BoxRec

This is a topic for discussion- feel free to agree or disagree!

In my opinion, there are issues with the format of "Friday Fight Night."

The current format generally revolves around a Live Main Event, with pre-recorded highlights from the support bouts being shown afterwards.

Personally, I think there are two main problems with this.

1. A main event shouldn't be on first. Build up, background- and live support bouts help set the mood and build the anticipation for the evenings boxing. Plus, it's more entertaining that way.

2. Given that the main event is often the only live bout televised (on the show- and indeed- all week) they are relying a lot on it being "a cracker". Recently, there HAVE been some great main events- but equally, (and it has to be said, more often than not) there have been some average main events- and indeed- one or two very poor ones.


True, we get editted highlights, but the problem here is that these are really for the die-hard fan anyway- and highlights, it has to be said, do take away a lot of the appeal of an event. "live" is always better.

A much better format would be that used by the erstwhile ITV shows- an opener, a main support then the main event. Makes for an entertaining show, rather than a jumbled live/highlights/preview package.

Whilst that may be not possible, I do think they need to re-think the format slightly.

Even myself, a big fan of the sport, doesn't give Friday Fight Night priority any more. A good boxing show can be the highlight of the evening- have friends round for the event, watch the show and enjoy the main event. Currently, unfortunatly, Friday Fight Night does not have that appeal.

Finally, there were recent shows where live bouts featuring prospects were shown before the main event. This is a step in the right direction, although (as with all prospects) it depends on how competativley they are matched. Something like the Renda-Samuels fight (or indeed, several others from Fridays bill) would have made greta openers.

I agree with what you are saying. Also, i would like to see the program start a little earlier! I know ten o'clock isnt that late but sometimes i find my self sitting around most of the evening waiting for the show to start!

pnejon wrote:I agree with what you are saying. Also, i would like to see the program start a little earlier! I know ten o'clock isnt that late but sometimes i find my self sitting around most of the evening waiting for the show to start!

I agree- 10pm is "neither fish nor fowl." Its too early for people coming in from an evening out, and a bit of a long waiting time for people waiting at home, or staying in for the evening.

they should use the same format that itv use and make the show 3 hours 8 till 11 or if they've got the football on 9-12

I think the problem is the quality of the matchups on FNF.

The current format should be used on fight cards like this coming Fridays. Malony has put loads of fights on and its difficult to see which will be the best spectacle. So highlights with 1 live main event is a good option on a card like this.

Putting the main event on first ensures that time isn't wasted at the end of the show in the event of KO, TKO, DQ ot TD. Highlights shown under these circumstances are generally of very poor match-ups as all the best highlights have been used earlier in the show. If the fights are recorded and the live entertainment is shown first then SKY knows how much time they can allocate on each highlight.

However, I agree that a fight card like last weeks should have had 2 if not 3 live fights. Samuels Renda should have been the live 10 O'clock, or delayed slightly from 9.30pm.

It depends on the cards, I don't think it should have a set format. They did get it wrong last week though

Whicker be grateful that we still getting boxing on tv! In an ideal world it be on longer, I personally think it better if the programme ran for 2 1/2 hours.

I think on fridays bill that they could have got away with showing 3 live fights although it would have meant that that the show would have been longer.
It was safe to say that Samuels v Renda was probably going to be the best fight on the bill so logically that should have been shown live IMO, also Thompson v McIntyre was expected to be a decent fight so that should have been on live. Then maybe highlights of the Joe Murray fight in between.

8 till 11 or 9 till 12 would be ideal.. Do a bit of background research on the main event fighters before the fight starts and get people interested..ITV were doing ok with that side of things they really were BUT as we've all heard are now looking for a way out now..

If we can start to get stories and get to know the likes of Kell Brook,Nathan Cleverly,Kevin Mitchell,Frankie Gavin etc etc then the intrest would become huge, People would want to tune in and instead of just having Hatton,Haye,Froch and Khan we would have plenty more stars.. If normal people can relate to the stars they are seeing on TV they'll start to follow them and show intrest in there careers too!!

In the 2 hour show sky put on it's just the fight and a glimpse of the weigh in and that's it.. Only when it's pay per view do they go out to the gym and speak to the fighters and stuff and maybe some little bits will get on sky sports news centre but really this isn't enough is it??

