BoxRec

Nice to see their little advert on Ringside boasting how they have got it covered... Such a shame though, that none of the three studio guest will box on the channel this year! Still, we can always watch the Liverpool bill(will be crap, far worse than the Hull show).

Sky are very deceiving, for all their flashy presentations, adverts and videos, they don't really deliver that much.

expe wrote:Sky are very deceiving, for all their flashy presentations, adverts and videos, they don't really deliver that much.

Whilst allegedly, the home of boxing, the home of champions, have delivered what in the last 5 weeks...?

Boxing Prospect wrote:

expe wrote:Sky are very deceiving, for all their flashy presentations, adverts and videos, they don't really deliver that much.

Whilst allegedly, the home of boxing, the home of champions, have delivered what in the last 5 weeks...?

I saw someone on here (not expe) complaining that the Bute v Pascal fight was poor and then complained that Sky had made a dud by showing it. How the hell are broadcasters or promoters supposed to predict which fights are going to be barnstormers? Some of the stuff spouted on here really is moronic sometimes.

Everyone was happy that they picked up the Pascal-Bute fight. So yeah, it's not Sky's fault in retrospect.

And regarding having allegedly fighters on Ringside....IMO it's nice to see them promoting other fighters when I in the past have criticised them for not doing that.

I don't think the upcoming bills are as bad as everyone is making out.

winkveron wrote:Everyone was happy that they picked up the Pascal-Bute fight. So yeah, it's not Sky's fault in retrospect.

And regarding having allegedly fighters on Ringside....IMO it's nice to see them promoting other fighters when I in the past have criticised them for not doing that.

I don't think the upcoming bills are as bad as everyone is making out.

I think the Cardiff and Hull shows have some interesting fights on. Can't see one on the Liverpool card yet, though.

winkveron wrote:Everyone was happy that they picked up the Pascal-Bute fight. So yeah, it's not Sky's fault in retrospect.

And regarding having allegedly fighters on Ringside....IMO it's nice to see them promoting other fighters when I in the past have criticised them for not doing that.

I don't think the upcoming bills are as bad as everyone is making out.

It is good they cover the BN lads, but it is deceiving to the casuals. Nobody watching that would have guessed they won't actually see any of the fighters(except Froch, for an extra £15/20).

Boxing Prospect wrote:

expe wrote:Sky are very deceiving, for all their flashy presentations, adverts and videos, they don't really deliver that much.

Whilst allegedly, the home of boxing, the home of champions, have delivered what in the last 5 weeks...?

you do realise the past 5 weeks have been effectively the closed season! Sky got in first with Bute v Pascal thats all, BN have 3 cards on this weekend.

I actually think Sky and allegedly are both doing well to be honest my issue with Sky is that as Expe says they are very decieving domestically anyway but to be honest you could lay that at Hearn just as much as Sky themselves. But it won't change because the casual type fan automatically assumes because its Sky (they same channel they see the Premier League and darts on) and its flashier than BN, that the fights/fighters are always of a higher quality when in fact there not.

ste1983 wrote:

Boxing Prospect wrote:

expe wrote:Sky are very deceiving, for all their flashy presentations, adverts and videos, they don't really deliver that much.

Whilst allegedly, the home of boxing, the home of champions, have delivered what in the last 5 weeks...?

you do realise the past 5 weeks have been effectively the closed season! Sky got in first with Bute v Pascal thats all, BN have 3 cards on this weekend.

Has it? I've seen 3 televised shows THIS week including a very interesting world title fight, there was several shows last week end, including some big female fights. So far this year there has been at least 10 days with televised boxing
Jan 3 (had fights shown on ESPN, BT Sport and Channel 7)

Jan 4 (had fights shown TYC Sports, Fox Sports 1 and Cadena 3)

Jan 10 (had fights shown on ESPN, BT Sport and channel 7)

Jan 11 (had fights shown on TYC Sports, Azteca and Televisa)

Jan 16 (had fights shown on TV Max 9)

Jan 17 (had fights shown on Channel 7, Showtime)

Jan 18 (had fights shown on Sky, HBO, Indigo, TYC Sports, Televisa, Unimas, Azteca, Hungary Sport 1, CDO (Canal Deporte Olimpico))

Jan 21 (had fights show on Channel 3)

Jan 22 (had fights shown on Channel 7)

Jan 24 (had fights shown on Channel 7)

It's not been busy in the US or Europe but around the world there has been plenty of action, heck we've had 3 shows on Thai TV already this week.

