BoxRec

Looking forward to September 18Th!!! There better be a stream ...

At Birmingham, England: Nathan Cleverly vs. Karo Murat, 12 rounds, WBO light heavyweight eliminator; Darren Barker vs. Matthew Macklin, 12 rounds, for Barker's European/Commonwealth/British middleweight titles; Enzo Maccarinelli vs. Alexander Frenkel, 12 rounds, for Maccarinelli's European cruiserweight title; Ryan Rhodes vs. Lucas Konecny, 12 rounds, for Rhodes' European middleweight title; Derek Chisora vs. Sam Sexton, 12 rounds, British/Commonwealth heavyweight unification; Kell Brook vs. Michael Jennings, 12 rounds, WBO welterweight eliminator; James DeGale vs. Carl Dilks, 12 rounds, super middleweights; Frankie Gavin vs. Michael Kelly, 10 rounds, junior welterweights; Don Broadhurst vs. TBA, 10 rounds, junior bantamweights

We should pay for it on Sky or go to it or whatever, rather than blag a free stream. As any promoter who manages to put together a bill of that quality, in these barren times, deserves to get paid.

That's what pisses me off sometimes and is a sour point for me on these forums.
The same people asking for streams are the same people that use the line of "I pay your wages" when in reality they don't go the fights and never pay for tv subscription or ppv!

Streams are great for ex-pats living abroad or holidaying but top fights should be payed for. What's £15. Save £1 a week from when the show is announced!

Again this doesn't apply to everyone, just a few before the forum warriors start DD

After all Warren has done, he'll never get a cent of my money, no matter who is on the card. there are great streaming sites available that produce high quality streams. a payment is required each month, but i can watch anything on there.

MightyWarrior wrote:We should pay for it on Sky or go to it or whatever, rather than blag a free stream. As any promoter who manages to put together a bill of that quality, in these barren times, deserves to get paid.

Good point MW.

If I wasn't at this show I would definitely buy the ppv - shows of this quality should be supported.

If u don't wanna stump up 15 quid why not get some mates round and spread the cost? Great night in as far as I can tell..

Good point Smigga.

I always buy what's worth it, if i cannot make the event in person.

Others, such as the god awful Khan vs Salita I watched in youtube... never even bothered with a stream for that.

That said, american and german shows not broadcast here, i watch online as have no other means. Such as Magee vs Larsen.

Get a few mates together. They provide the beer, you provide the boxing.

Either that or just go the pub and watch it.

MightyWarrior wrote:We should pay for it on Sky or go to it or whatever, rather than blag a free stream. As any promoter who manages to put together a bill of that quality, in these barren times, deserves to get paid.

Well said....

If all the fights on this card take place then it'll be superb value for money at £15

there are at least 6 fights here that are pretty much 50/50 fights and i'd be all for Warren putting on a PPV card like this once a year and every british boxing fan should support it and hopefully push it to at least 100,000 PPV buys.

For next years one we already have James degale vs George Groves and maybe Tyson Fury vs Sexton/Chisora winner.

If the card holds up and I can get some heads together I'm there. If not, £15 for Macklin-Barker, Brook-Jennings and Cleverly-Murat is still value, I'm happy to pay that.

markp wrote:After all Warren has done, he'll never get a cent of my money,

whats he done to you ??

must be bad

BIGMARK wrote:I will be happy to pay for this as long as Sky show all the fights. it is an excellent line up and i hope it all stays together because it should be cracking night of boxing.

I am against PPV boxing when the main event is supported by poor fights but this is the first worth while PPV shows in a long time and we should support by buying it.

These fights are definately being shown live from what i've read on sky and warren:

1) Nathan Cleverly vs. Karo Murat, 12 rounds, WBO light heavyweight eliminator
2) Darren Barker vs. Matthew Macklin, 12 rounds, for Barker's European/Commonwealth/British middleweight titles;
3) Enzo Maccarinelli vs. Alexander Frenkel, 12 rounds, for Maccarinelli's European cruiserweight title
4) Ryan Rhodes vs. Lucas Konecny, 12 rounds, for Rhodes' European middleweight title
5) Derek Chisora vs. Sam Sexton, 12 rounds, British/Commonwealth heavyweight unification
6) Kell Brook vs. Michael Jennings, 12 rounds, WBO welterweight eliminator
7) James DeGale vs. Carl Dilks, 12 rounds, super middleweights

Fights 1-6 are 50-50 fights imo as i know a bit about all the fighters involved like Konecny, Murat and Frenkel and they'll be coming to win and have the skills and ability to do it too.

