BoxRec

Didn't they show boxing when they first launched in the late 90s? One of the first fights I remember watching as a young lad was Holyfield-Moorer II with my Dad - felt sure that was on 5.

funso banjo baby wrote:fury was having 3 fights a year

and the undercards were awful.

chris eubank jnr...yawn

wont miss channel 5.

rubbish

I actually liked ch5's coverage and started off not liking eubank junior but must admit he grew on me, I can see eubank junior signing a 10 fight deal with sky !

Jack B wrote:Didn't they show boxing when they first launched in the late 90s? One of the first fights I remember watching as a young lad was Holyfield-Moorer II with my Dad - felt sure that was on 5.

Yeah they had nights dedicated to different sports, sometimes they'd show old football matches, old boxing etc.

banjo wrote:

Jack B wrote:Didn't they show boxing when they first launched in the late 90s? One of the first fights I remember watching as a young lad was Holyfield-Moorer II with my Dad - felt sure that was on 5.

Yeah they had nights dedicated to different sports, sometimes they'd show old football matches, old boxing etc.

Yeah, I remember that. You'd get a woman with big tits presenting the links in between. You got lots of weird and wonderful sports on that. Didn't they show hockey sometimes? I remember once watching some boxing or something post-midnight on Channel Five, and feel asleep. I woke up a couple of hours later, and there was skiing on.

Also, who remembers the show they had where they showed classic fights, and had two old fellas in tuxedos who'd watch the fight on tape, and be discussing it between rounds? I'm sure I watched some old Muhammad Ali fights that way.

Ch5 are probably sick of listening to Furys drivel

Chambers2 wrote:Ch5 are probably sick of listening to Furys drivel

Who isn't?

ILikeBeer wrote:

banjo wrote:

Jack B wrote:Didn't they show boxing when they first launched in the late 90s? One of the first fights I remember watching as a young lad was Holyfield-Moorer II with my Dad - felt sure that was on 5.

Yeah they had nights dedicated to different sports, sometimes they'd show old football matches, old boxing etc.

Yeah, I remember that. You'd get a woman with big tits presenting the links in between. You got lots of weird and wonderful sports on that. Didn't they show hockey sometimes? I remember once watching some boxing or something post-midnight on Channel Five, and feel asleep. I woke up a couple of hours later, and there was skiing on.

Also, who remembers the show they had where they showed classic fights, and had two old fellas in tuxedos who'd watch the fight on tape, and be discussing it between rounds? I'm sure I watched some old Muhammad Ali fights that way.

Yeah they showed ice hockey and baseball too, Sophie Blake was the bird I think, went on to present speedway on Sky and got up the duff by one of the riders.

Glyn Leach wrote:UFC is soundbite combat sport, that's the attraction to TV over better matches etc. The fights are shorter than boxing matches, works better for the mentality of the times, so I can see why the TV people like it. I like it too, 15 minutes for the majority of fights, then onto the next one if the last one was shite. Boxing requires more patience and there's not a lot of that about these days outside us hardcores.

Also good UFC matches are cheaper to make, therefore cheaper for TV in the longterm. Boxing takes the piss moneywise for any decent match and there isn't a lot of money around anymore, as we all know. It'll be a big challenge to get ANY TV company to make a meaningful investment in boxing in this climate, promoters and fighters will have to cut their cloth before that happens. They will have to operate for less, whereas the growth of interest in UFC means the fighters' purses can potentially rise as the backing increases, yet it will still be cheaper than top level boxing.

Not a pretty picture for boxing and a fairly obvious choice between the two to make for anyone holding the purse strings at a TV company, I imagine.

Glyn do you know how the standard direct costs such as event medical provision, Board/officiating fees etc compare for UFC and Boxing? I would imagine boxing is higher, but I wonder, on average how much higher it is?

gasman wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:UFC is soundbite combat sport, that's the attraction to TV over better matches etc. The fights are shorter than boxing matches, works better for the mentality of the times, so I can see why the TV people like it. I like it too, 15 minutes for the majority of fights, then onto the next one if the last one was shite. Boxing requires more patience and there's not a lot of that about these days outside us hardcores.