I understand some fans just want domestic action but I'd rather have an IBF Flyweight title fight than nothing, I'd rather see Srisaket and Suriyan than nothing, I'd rather see Acosta v Esteche in a female fight than nothing...

The main gripe with Ringside is it's used as a sixty minute vehicle for hyping PPV fights. Why would Froch even be there if it wasn't to start the pantomime of the Groves build up? Matchroom have already lost Barker. Rees and Purdy are more or less done at a decent level and Brook and Boomer are one loss away from obscurity! Eddie might not look like the messiah for much longer.

It's occasionally interesting but more often than not it's an hour long puff piece for their products.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Look back at the threads.
Sky slaughtered for their biased coverage totally alligned to Matchroom fighters now slaughtered for showing fighters not on their network.
I give up.

Parson Cross wrote:Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Look back at the threads.
Sky slaughtered for their biased coverage totally alligned to Matchroom fighters now slaughtered for showing fighters not on their network.
I give up.

I think it's good, but it will mislead less informed viewers. Especially after that advert.

Less informed viewers / casual viewers don't tune in to Ringside mate.
I found it refreshing that the BN lads were featured and even more refreshing that Wazza let it happen.

mickey1975 wrote:The main gripe with Ringside is it's used as a sixty minute vehicle for hyping PPV fights. Why would Froch even be there if it wasn't to start the pantomime of the Groves build up?

I've got a sneaky feeling it was to start the Froch v Groves hype and that Carl making out hes got the Chavez option but just MIGHT give us fans what we want is because he knows full well Groves is more likely and when it happens he can make out like hes a hero for giving the fans what they wanted when he didn't have to. Don't forget Froch has lost a lot of public support since Groves if your think that there isnt people around him or Matchroom advising how to reverse that and regain his postive image, then your wrong.

Parson Cross wrote:Less informed viewers / casual viewers don't tune in to Ringside mate.
I found it refreshing that the BN lads were featured and even more refreshing that Wazza let it happen.

Oh I don't know. I know a few who watch Ringside who are far from hardcore. It's at an ideal time to watch with your tea after a hard days work....

Parson Cross wrote:Less informed viewers / casual viewers don't tune in to Ringside mate.
I found it refreshing that the BN lads were featured and even more refreshing that Wazza let it happen.

Really I find that they do, perhaps not religiously but they do.

When Ringside's on I often get texts off mates who I go football with etc. Usually the texts are to tell me how good they think the forthecoming show is as its got loads of the names they know from Sky on it. When I point out that its really hard to judge how good it is as while theres plenty of names you cant really tell until the opponenets are confirmed...they don't text back ha!

My biggest criticsm of Sky and Matchroom is that they are so slow to push up and coming fighters. What has Joshua learned from his first couple of fights? He's gone from fighting the best amateurs in the world to fighting absolute no-hopers. Is there anyone out there who thinks he couldn't take care of a Sexton or McDermott already? I'd be amazed if he couldn't, so why isn't he fighting these guys already? It makes for boring cards and pointless viewing.

It's alright saying with got a card with blah blah blah on it, but if they're in one-sided 'learning' fights where they aren't actually learning anything then what do we care?

There's never really any big fights in the first Quarter of the year, all big fights are made in May-November. Matchroom first two shows of the year both top of the bills are complete mismatches. There's no need to rush Anthony but i reckon he could beat most of Tyson Fury career opponent expect for Chisora. There's still a hell a lot of fighters avoiding each other so you probably won't see many big domestic fights this year.

Is it ok to be reasonably happy with both allegedly and skysports? I am.

The only real criticism I had of Hearn last year was the stinking undercard of Froch groves, but no one is complaining about that show now.

Have booked tickets for the liverpool show. The Stephen smith v saucedo fight looks a close one, I think bellew may have his hands full, Paul smith is going for the Lonsdale belt which in fairness normally headlines a FW show.

Also nice to see the next stages of Callum smith and yafai's development, I assume he will fight for the English title which will be vacated by Martin ward who will fight stu hall? I don't expect much from the brook or Mitchell fights but better than a four rounder with newbie against a journeyman.

So for £40, a decent night out in what will be a packed venue

winkveron wrote:Everyone was happy that they picked up the Pascal-Bute fight. So yeah, it's not Sky's fault in retrospect.

