewed show on 5 that week)
Fury Vs. Maddalone - 1,050,000 (21st most viewed show on 5 that week)

That is an average of 1,135,000 viewers for each fight. Channel 5 reaches almost 63,000,000 million people in the UK. Are the viewing figures really that good? During the same week as DeGale Vs. Zuniga the most watched show on Channel 5 was the film The Expendables bringing in 2,480,000 viewers. The week of Fury Vs. Johnson the most watched show on Channel 5 was yet again a film, Jack Frost, which pulled in 1,790,000 viewers.

The last 4 boxing shows on Channel 5 have not been the most entertaining. Not only that Channel 5 did not enjoy Fury's live rant at Price during DeGale Vs. Mohoumadi.

Maybe it's cheaper and more reliable for Channel 5 to buy the rights to movies instead of broadcasting live boxing. Clearly movies bring in more viewers meaning Channel 5 can bring in more advertising revenue.

It seems the only way boxing on terrestrial TV has a chance is if th promoters can deliver the biggest fights. Tyson Fury Vs. David Price, James DeGale Vs. George Groves II etc....

Whilst I was first angry to hear that Channel 5 have pulled out of boxing I've had time to think things over. Boxing is killing boxing by not putting on fights that the viewing public want to see.

milpool wrote:

earsjohn wrote:
It's not just viewing figures that count though is it?

Surely it's the nature of the numbers watching that matters more than the actual numbers themselves? What I mean is that your teenage girl who texts in to vote and shares her viewing experiences across multiple social platforms is going to be a more valuable viewer (to advertisers in particular) than your average boxing fan (lower income, older, less "connected" online). I just don't see that boxing, in its current state, appeals to the masses in a way that TV companies consider valuable.

A depressing yet accurate summary.

No it isn't, it's another 'dog ate my homework' explanation for the fact that boxing promoters have failed to put on fights that people want to see.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

chad wrote: Not only that Channel 5 did not enjoy Fury's live rant at Price during DeGale Vs. Mohoumadi.

What makes you say that?

What makes you say that?

Keith Moon - I disagree. Mick is not going to get another TV deal in his own right and not a prayer of Sky which leaves allegedly. Do you seriously think Wazza will let him show Fury on his channel without options ?

Maybe, just maybe, the likes of Degale vs Brand, with Eubank Jnr vs TBA as support, isn't sending CH5 into spasms of joy.

I think I read an article in BM some time ago that mentioned what a massive pain in the arse boxing can be for television with it's plethora of late notice pull outs, multiple, confusing titles and failure to make the most attractive matches at the right time.

It's probably easier for CH5 to show some straight to DVD tat on a Saturday night than to put their faith in boxing.

I'm not happy about that, but boxing needs to make itself more of an attractive proposition.

magnus wrote:Maybe, just maybe, the likes of Degale vs Brand, with Eubank Jnr vs TBA as support, isn't sending CH5 into spasms of joy.

I think I read an article in BM some time ago that mentioned what a massive pain in the arse boxing can be for television with it's plethora of late notice pull outs, multiple, confusing titles and failure to make the most attractive matches at the right time.

It's probably easier for CH5 to show some straight to DVD tat on a Saturday night than to put their faith in boxing.

I'm not happy about that, but boxing needs to make itself more of an attractive proposition.

I think you have it about right here. The boxing is popular but its hard work compared to showing a film. C5 is a low rent channel that wants to empkloy as few people as possible and make money showing cheap to air tat the boxing requires a bit more effort and they can't be bothered. Still a real shame that will be bad for the sport.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

milpool wrote:

earsjohn wrote:
It's not just viewing figures that count though is it?

Surely it's the nature of the numbers watching that matters more than the actual numbers themselves? What I mean is that your teenage girl who texts in to vote and shares her viewing experiences across multiple social platforms is going to be a more valuable viewer (to advertisers in particular) than your average boxing fan (lower income, older, less "connected" online). I just don't see that boxing, in its current state, appeals to the masses in a way that TV companies consider valuable.

A depressing yet accurate summary.

No it isn't, it's another 'dog ate my homework' explanation for the fact that boxing promoters have failed to put on fights that people want to see.