Also good UFC matches are cheaper to make, therefore cheaper for TV in the longterm. Boxing takes the piss moneywise for any decent match and there isn't a lot of money around anymore, as we all know. It'll be a big challenge to get ANY TV company to make a meaningful investment in boxing in this climate, promoters and fighters will have to cut their cloth before that happens. They will have to operate for less, whereas the growth of interest in UFC means the fighters' purses can potentially rise as the backing increases, yet it will still be cheaper than top level boxing.

Not a pretty picture for boxing and a fairly obvious choice between the two to make for anyone holding the purse strings at a TV company, I imagine.

Glyn do you know how the standard direct costs such as event medical provision, Board/officiating fees etc compare for UFC and Boxing? I would imagine boxing is higher, but I wonder, on average how much higher it is?

No idea whatsoever mate, sorry

In the 46 states of the USA where MMA is regulated, I imagine the UFC pay the same to the Athletic commission as a boxing promoter.

When they come to the UK, where the sport is unregulated and there is no governing body, they make their own provisions.

New tweet by Channel 5 -

Channel 5 ‏@channel5_tv 2h @nassa100 @Tyson_Fury @ChrisEubankJr We are not pulling out of boxing, and we are currently in talks for the Tyson Fury fight in April

Assuming the news is true. I am speculating at the production costs of Hennessy shows especially. I remember on facebook premier sports actually not pulling no punches at the cost of Watson vs O Donnell, Theophane vs Daws bill that they showed. While they didn't go into specifics, they were very vocal about how much it set them back.

They were not so vocal about Hard knocks costs.... although that deal, and maybe even Hard knocks boxing, looks a bit dead in the water now.

Sky, BBC, Premier, and ITV all stopped working with Hennessy - some of the fights he has put have been great. So I do wonder what else it must be

Flashing Blade wrote:In the 46 states of the USA where MMA is regulated, I imagine the UFC pay the same to the Athletic commission as a boxing promoter.

When they come to the UK, where the sport is unregulated and there is no governing body, they make their own provisions.

Yes; for Brazil, Japan and Europe they hire refs, officials and judges. I train with one of their UK judges and they get quite a nice deal.

danconnollyeire wrote:IMO CHannell 5 are thick. Apart from Big Brother, does anyone actually watched ANYTHING on channel 5. I mean what do they even show? I don't know anyone that watches it. So at least when they show Fury/Eubank/DeGale 'we all' (Boxing fans) tune-in.

I would have thought Neighbours and Home and Away are their biggest hitters.

About time Channel Five got rid of Big Brother, to be fair.

I don't have time for that show. It puts a bunch of nobodies onto our TV Screens, and has a bunch of voyeuristic fans getting obsessed by the actions of a bunch of people they never met. It's pathetic.

Not only do I not see the entertainment value of it, I'd be in favour of any of the shows fans being put to death to make the country a better place for everybody.

Viewers my friend viewers.

Machoman does have a very good point, people tuning in to see people inflicting harm on each other is quite perverted when you think about it.

MachoMan09 wrote:

ILikeBeer wrote:About time Channel Five got rid of Big Brother, to be fair.

I don't have time for that show. It puts a bunch of nobodies onto our TV Screens, and has a bunch of voyeuristic fans getting obsessed by the actions of a bunch of people they never met. It's pathetic.

What's the difference between that and a bunch of voyeuristic fans getting obsessed by the actions of a bunch of boxers they have never met?

The boxers are (sometimes) achieving things to aspire to, ergo there is more merit in having an interest - though by its very definition, obsession isn't good at all.

MachoMan09 wrote:Who defines what is legitimately aspirational and what isn't?

Nobody. If you think BB is something to aspire to, knock yourself out. There's probably even a forum just like this for it.

MachoMan09 wrote: What's the difference between that and a bunch of voyeuristic fans getting obsessed by the actions of a bunch of boxers they have never met?

When you watch boxing, you're watching a contest/sporting event. Boxing Fans, generally, aren't sat round watching every small part of the boxers life. If you watch Big Brother, you're watching people eat, sleep, talk, argue, try and have sex with each other. You even sit there watching people when they themselves are sat round doing nothing. (I believe Big Brother doesn't film them going to the bathroom, but god knows why. The fans like watching everything else the contestants do.) When you watch a boxing match, you're not interested in what the boxers are watching on television a week after the fight, or what their relationship with their girlfriend is. You are solely there for the sporting contest.