And regarding having allegedly fighters on Ringside....IMO it's nice to see them promoting other fighters when I in the past have criticised them for not doing that.

I don't think the upcoming bills are as bad as everyone is making out.

The fight was pretty dull, but people weren't complaining when it was announced that it was being shown on Sky. Pascal and Bute are both international names, and people would've been complaining if it hadn't have been on television.

The fact that it ended up a stinker is hardly Sky Sports fault.

Happy Slapper wrote:My biggest criticsm of Sky and Matchroom is that they are so slow to push up and coming fighters. What has Joshua learned from his first couple of fights? He's gone from fighting the best amateurs in the world to fighting absolute no-hopers. Is there anyone out there who thinks he couldn't take care of a Sexton or McDermott already? I'd be amazed if he couldn't, so why isn't he fighting these guys already? It makes for boring cards and pointless viewing.

It's alright saying with got a card with blah blah blah on it, but if they're in one-sided 'learning' fights where they aren't actually learning anything then what do we care?

Translation - My biggest criticism of Sky and Matchroom is they do something that every fornicating promoter does with fighters in their first 10 or so fights.

If the internet was about 30-40 years ago, berks like you would be criticising Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali for their level of competition in their first 10 or so fights. 'Haw haw haw, what's he learnt.' They are learning in the gym and working on fitness and conditioning. If he fought John McDermott or Sexton it would be over 10 rounds which is much longer than he has fought before.

I laugh my nuts off when people like you and expe are criticising cards for the fights that are 5 or 6 fights down the card. Would you tell me using Matchrooms stable of fighters how you would set a card up. Because reading the dross that you write you seem to think a card of:-

Froch v Groves 2
Bellew v Cleverly
Brook v Khan
Mitchell v Vasquez
Joshua v McDermott
Campbell v Coyle

is realistic. Just stop and think. THINK! for a second how the hell you would make money from having that kind of card. Fighters that are coming off defeats, are waiting for title fights or who are up and coming prospects in their first 10 or so fights are going to fight easy 6-8 rounders against soft opposition. Deal with it.

jameswilson wrote:

Happy Slapper wrote:My biggest criticsm of Sky and Matchroom is that they are so slow to push up and coming fighters. What has Joshua learned from his first couple of fights? He's gone from fighting the best amateurs in the world to fighting absolute no-hopers. Is there anyone out there who thinks he couldn't take care of a Sexton or McDermott already? I'd be amazed if he couldn't, so why isn't he fighting these guys already? It makes for boring cards and pointless viewing.

It's alright saying with got a card with blah blah blah on it, but if they're in one-sided 'learning' fights where they aren't actually learning anything then what do we care?

Translation - My biggest criticism of Sky and Matchroom is they do something that every effing promoter does with fighters in their first 10 or so fights.

If the internet was about 30-40 years ago, berks like you would be criticising Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali for their level of competition in their first 10 or so fights. 'Haw haw haw, what's he learnt.' They are learning in the gym and working on fitness and conditioning. If he fought John McDermott or Sexton it would be over 10 rounds which is much longer than he has fought before.

I laugh my nuts off when people like you and expe are criticising cards for the fights that are 5 or 6 fights down the card. Would you tell me using Matchrooms stable of fighters how you would set a card up. Because reading the dross that you write you seem to think a card of:-

Froch v Groves 2
Bellew v Cleverly
Brook v Khan
Mitchell v Vasquez
Joshua v McDermott
Campbell v Coyle

is realistic. Just stop and think. THINK! for a second how the hell you would make money from having that kind of card. Fighters that are coming off defeats, are waiting for title fights or who are up and coming prospects in their first 10 or so fights are going to fight easy 6-8 rounders against soft opposition. Deal with it.

This is a fair point.

Never understand why people criticise a fighter for not fighting top-end talent after a handful of fights. It's not like he's had 35 fights already.

There wasn't time yesterday to fit a nice piece in about Chris Sanigar. Hopefully next week - watch its a good piece.

Parson Cross wrote:Less informed viewers / casual viewers don't tune in to Ringside mate.
I found it refreshing that the BN lads were featured and even more refreshing that Wazza let it happen.

don't think Wazza has an issue with it at all - he's happy for the exposure. Wouldn't happen the other way round though, Hearn has an issue with it. He even said he doesn't have allegedly didn't he?