BoxRec

Did anyone else prefer Smith playing the anchor role with Darke and Watt commentating on Friday? Thought it worked much better than Clarke, Smith Watt. Persoanlly. At least with Adam Smith playing the presenting role he does know a bit, unlike clarke who clearly knows nothing more than what he's told on the day.

I just want Sky to do the 24/7 on the Rhodes/Moore fight - yeah because I would be pleased that I was one of the many who thought of it - but in addition I honestly believe it would go down very well with the fans.

Is it a bit late now, with only 3 weeks to go ?

great idea though, you'd think someone at Sky wouldve thought of it moons ago... only thing is, why would they spend more on a sport that doesnt really bring in the figures... mind, I suppose it could do if there was a 24/7 type programme!

Wales wrote:Is it a bit late now, with only 3 weeks to go ?

great idea though, you'd think someone at Sky wouldve thought of it moons ago... only thing is, why would they spend more on a sport that doesnt really bring in the figures... mind, I suppose it could do if there was a 24/7 type programme!

there is plenty of time to do this - it takes a camera crew and perhaps one person to ask a few questions here and there - the film then goes back to the studio for the editors to do their bit and someone to do the commentary/voiceover - the 24/7 is definitely not too late to do and will not cost Sky TV anything other than the fuel to get to the respective gyms to do!!!

Frank Maloney and Steve Wood would welcome the idea as it would bring extra revenue through ticket sales although I am told tickets are doing nicely.

If Sky have the balls to grasp the idea everyone would be onto a winner with little or no extra costs involved.

Spud wrote:

Wales wrote:Is it a bit late now, with only 3 weeks to go ?

great idea though, you'd think someone at Sky wouldve thought of it moons ago... only thing is, why would they spend more on a sport that doesnt really bring in the figures... mind, I suppose it could do if there was a 24/7 type programme!

there is plenty of time to do this - it takes a camera crew and perhaps one person to ask a few questions here and there - the film then goes back to the studio for the editors to do their bit and someone to do the commentary/voiceover - the 24/7 is definitely not too late to do and will not cost Sky TV anything other than the fuel to get to the respective gyms to do!!!

Frank Maloney and Steve Wood would welcome the idea as it would bring extra revenue through ticket sales although I am told tickets are doing nicely.

If Sky have the balls to grasp the idea everyone would be onto a winner with little or no extra costs involved.

Three weeks is enough time if you're looking to do a sh*t job with it. The HBO verson's usually start filming about eight weeks out, don't they? If you want to do it right, those programmes take a lot of editing and structuring. It's not a cut and paste job.

Also, as the Moore-Rhodes fight isn't PPV, Sky probably wouldn't even see a point in doing it. The fight is not meaningful to non-boxing fans and it already has an established audience - us hardcore fans. You won't get many outside the hardcore watching it, sadly.

Eraserhead wrote:

Spud wrote:

Wales wrote:Is it a bit late now, with only 3 weeks to go ?

great idea though, you'd think someone at Sky wouldve thought of it moons ago... only thing is, why would they spend more on a sport that doesnt really bring in the figures... mind, I suppose it could do if there was a 24/7 type programme!

there is plenty of time to do this - it takes a camera crew and perhaps one person to ask a few questions here and there - the film then goes back to the studio for the editors to do their bit and someone to do the commentary/voiceover - the 24/7 is definitely not too late to do and will not cost Sky TV anything other than the fuel to get to the respective gyms to do!!!

Frank Maloney and Steve Wood would welcome the idea as it would bring extra revenue through ticket sales although I am told tickets are doing nicely.

If Sky have the balls to grasp the idea everyone would be onto a winner with little or no extra costs involved.

Three weeks is enough time if you're looking to do a sh*t job with it. The HBO verson's usually start filming about eight weeks out, don't they? If you want to do it right, those programmes take a lot of editing and structuring. It's not a cut and paste job.

Also, as the Moore-Rhodes fight isn't PPV, Sky probably wouldn't even see a point in doing it. The fight is not meaningful to non-boxing fans and it already has an established audience - us hardcore fans. You won't get many outside the hardcore watching it, sadly.

I disagree - Sky have plenty of footage already - in addition - they could do a smaller version - for argument sake the last week of training (2 weeks before the fight) and then the last week with the press conference and the weigh in.

If Sky do not adopt a defeatist attitude to this - it could be very good and the key issue here is it will not cost a lot of money to set up.

It would be a good taster for the bigger fights if this one went well.

i think steve is heading in the right direction with viptv so hopefully this is something that can be taken on board!!

A smaller verison? 12/3.5 ?