They'd have to start the PPV coverage very early to show all these fights Live and hope for some early KO's too else we could be talking a 2 or 3am finish.

Aye, only use a stream if it's not on UK telly or if Sky goes bust which it usually does at ours or the odd occasion when the weather is crap and messes up the signal(always seems to be on a fornicating weekend as well ).

exittored wrote:

BIGMARK wrote:I will be happy to pay for this as long as Sky show all the fights. it is an excellent line up and i hope it all stays together because it should be cracking night of boxing.

I am against PPV boxing when the main event is supported by poor fights but this is the first worth while PPV shows in a long time and we should support by buying it.

These fights are definately being shown live from what i've read on sky and warren:

1) Nathan Cleverly vs. Karo Murat, 12 rounds, WBO light heavyweight eliminator
2) Darren Barker vs. Matthew Macklin, 12 rounds, for Barker's European/Commonwealth/British middleweight titles;
3) Enzo Maccarinelli vs. Alexander Frenkel, 12 rounds, for Maccarinelli's European cruiserweight title
4) Ryan Rhodes vs. Lucas Konecny, 12 rounds, for Rhodes' European middleweight title
5) Derek Chisora vs. Sam Sexton, 12 rounds, British/Commonwealth heavyweight unification
6) Kell Brook vs. Michael Jennings, 12 rounds, WBO welterweight eliminator
7) James DeGale vs. Carl Dilks, 12 rounds, super middleweights

Fights 1-6 are 50-50 fights imo as i know a bit about all the fighters involved like Konecny, Murat and Frenkel and they'll be coming to win and have the skills and ability to do it too.

They'd have to start the PPV coverage very early to show all these fights Live and hope for some early KO's too else we could be talking a 2 or 3am finish.

In terms of PPV standards these days, that is definitely worth the money. Some excellent 50/50 fights there.

Smigga wrote:That's what pisses me off sometimes and is a sour point for me on these forums.
The same people asking for streams are the same people that use the line of "I pay your wages" when in reality they don't go the fights and never pay for tv subscription or ppv!

Streams are great for ex-pats living abroad or holidaying but top fights should be payed for. What's £15. Save £1 a week from when the show is announced!

Again this doesn't apply to everyone, just a few before the forum warriors start DD

Yeah i agree

What I'm amazed at when reading this thread is how many people have just meekly accepted PPV. I remember the (justified) outrage when it first kicked in as people felt that it was already a subscription channel, so charging extra was taking the p*ss.
So where I'd take issue with Smigga's orginal comment is that anyone subscribing to Skysports is already effectively involved in funding the promotion/his purse regardless of whether they secure a stream for a PPV event.
I don't see Sky charging extra for 'premium' events in almost all the other sports it covers, so I still, after all these years, fail to see why boxing should be treated differently.

Smigga wrote:That's what pisses me off sometimes and is a sour point for me on these forums.
The same people asking for streams are the same people that use the line of "I pay your wages" when in reality they don't go the fights and never pay for tv subscription or ppv!

Streams are great for ex-pats living abroad or holidaying but top fights should be payed for. What's £15. Save £1 a week from when the show is announced!

Again this doesn't apply to everyone, just a few before the forum warriors start DD

Easy fellas, I'm in the states. I would gladly pay if it were offered.

Deserter wrote:What I'm amazed at when reading this thread is how many people have just meekly accepted PPV. I remember the (justified) outrage when it first kicked in as people felt that it was already a subscription channel, so charging extra was taking the p*ss.
So where I'd take issue with Smigga's orginal comment is that anyone subscribing to Skysports is already effectively involved in funding the promotion/his purse regardless of whether they secure a stream for a PPV event.
I don't see Sky charging extra for 'premium' events in almost all the other sports it covers, so I still, after all these years, fail to see why boxing should be treated differently.

No way do I 'accept' PPV. I think it is disgusting when people are already forking out £20-£70 a month for their standard subscription. In my solitary post I was merely comparing this PPV offering to others (Khan-Salita/Prescott) and I think it is good value for money in that sense. No doubt PPV in Britian will eventually skyrocket to American standards in the next few years - sub standard shows being priced at $40+. Christ, I am just waiting for Prizefighter to turn into a PPV event.

Deno1986 wrote:

Deserter wrote:What I'm amazed at when reading this thread is how many people have just meekly accepted PPV. I remember the (justified) outrage when it first kicked in as people felt that it was already a subscription channel, so charging extra was taking the p*ss.
So where I'd take issue with Smigga's orginal comment is that anyone subscribing to Skysports is already effectively involved in funding the promotion/his purse regardless of whether they secure a stream for a PPV event.
I don't see Sky charging extra for 'premium' events in almost all the other sports it covers, so I still, after all these years, fail to see why boxing should be treated differently.