Fair point. When you think about it, other sports give the big encounters that the fans want to see, ie, football teams facing each other on a scheduled date, with no cancellations, no bollocks or politics getting in the way, etc. If I were running a TV company I would be sick to my back teeth of boxing promoters going out of their fooking way to prevent the kind of fights that the fans want to see. I know boxing is complicated at the best of times but from a TV company's perspective I bet they are absolutely pig sick of it all.... just look at the middleweights we have, none have fought each other yet and only last week Eddie Hearn was giving an interview as to why Barker may not face his domestic rivals in the foreseeable future. Us fans accept or at least tolerate it but you can understand why a TV company just says, "fxxk it lets put The Expendables on instead".

Parson Cross wrote:Keith Moon - I disagree. Mick is not going to get another TV deal in his own right and not a prayer of Sky which leaves Allegedly channel. Do you seriously think Wazza will let him show Fury on his channel without options ?

OK then, lets see if Fury-Cunningham is shown on UK television and of it isn't you can say I told you so.

Some interesting Tweets from Chris Eubank Jr. in the past few hours.

"Theres been no official statement from Channel 5 or Hennessy Sports on why my fight got postponed, still waiting to find out whats going on."

Follow the original Chris Eubank @Eubankwarrior My father is now actively using twitter & will be tweeting some important news tomorrow."

chad wrote:Some interesting Tweets from Chris Eubank Jr. in the past few hours.

"Theres been no official statement from Channel 5 or Hennessy Sports on why my fight got postponed, still waiting to find out whats going on."

Follow the original Chris Eubank @Eubankwarrior My father is now actively using twitter & will be tweeting some important news tomorrow."

If by "interesting" you mean "pointless" then I agree 100%

I read a piece in the Guardian saying the head of sport at Channel 5 had left, but no new one had been appointed yet. It could just be a case of no new spending until new man is employed rather than an actual decision to chop boxing.

I find it quite bizarre with the silence surrounding it all. If Chris Eubank is tweaking that he has no idea why it isnt happening then surely someone should be coming out & saying why it has been pulled.
Mick (or someone else) at Hennessey Promotions is very keen to post on here when they have an event on, but surely the boxers & the fans have a right to know why the show has been pulled.

MachoMan09 wrote:

chad wrote:Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB....

I think BARB statistics/viewing figures are little more than horseshit. That's not a dig at you, it's what I think. There are only around 5200 households used to gather the stats, I don't think that's enough to develop anything like an accurate picture. The TV stations and advertisers, in my view, do not have a good handle on how many people really watch the stuff they put out.

You have to compare apples with apples. No good saying that The Expendables probably network premier brought in 2.7m on a week night at a decent time. Then the second and third showings of Expendables will probably bring in less and less and less whereas boxing is consistently delivering 1m+ viewers.

What we need to compare is what was C5 share of viewers in that time slot across all the free channels, I bet it will be high.

MachoMan09 wrote:

chad wrote:Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB....

I think BARB statistics/viewing figures are little more than horseshit. That's not a dig at you, it's what I think. There are only around 5200 households used to gather the stats, I don't think that's enough to develop anything like an accurate picture. The TV stations and advertisers, in my view, do not have a good handle on how many people really watch the stuff they put out.

That's a more than big enough sample size to be statistically significant, considering their selection process. The viewing figures will be extremely accurate on the whole.

jtourettes wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

chad wrote:Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB....

I think BARB statistics/viewing figures are little more than horseshit. That's not a dig at you, it's what I think. There are only around 5200 households used to gather the stats, I don't think that's enough to develop anything like an accurate picture. The TV stations and advertisers, in my view, do not have a good handle on how many people really watch the stuff they put out.

That's a more than big enough sample size to be statistically significant, considering their selection process. The viewing figures will be extremely accurate on the whole.

It is widely accepted that BARB uses a very unsophisticated and flawed method of collecting Its statistics.

There are privacy issues in the UK which don't help them either.

Dirk Kelly wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

chad wrote:Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB....

I think BARB statistics/viewing figures are little more than horseshit. That's not a dig at you, it's what I think. There are only around 5200 households used to gather the stats, I don't think that's enough to develop anything like an accurate picture. The TV stations and advertisers, in my view, do not have a good handle on how many people really watch the stuff they put out.