The good thing about 24/7 is it follows the fighters through their daily lives and gives you an insight to how the real <insert name> goes about their business. If you just sent a camera to the gym with money for fuel you simply wouldnt get this. I'll bet HBO have a team with De La Hoya / Pac man / mayweather / Hatton for long periods to get the real bits in.

Eugine Maloney did something like a 24/7 online with Bennett vs Earl.

I guess there might be some copyright issues by using the 24/7 style.... maybe something similar with the big fight countdown style that Sky does for their PPV's.

I've noticed that Sky are using the Prizefighter as part of the advertising for upcoming sporting events in October... I remember back in the day a fight would be featured EVERY month for this. I cannot remember the last time it was until now. I think that has a MAJOR reason why boxing isn't doing the figures. The sport is still popular, as shown by ratings of big (and well advertised) fights on ITV. Its just for some, almost bizarre, reasoning - the TV companies fail to realise this. Probably because, compared to Football, boxing is cheap.

Spud you live in a fantasy world where boxing is a religion.

Honestly, you'd be an fundamentalist if boxing was denomination of a religion.

I can picture you strapping Alka-Seltzer and Cans of Coke to yourself before heading to a Sports Network weigh in.

Have you any idea of the budget and skill it takes to craft those 24/7 episodes!?

Sure you could do a 6th form student fascimile which we'd all enjoy but blimey....you're shortsighted if you think Sky are going to afford it that type of coverage.

Just accept Sky know the boxing audience will watch boxing, and now and then the likes of Khan or Hatton will pique the interest of general sports fans.

They don't need to MAKE sports fans like boxing, they can just fill the screen with cheaper, easier and simpler sports for the same result.

Sky dont MAKE event fights, Boxing MAKE event fights.

So when Hatton or Khan make a breakthrough as they have, then SKY start wall-to-walling the coverage.

They know Joe-Blog Football fan aged 18-35 probably doesn't give a shit about Jamie Moore (though we all do - but they dont have to look after us, because we're all gullable sheep/ boxing addicts).

Boxing has to sort its OWN problems out. The public, broadcasters may get on board again then.

Wales wrote:Did anyone else prefer Smith playing the anchor role with Darke and Watt commentating on Friday?.

you can make your own S&M jokes there, folks



"Did anyone else prefer it when Smith pissed in Watt's mouth on Friday?"

Of course Sky don't show his fights so this was obvious, but it was a shame they felt they couldn't even mention Darren Barker's name when putting forward their ideas for a Murray v Renda British title fight.

Lenny wrote:Of course Sky don't show his fights so this was obvious, but it was a shame they felt they couldn't even mention Darren Barker's name when putting forward their ideas for a Murray v Renda British title fight.

YEAH!!!


no wait, what the eff are yo talking about?

DavidPayne wrote:Spud you live in a fantasy world where boxing is a religion.

Honestly, you'd be an fundamentalist if boxing was denomination of a religion.

I can picture you strapping Alka-Seltzer and Cans of Coke to yourself before heading to a Sports Network weigh in.

Have you any idea of the budget and skill it takes to craft those 24/7 episodes!?

Sure you could do a 6th form student fascimile which we'd all enjoy but blimey....you're shortsighted if you think Sky are going to afford it that type of coverage.

Just accept Sky know the boxing audience will watch boxing, and now and then the likes of Khan or Hatton will pique the interest of general sports fans.

They don't need to MAKE sports fans like boxing, they can just fill the screen with cheaper, easier and simpler sports for the same result.

Sky dont MAKE event fights, Boxing MAKE event fights.

So when Hatton or Khan make a breakthrough as they have, then SKY start wall-to-walling the coverage.

They know Joe-Blog Football fan aged 18-35 probably doesn't give a poop about Jamie Moore (though we all do - but they dont have to look after us, because we're all gullable sheep/ boxing addicts).

Boxing has to sort its OWN problems out. The public, broadcasters may get on board again then.

Is there any need to resort to insults or patronising posts - which yet again you do?

Have I had a pop at you in anyway?

Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it. Take your issues elsewhere you pathetic sad little man.

I'll give you patronising at the beginning, but the rest was a response to the point that you think 24/7 are appropriate, easy, cheap and interesting three weeks from fight on a standing start for a fight between Moore and Rhodes?

You insult your own knowledge of the sport, broadcaster's interest and the cost of compiling these things let alone anyone else's.

Spud wrote:
Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it.

Man of people, are we now, Spud?

24/7 has one purpose and that is to sell PPV's. It is not there because the boxers want to show us their sensitive side. The model works in the US so no reason why it couldn't work here for a big PPV, perhaps putting it on sky 1 so it reaches as high an audience as possible.