No way do I 'accept' PPV. I think it is disgusting when people are already forking out £20-£70 a month for their standard subscription. In my solitary post I was merely comparing this PPV offering to others (Khan-Salita/Prescott) and I think it is good value for money in that sense. No doubt PPV in Britian will eventually skyrocket to American standards in the next few years - sub standard shows being priced at $40+. Christ, I am just waiting for Prizefighter to turn into a PPV event.

I'm totally with you. I no longer subscribe to Sky. I mean, you get sky sports to watch boxing, you get fed really poor fights every week or so; including the meaningless prizefighter; and then any fight half-decent gets put on PPV.

This is a great bill; but PPV is a joke. As was Khan-Prescott, Khan-Fagan and a host of other PPV dogsh1t. Sky couldn't even be bothered to put on Carl Froch, this went to a small time internet company.

Can't wait til th enext Ian Napa fight...though this will probably be PPV as well.... what a shame Setanta went bust

I don't subscribe to sky sports, as their regular boxing shows are half arsed and clearly run by a team of clueless rugby loving wonks.
So I don't mind paying out if it's a really good bill, it's where you get a chance to tell them directly if their shows are worth the money, or not. I don't pay for the Khan PPV shows for instance.
If we don't support the big shows like this, and just avoid paying out of principle, the shows and wages will dry up and we'll have shot ourselves squarely through the foot.

MightyWarrior wrote:I don't subscribe to sky sports, as their regular boxing shows are half arsed and clearly run by a team of clueless rugby loving wonks.
So I don't mind paying out if it's a really good bill, it's where you get a chance to tell them directly if their shows are worth the money, or not. I don't pay for the Khan PPV shows for instance.
If we don't support the big shows like this, and just avoid paying out of principle, the shows and wages will dry up and we'll have shot ourselves squarely through the foot.

This

Am I being bent over and royally reamed by SKY already by paying £58 a month to watch about 6 hours a month worth of sport absolute max? Yes.

Is this bill worth 15 quid PPV? Yes

Will I end up paying £400 watching this live? Probably

Are most of the fights 50/50? No, of course not.

Smigga wrote:That's what pisses me off sometimes and is a sour point for me on these forums.
The same people asking for streams are the same people that use the line of "I pay your wages" when in reality they don't go the fights and never pay for tv subscription or ppv!

Streams are great for ex-pats living abroad or holidaying but top fights should be payed for. What's £15. Save £1 a week from when the show is announced!

Again this doesn't apply to everyone, just a few before the forum warriors start DD

Why do people use free streams? Because they don't want to pay twice for a product they have already paid for! If you buy the full sky package and pay their extortionate fees every month they why are we being asked to stump up for extra? Its a robbery! And you are making it sound like you are doing us some big kind of favour by fighting Paul. I like your posts but you really have to remember that any interest in your career benefits you more than us and that also the majority of your career has been moved along nicely without PPV! PPV is not needed to make a bill and if it is - then the sport is in trouble.

Me personally - I live in China and most if not all 'free streams' are banned by the great Chinese firewall!

Deserter wrote:What I'm amazed at when reading this thread is how many people have just meekly accepted PPV. I remember the (justified) outrage when it first kicked in as people felt that it was already a subscription channel, so charging extra was taking the p*ss.
So where I'd take issue with Smigga's orginal comment is that anyone subscribing to Skysports is already effectively involved in funding the promotion/his purse regardless of whether they secure a stream for a PPV event.
I don't see Sky charging extra for 'premium' events in almost all the other sports it covers, so I still, after all these years, fail to see why boxing should be treated differently.

X 2

Well said JL!

I have got to the point though now where I rarely watch boxing live anyway, all these people who said to me "hey mate you stayin up to watch Floyd v Marquez" "You watchin Floyd v Mosley tonight mate" I just replied nah, both will be piss easy decision wins for Floyd and I was proved right(and they weren't even ppv here) I may buy the upcoming show but it depends on if I have something more interesting to do though. The quality of boxing recently has been piss poor especially in Britain Friday Fight Night is a fornicating joke.

I agree FFN has been crap in the last couple of years but things are looking good for the future with the move to saturdays and the first couple of non ppv shows(Mollitor-Booth,Martinez-Burns,Simpson-Smith) and the return of Ringside.I will happily pay the subscription for that.