You have to compare apples with apples. No good saying that The Expendables probably network premier brought in 2.7m on a week night at a decent time. Then the second and third showings of Expendables will probably bring in less and less and less whereas boxing is consistently delivering 1m+ viewers.

What we need to compare is what was C5 share of viewers in that time slot across all the free channels, I bet it will be high.

As previously posted, over their last 4 events, boxing has pulled in an average of 1,135,000 viewers per show based on BARB figures. Here is how other shows have faired on Channel 5 between 9:45pm to 11:00pm on a Saturday night, which is roughly when Channel 5 show their boxing.

Saturday 02nd February - Law & Order (9:45pm - 10:45pm) - 1,242,000
Saturday 09th February - Law & Order (10:00pm - 11:00pm) - 1,183,000
Saturday 15th February - Law & Order (9:50pm - 10:50pm) - 1,110,000
Saturday 23rd February - Law & Order (9:30pm - 10:30pm) - 1,250,000
Saturday 23rd February - Law & Order (10:30pm - 11:30pm) - 1,300,000
Saturday 02nd March - Law & Order (10:10pm - 11:10pm) - 1,240,000

That is an average audience of 1,220,833 per episode, which is 85,833 more viewers than boxing gets in the same time slot on average.

Whilst the value of BARB data will always be argued, we don't have any other reliable measuring stick to use. The above figures paint a clear picture why Channel 5 would drop boxing. Boxing seems to detract from their usual Saturday night viewing figures.

chad wrote:

Dirk Kelly wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Upon reflection I can maybe understand why Channel 5 would drop boxing.

The following viewing figures have been provided by BARB....

I think BARB statistics/viewing figures are little more than horseshit. That's not a dig at you, it's what I think. There are only around 5200 households used to gather the stats, I don't think that's enough to develop anything like an accurate picture. The TV stations and advertisers, in my view, do not have a good handle on how many people really watch the stuff they put out.

You have to compare apples with apples. No good saying that The Expendables probably network premier brought in 2.7m on a week night at a decent time. Then the second and third showings of Expendables will probably bring in less and less and less whereas boxing is consistently delivering 1m+ viewers.

What we need to compare is what was C5 share of viewers in that time slot across all the free channels, I bet it will be high.

As previously posted, over their last 4 events, boxing has pulled in an average of 1,135,000 viewers per show based on BARB figures. Here is how other shows have faired on Channel 5 between 9:45pm to 11:00pm on a Saturday night, which is roughly when Channel 5 show their boxing.

Saturday 02nd February - Law & Order (9:45pm - 10:45pm) - 1,242,000
Saturday 09th February - Law & Order (10:00pm - 11:00pm) - 1,183,000
Saturday 15th February - Law & Order (9:50pm - 10:50pm) - 1,110,000
Saturday 23rd February - Law & Order (9:30pm - 10:30pm) - 1,250,000
Saturday 23rd February - Law & Order (10:30pm - 11:30pm) - 1,300,000
Saturday 02nd March - Law & Order (10:10pm - 11:10pm) - 1,240,000

That is an average audience of 1,220,833 per episode, which is 85,833 more viewers than boxing gets in the same time slot on average.

Whilst the value of BARB data will always be argued, we don't have any other reliable measuring stick to use. The above figures paint a clear picture why Channel 5 would drop boxing. Boxing seems to detract from their usual Saturday night viewing figures.

There is this idea however that live sports events are "DVR proof" and so more attractive to advertisers.

With the advent of DVRs people just record what they want to see and skip through the adverts, people tend to watch sport live and therefore can't fast forward through the ads.

Keith moon,
I think we've got crossed wires.
Im not saying he wont be shown just saying if he is Meaty Mick may well be out of the picture.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:There is this idea however that live sports events are "DVR proof" and so more attractive to advertisers.

With the advent of DVRs people just record what they want to see and skip through the adverts, people tend to watch sport live and therefore can't fast forward through the ads.

Good point. Maybe boxing pulls in more advertising revenue than Law & Order, but then maybe Law & Order is significantly cheaper to televise than boxing.