Moore-Rhodes is a non starter though as its regular sky.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Spud wrote: Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it.

Man of people, are we now, Spud?

what are your thoughts concerning a 24/7 on Rhodes/Moore KG?

Is it possible for you to keep to the thread in hand !!!

Spud wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Spud you live in a fantasy world where boxing is a religion.

Honestly, you'd be an fundamentalist if boxing was denomination of a religion.

I can picture you strapping Alka-Seltzer and Cans of Coke to yourself before heading to a Sports Network weigh in.

Have you any idea of the budget and skill it takes to craft those 24/7 episodes!?

Sure you could do a 6th form student fascimile which we'd all enjoy but blimey....you're shortsighted if you think Sky are going to afford it that type of coverage.

Just accept Sky know the boxing audience will watch boxing, and now and then the likes of Khan or Hatton will pique the interest of general sports fans.

They don't need to MAKE sports fans like boxing, they can just fill the screen with cheaper, easier and simpler sports for the same result.

Sky dont MAKE event fights, Boxing MAKE event fights.

So when Hatton or Khan make a breakthrough as they have, then SKY start wall-to-walling the coverage.

They know Joe-Blog Football fan aged 18-35 probably doesn't give a poop about Jamie Moore (though we all do - but they dont have to look after us, because we're all gullable sheep/ boxing addicts).

Boxing has to sort its OWN problems out. The public, broadcasters may get on board again then.

Is there any need to resort to insults or patronising posts - which yet again you do?

Have I had a pop at you in anyway?

Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it. Take your issues elsewhere you pathetic sad little man.

Dont make me post my big image of myself again, Hagler will shit himself:-)

He hated it when Everlast went TKMax. I may be pathetic and sad and a man, but I'm not little. And as I said to Robin Reid on set, "its the air-conditioning lovey"

Spud wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Spud wrote: Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it.

Man of people, are we now, Spud?

what are your thoughts concerning a 24/7 on Rhodes/Moore KG?

Is it possible for you to keep to the thread in hand !!!

Okay Spud.

I think its a fkking stupid idea when all the circumstances, pros and cons are considered.

chinny wrote:Moore-Rhodes is a non starter though as its regular sky.

I do not see why Chinny - if the idea of these 24/7 programmes is to increase ppv sales then surely it could still work for normal sky boxing shows to increase viewing figures?

In addition all of this sh*t that it would cost to make this programme is crap - visits between 2 gyms in Sheffield and Manchester is not going to cost a lot - although I accept the editing side of things could be a little time consuming.

If Sky upped the ante with regards the advertising of their boxing programmes I honestly believe it would benefit the viewing figures big time.

It is precisely because of the lethargy and negative attitudes of the likes of Payne on here and the lethargy of Sky people - "Nah it wont work" syndrome why viewing figures are getting worse.

Get some enthusiasm into a project and make it work!!!

Payne,

Why do you feel the urgent need to hijack my posts to make yourself look clever with your patronising and insults - keep to the thread - see if you can discuss the issues without the insults.

As for costs etc etc you yet again make out you are in the know - when in reality you know nothing more than I do - well thats incorrect too because I have it on very good authority Sky could do this 24/7 if they wanted to and at very little cost to themselves.

Lets just presume I am wrong Payne - I cannot get my head around why you have chosen to open up an old long running feud between us with your insults.

Spud wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Spud wrote: Your post is yet again merely an excuse to have an attack on me - its pathetic and I and the rest of the forum are bored of it.

Man of people, are we now, Spud?

what are your thoughts concerning a 24/7 on Rhodes/Moore KG?

Is it possible for you to keep to the thread in hand !!!

my thoughts on Rhodes/Moore 24/7?



Good god man, i post once every 3 months when im drunk in a hotel bar in South East Asia with free WiFi, and you are asking me my fkcuing thoughts on Ryan "Air" Rhodes and Jamie Moore 24/7??


Like you, or I, have any understanding of what you are talking about

Spud wrote:Payne,

Why do you feel the urgent need to hijack my posts

because you are a braying oaf?

The HBO 24/7 shows cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to produce. They have a full production crew following the respective boxers round wherever they are in the world leading up to the fight. The quality of the programmes are high because naturally that is supposed to make people buy the PPV. They are made by skilled production staff hence the quality.

I am afraid no British version of that would come close to the quality they produce purely due to financial constraints. Having a couple of people with DV cameras following a boxer for whatever period of time will not necessarily make a good programme.

Maybe if Hatton were to face Khan or fights of that magnitude you could see whichever channel had the fight putting money towards making some programming around the fight to drive viewers towards it but until then I would say chances are slim....