I have no objection to people liking celebrities. Or following the career of a sports person, musician or actor. And I have no objection to members of the general public appearing on TV shows (eg. Quiz shows.) What I object to is attention whores putting their whole lives on television, so people with nothing better to do can sit round and gossip about their personal lives. Firstly, why would you want people to know that much detail about your intimate affairs, and secondly why would you watch a TV show just to learn about these complete strangers intimate affairs?

I don't watch it myself, but I could understand to an extent watching the Celebrity version if a person you're a fan of competes on it. But I just don't see the appeal of watching members of the public sitting around scratching themselves and creating futile arguments with other people.

BB is just a contest, no? Prize at the end, main aim to keep from being voted off by modifying your behaviour whilst living in a bubble for however many weeks.

Whilst some of the people may not be famous, some of them actually have a personality which others find interesting or engaging. The fact that some of the winners have gone on to be TV presenters and the like sort of backs that up.

Didn't it hit the 1 billion mark a few months ago?

It's just a microcosm of society - You have attention whores and lurkers and people that are just bored.

banjo wrote:Machoman does have a very good point, people tuning in to see people inflicting harm on each other is quite perverted when you think about it.

I suppose you could look at it like that. (And let's face it, we probably all know people who do think that's what boxing fans are like.) No boxing fans I know do that. We've all probably wondered at times; "Should we be watching this?" Especially when something like a Michael Watson happens.

But as far as I am concerned, most boxing fans are not there laughing and whooping and getting off on the fact that somebody might get hurt. And I certainly wouldn't want to meet somebody who was like that. All the boxing fans I know enjoy the sporting side of it and that's why they are watching it.

I don't consider myself a judgemental person, and tend to think each to their own. But I have yet to meet somebody who can give me any kind of a reason why they would care so much about watching every aspect of the life of a complete stranger. Every single aspect of their lives. That really does sicken me.

There's a celebrity culture these days where people are given fame for doing nothing. That starts from shows like Big Brother.

It truly, truly sickens me to my stomach that people are so nosey into other people's lives, they'd watch a show like Big Brother.

MachoMan09 wrote:I think most people are attention whores at heart. I'm not sure how many users Facebook has these days but it must be quite a few millions. Almost without exception, the folks on there are attention whores. I guess people just like people like them or like slagging people off like them.

I see what you're saying, but it's a slightly different thing.

Yes, you get some people on Facebook who stick up every photo of themselves possible and add people they've never met to their accounts. Why would you want people who you don't know seeing pictures of what you're like when you are drunk? That I'd disagree with.

Though I wouldn't go as far as to say all Facebook users are like that. You can add security settings, so only your friends can see your stuff. I do know people that only have a dozen or two facebook friends, only people they really know well.

I've got Facebook, and though I have loads of friends on there, they are all people I have met. I'll confess I could probably take a few of them off that I wouldn't miss, due to them being people I met like twice, or them being say boyfriends of cousins, rather than my own mates etc... But at the same time, it's a good tool for keeping in contact with people I was at school with. There are some people I was quite close to at university, that I don't have chance to see much any more. But I can still message them, and keep up with their news due to Facebook. It's all in how you use it.

I'm sorry if this sounds wrong to some people, but I see no justification for Big Brother ever having been on television at all. And I never will.

ILikeBeer wrote:

banjo wrote:Machoman does have a very good point, people tuning in to see people inflicting harm on each other is quite perverted when you think about it.

I suppose you could look at it like that. (And let's face it, we probably all know people who do think that's what boxing fans are like.) No boxing fans I know do that. We've all probably wondered at times; "Should we be watching this?" Especially when something like a Michael Watson happens.

But as far as I am concerned, most boxing fans are not there laughing and whooping and getting off on the fact that somebody might get hurt. And I certainly wouldn't want to meet somebody who was like that. All the boxing fans I know enjoy the sporting side of it and that's why they are watching it.

Yeah I know what you're saying with that, I'm also a big fan of the Isle of Man TT which kills competitors on a regular basis but the bit that makes it exciting is these men and women are riding on the ragged edge and the slightest mistake and it's game over literally, there are no checkpoints or continue options, it's a wood overcoat. The extreme danger and the fact that it can kill is what makes it exciting, I know people who have done/still do it and they all say it's better than sex.

I agree with your other point too, I'm not a fan at all of BB or anything else of that type and I don't know why people lap it up but they do.