Take a few tips from the UFC and the likes of 24/7 and Contender.. Im not saying do the silly helicopter shots of people shadow boxing on the roof cos that can cost silly money (even though it did look good DD ) Im just saying start showing intrest in the fighters and maybe people will like what they see and wanna support them??

I mean just look at the way boxers are looked at? They are precieved as Neanderthols and thugs most of them, If you look closer though you'll see many more like myself, Family man trying to get ahead in life, Same for my coach and 3 of my gym mates too, If people could see this side Im sure they'd be quite shocked and wanna take notice Ie the casual fan of sports.

More people taking notice is more intrest in the fighters and more viewers on the TV.. Better for the TV,Fighters and promoters so everyones a winner in my eye's.. Hopefully this will be looked into in the future..

I think 10 to 1am is more likely. They tend to have football or live rugby on before.

Why can't they use the red button service.

Red button no good to us virgin users!

I like ITV's format of for example using Fridays show I would of liked it to be:

8x3 Middleweight
Paul Samuels v Cello Renda

10x3 Welterweight
Mark Thompson v Kevin McIntyre

12x3 Cruiserweight
Rob Norton v David Dolan

and if there is time show Joe Murray or Stephen Foster

leforge wrote:Whicker be grateful that we still getting boxing on tv!

Well, its a decicated sports channel (with 4 indidivudaul channels.)

Look how much golf, wrestling etc they show!

Boxing should get a "fair go" as well.

I think it needs a three hour slot either 9.30 or 9pm start. When prizefighter on its start earlier! If the bill competitive then it can stretch a 3hour slot. But the Newport show with the lativan lemmings v Olympians would have struggled.

FFN has lost its appeal for me. Last year it was rubbish until the second half of the season when it did pick up a bit. I have to agree 10 is a bad starting time and 8 or 9 would be better, with the main event around 10 to 10.30. Sadly Sky give too much consideration to football and Golf but I think we have to recognize the fact that boxing is no longer as popular as it used to be. This weeks feature bout was poor, although potentially it should have been a cracker, lets hope things get better.

WildWaylon wrote:I think we have to recognize the fact that boxing is no longer as popular as it used to be.

Perhaps- but look how many hours and hours they dedicate to other sports, even minor ones. Golf, American Professional Wresling and lots of other stuff.

i agree with the people who are saying the show should be extended sometimes when the card warrants it. the programmers schedulers and programme producer should know when a card is worthy of being longer than 2 hours. if the card finishes early then its easy to put on a filler programme and change the schedule. its not like they dont do it for cricket for example if it finishes early and they have no problem adjusting the schedule if it overruns.

maybe a bit of feedback to sky is in order.

it really annoyed me when they skipped rounds in the gary davies - napa fight a couple of months ago. this was a british title fight and yet they skipped a good few rounds.

the undercards on most bills have been alot better lately and are brilliant for people who can attend the shows. however those that have to watch on tv dont get to see half the fights that appeal or even the full fights of what they show. there are some great undercards coming up but we propably wont get to see the half of it and what we do see will be trimmed in half.

this is not a new thing however. what summed up the situation perfectly was the khan kotelnik bill on sbo. the enzo and kell brook fights were not shown. many people wanted to see these fights. there can be no excuse for scheduling or running out of time on the sky box office channel (expecially on the live broadcast) they show was scheduled from nine to 1am. yet at 12.15 dave clark says sorry thats all we have time for. they dont even show us everything and give us as much value as possible on a channel where there is no next programme until 9am the next morning and a channel we pay even extra to see.

I am in agreement with the show being on for longer, maybe 3 hours. Barring that a midweek 2 hour show with ffull fights or highlights of the untelevised fights worth watching.

Other sports get loads of airtime on Sky, including old repeated sport, surely boxing can get a review show midweek for 2 hours on one of the 4 sports channels

ITV's format is top class they did the same when allegedly had a deal with them and they used both ITV4 to start with and ITV1 for the big fight. I think Hennessy did the same for Froch v Pascal and that format makes for a top night of Boxing.

