BoxRec

Posted: **26 Jun 2011, 16:08**

good post

Posted: **26 Jun 2011, 22:14**

I'm surprised SSN are doing special Wimbledon reports, what's the point of that? Tennis is on the BBC all bloody day, put energy into selling sports that you actually cover.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 00:30**

Agree with both

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 04:43**

I was dissapointed they didn't do any interviews with Kell or Lovemore.........I would have really liked to hear what Lovermore thought of Kell and how he ranked in his past opponents list.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:05**

If your not a PPV fighter you wont get mentioned on the normal sky news sports section,my mate rang my up saturday night&asked who is this Macklin fighting for a world title,ive never heard of him were his words.Hes one of the fans who has only heard of Lewis,Calzaghe,Khan&Hatton..I just wish my mates were in to the sport like i am.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:15**

Good points Mark. When Adam Smith was interviewed in BM last year he spoke in terms of trying to get boxing crossed over onto the more mainstream Sky channels, I'm sure he'd like to do this, but it must be more difficult that it seems to us outsiders (who think it should be dead easy). Besides, when SSN did talk about the Macklin fight yesterday morning, they referred to it as for a super middleweight title - they're particularly bad at covering boxing.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:16**

It was listed as the same on the EPG.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:24**

Glyn Leach wrote:Good points Mark. When Adam Smith was interviewed in BM last year he spoke in terms of trying to get boxing crossed over onto the more mainstream Sky channels, I'm sure he'd like to do this, but it must be more difficult that it seems to us outsiders (who think it should be dead easy). Besides, when SSN did talk about the Macklin fight yesterday morning, they referred to it as for a super middleweight title - they're particularly bad at covering boxing.

Thats because the presenters and producers are awful.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:26**

Glyn Leach wrote:Good points Mark. When Adam Smith was interviewed in BM last year he spoke in terms of trying to get boxing crossed over onto the more mainstream Sky channels, I'm sure he'd like to do this, but it must be more difficult that it seems to us outsiders (who think it should be dead easy). Besides, when SSN did talk about the Macklin fight yesterday morning, they referred to it as for a super middleweight title - they're particularly bad at covering boxing.

Remember, this is the station with a reporter that asked the British & Commonwealth supermiddleweight champion if he would like a fight with the lightwelterweight world champion

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:29**

WOODDDDDDDYA wrote:I'm surprised SSN are doing special Wimbledon reports, what's the point of that? Tennis is on the BBC all bloody day, put energy into selling sports that you actually cover.

Not that I want to see tennis on Sky, but we're arguing here that Sky shouldn't slant its coverage in favour of its own promotional activities, which is something they do all the time (hence coverage of Haye getting on a plane and yet no mention of Macklin's legit world title fight). In a way, therefore, it's good to see them providing coverage of a sport without there being a promotional angle to it. Similarly, we want Sky to talk about fights that aren't being shown on Sky.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:30**

I had a bad weight day yesterday - started of with SSN's super middleweight title fight, ended with a film about the career of welterweight champ Micky Ward.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 05:33**

Glyn Leach wrote:I had a bad weight day yesterday - started of with SSN's super middleweight title fight, ended with a film about the career of welterweight champ Micky Ward.

To be fair, Sturm is the WBA's "super" world Middleweight belt holder.

I noticed in the film, that they actually list it as the Welterweight, not light welter. The HBO graphic even repeats the error. Someone goofed massively.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 07:18**

orbtastic wrote:
Glyn Leach wrote:I had a bad weight day yesterday - started of with SSN's super middleweight title fight, ended with a film about the career of welterweight champ Micky Ward.
To be fair, Sturm is the WBA's "super" world Middleweight belt holder.

I noticed in the film, that they actually list it as the Welterweight, not light welter. The HBO graphic even repeats the error. Someone goofed massively.

probably not a goof but a considered decision based on the target audience of the film not being solely boxing fans. You average man on the street is more likely to be confused (and thus distracted from the story and the film) by referring to Light Welterweight, Junior Welterweight or Super Lightweight. From my view of the film, it wasn't meant as a scene for scene retelling of the life of Micky and Dicky, so a little artistic licence here is reasonable.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 07:48**

It's a fair point. I can't remember further back in the film whether or not when his trainer is telling him he can be a force at his weight, whether or not the weight is referred to or not. I can't remember the exact wording.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 09:15**

The Sky poster with events billed for June, the one distributed to establishments who pay to show Sky Sports, was listing Price vs McDermott as being for the super flyweight title. Mistakes can happen, but had it been a football based mistake, there would be more chance of it being picked up on. Boxing just isn't important enough to the audience, and as a consequence, not important enough to Sky.

Posted: **27 Jun 2011, 09:55**

BIGMARK wrote:I have always been a fan of Sky and believe that their boxing coverage is moving in the right direction. Last nights boxing was fantastic and apart from the debate over the scoring of the Macklin fight it was a great night of boxing which showcased alot which is right with the sport.

However, Sky are masters of hype /marketing but always seem to miss a trick when it comes to fights which dont involve are big name fighters. Sky News (not sports news) has half hour sports news updates but rarely covers anything away from Haye, Froch, Khan or a PPV. Last nights show was a perfect way to push the sport through their news outlet (before or after the fight) but it didnt. Boxing has been a proven ratings winner in the past and 1 week before Haye fights in Germany having another UK fighter fighting for world title there not only gives the Haye PPV a plug but also brings people attention to a cracking fight which is being re-run throughout the following day.

Just for the record i watched Sportsline at 1930 (a half hour sports update on Sky news) and not a mention on Brook or Macklin yet showed Haye getting on a private jet. Yes show Haye getting on a jet to Germany (i get it you have a PPV to sell) but then at least link in the boxing from last night with something like: "well David Haye will hope to have a bit more luck than Matt Macklin who last night......" it's not difficult and more interesting than Indy Car

Another great post by P4P one of the best posters on this forum, i always click on a thread Mark has started as i know he'll have something interesting to say.

BoxRec

A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!

Re: A SKY RANT!!!!!!!!!!