Sky usually dont have much on a Friday night the odd Championship game and Heineken Cup but I would think there is definitley space for a three hour show.

whicker wrote:

WildWaylon wrote:I think we have to recognize the fact that boxing is no longer as popular as it used to be.

Perhaps- but look how many hours and hours they dedicate to other sports, even minor ones. Golf, American Professional Wresling and lots of other stuff.

I suppose Sky do surveys to establish what their viewers want to see most. If they asked me I would tell them to drop cricket, golf, American football, rugby, basketball, I cant stand any of them, but I doubt too many would agree with me. Cricket used to be our National game but I have never liked it. Both my father and my grandfather played cricket but I hated it and found it boring. Rugby had a minority interest until about 1990 when it became more popular due to TV coverage.

I would love it to be on something like 8-11. It could be that I'm one of the few on here who works hard but I'm knackered by 10pm on a Friday.

OK, I'm getting old too...

But it would be top notch to see some live undercard action.

jspain wrote: this is not a new thing however. what summed up the situation perfectly was the khan kotelnik bill on sbo. the enzo and kell brook fights were not shown. many people wanted to see these fights. there can be no excuse for scheduling or running out of time on the sky box office channel (expecially on the live broadcast) they show was scheduled from nine to 1am. yet at 12.15 dave clark says sorry thats all we have time for. they dont even show us everything and give us as much value as possible on a channel where there is no next programme until 9am the next morning and a channel we pay even extra to see.

Spot-on. Missing out rounds means we can't score fights off TV, and it's a joke that the PPV events don't even let us see the full undercard fights.

Thing is, you gotta look at this from Sky's point of view. The three main sports they show on a Friday night before FFN are Championship football, Heineken Cup rugby union and Super League. Taking, the Union out of the equation, as thats more of a middle class game and Rugby League and football are very working class games-as is boxing, particularly the domestic scene. These sports attract the same sort of casual audience (I know how plenty of you here despise the casual lot ), and thus it makes sense to put them on one after the other when a potentially big crossover market could stick on the same channel when the boxing is on right after.

Again, this is why they probably stick the main event on first-it's a recognisable time slot and a casual audience knows every week at 10pm is that weeks 'main' british fight. Stick it on at say 8-11 or 9-12 on another SS channel, and you would lose a lot of that potential crossover market. As much as a lot of internet boxing fans seem to think they are the only ones that matter, when in reality there is a more casual market that accounts for the majority of viewers.

As for the 2/3 hour debate, it's a tricky one. There are some cards that immediately spring to mind-Maloney's Bolton show and Warren's Liverpool show where three hours is really needed to cover everything. BUT some weeks I sit watching till midnight utterly bored when a weak undercard really drags on. Times like this I'm glad I didn't have to sit through all of it live-and the shit Hennessy was putting on the last few months on ITV4 is another example. Really, each card needs to be done on merit as to how much time it warrants, but that is awkward with scheduling/late pull puts etc. Two and a half hours would be a good medium

Tony makes an excellent point though about 'getting to know the fighters'. This was a good feature they utlisied on ITV4, and helped fill the time. The likes of Hatton and Calzaghe got followings earlier this decade with he 8-11 Saturday Fight Night slot, when there was time to show features on them-not just two minutes of trash talking interespered with weigh-in footage that we get now.

Obvious answer is red button stuff. Start it at say 8pm, with two or three fights before the studio stuff starts on the main channel at 10 and then 2/2 and a half hours from there. It shouldn't cost much more, as if you've ever been to watch an FFN live, you'll know they film and commentate on most of the fights-so why not just broadcast them live? You don't need studio stuff for this, just do it a'la when you watch the red button boxing during the Olympics. That way you appeal to the hardcore market who want more live fights at an earlier time, and you also please the casual lot who want to watch a bit of a scrap for a British title at 10.05 every friday night and not sit through an undercard.

Don't get me started on the ridiculous nature of the domestic PPVs, paying £15 for a couple of fights. Most of them are filmed, so the fact you can't watch from 6pm right through till after the main event is an absolute joke, particularly when there is absolutely nothing on the Sky Box Office channel before it.

To us lot on the internet, the FFN format is a bit stale and needs changing, but I'm sure sky and the casual fans think it is fine. So I don't think it's going to change any time soon.