BoxRec

What dose boxing have to do to get good coverage. Why are both ITV 1 and sky sports 1 both showing the bloody superbowl a sport which no one understands about other than a less flowing version of rugby where they are not hard enough to take proper tackels. Yet they do not show Howard Eastman fight arguably the worlds best fighter.

Surely more people would watch boxing than that non sport Amir Kahn's performance in front of however million people watched him in the olympics proved that.

It shows how little british TV seems to be willing to get behind british talent.

Its been discussed before that combination of low viewing totals and previous serious injuries (Mclellan v Benn and Watson v Eubank which were both filmed live) are reasons why boxing is not on tv that much.

Interest will not be generated from one off fights as most people will never have seen the fighters before or without the internet would probably never even have heard of them.

Boxing needs more promotion in the UK. If it is promoted correctly, people will become more interested, meaning more demand for more live fights, meaning more revenue from advertising, meaning more air time on TV if the broadcasters can profit from it.

A good boxing show every week at a decent time would be great to have, one that shows highlights of fights from around the world. Ringside on Sky is not on consistently enough and they don't give enough coverage to boxing outside of Britain.

Matchfixer wrote:Its been discussed before that combination of low viewing totals and previous serious injuries (Mclellan v Benn and Watson v Eubank which were both filmed live) are reasons why boxing is not on tv that much.

You speak with a tone of authority but I can't remember anywhere that this has been offered as some kind of definitive reason. The latter may have something to do with it but I doubt it.

They show plenty of sports in which serious injuries happen.

And the first point you offer certainly isn't correct. Boxing has always held it's own when decent shows have been put on. Millions watched a 17-year-old lad in the Olympics. Millions watched Naz, Benn, Eubank, etc.

Like the other gent says though, if you keep serving up shit, don't be surprised if the customer goes and eats elsewhere.

Yeah i agree with Split Decision as well, promotional politics have meant a string of constant mismatches week in week out, a regular well timed Boxing show on terrestrial TV will reignite the flame i think. People need Boxers they can follow through there career and get to know and watch there career move through thick and thin. Back in the 90's the public new about Bruno and Lewis and Eubank, Benn, Collins etc and excitement was generated when they fought each other...nowadays the public has never seen Jason Booth, Dale Robinson, Damaen Kelly etc fight so they miss out on good little scraps due to lack of exposure.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Matchfixer wrote:Its been discussed before that combination of low viewing totals and previous serious injuries (Mclellan v Benn and Watson v Eubank which were both filmed live) are reasons why boxing is not on tv that much.

You speak with a tone of authority but I can't remember anywhere that this has been offered as some kind of definitive reason. The latter may have something to do with it but I doubt it.

They show plenty of sports in which serious injuries happen.

And the first point you offer certainly isn't correct. Boxing has always held it's own when decent shows have been put on. Millions watched a 17-year-old lad in the Olympics. Millions watched Naz, Benn, Eubank, etc.

Like the other gent says though, if you keep serving up shit, don't be surprised if the customer goes and eats elsewhere.

Good points Ian,

Ratings were ALWAYS good when ITV had the contract with FW, thats why Sky paid a fortune to gain the rights to his fights. Thats when the downfall started, simple as that.

Obviously, the injuries suffered by Mclellan and Watson didn't help, but if that was a significant part of the reason ITV would have stopped after the Mclellan fight. They had the chance as they just lost the rights to screen Warren's fights. No, they continued and showed Neary, Dunne and Culshaw fights - the presentation was still good, unfortunately though the were being hyped as world champions and really the public couldn't by that.

As bad as it sounds, permanent injuries suffered through boxing will turn some fans off, but it has to be admitted that the publicity generated as a result usually leads to more people being interested, even if it's just for the notority of it. Remember that fighters who generate most interest from the public are usually those who are most aggressive, those who hurt and KO their opponents the most and are generally regarded as being bad asses.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Matchfixer wrote:Its been discussed before that combination of low viewing totals and previous serious injuries (Mclellan v Benn and Watson v Eubank which were both filmed live) are reasons why boxing is not on tv that much.

You speak with a tone of authority but I can't remember anywhere that this has been offered as some kind of definitive reason. The latter may have something to do with it but I doubt it.

They show plenty of sports in which serious injuries happen.

And the first point you offer certainly isn't correct. Boxing has always held it's own when decent shows have been put on. Millions watched a 17-year-old lad in the Olympics. Millions watched Naz, Benn, Eubank, etc.

Like the other gent says though, if you keep serving up shit, don't be surprised if the customer goes and eats elsewhere.

Those ratings are (Khan apart) in the bygone days - the 'glory years'!

Perhaps I should have made my point clearer - I mean that more people would watch Eastenders or a Saturday night game show than boxing.

Regarding the serious injuries - Something like motor racing, football or rugby may also have nasty injuries but it is not the point of the game to injure the opponent. Perhaps boxing isn't either but it is a lot worse in visual impact when two people are fighting and one gets injured as opposed to other sports - it is more of an occupational hazard shall we say.

Harrison's Olympic performance achieved a similar rating to Khan. I also believe his pro Debut to well.

I remember surely 6-7 years ago, the Beeb showed some boxing in Grandstand - mainly Rob McCraken and the likes of Delroy Leslie. They announced a very respectable 4 million ratings.

Their coverage was still generally poor, but at least there was no cutting of the rounds and while it was delayed - it was much harder to know the results at that time.

The ratings would be there if the UK promoters would work together and get the decent fights.

josh fg wrote:What dose boxing have to do to get good coverage. Why are both ITV 1 and sky sports 1 both showing the bloody superbowl a sport which no one understands about other than a less flowing version of rugby where they are not hard enough to take proper tackels. Yet they do not show Howard Eastman fight arguably the worlds best fighter.

Surely more people would watch boxing than that non sport Amir Kahn's performance in front of however million people watched him in the olympics proved that.

It shows how little british TV seems to be willing to get behind british talent.

It's simple. Why would a tv exec want to deal with the stupid pudenda that are boxing promoters/managers?

It's a fornicating nightmare to make big fights with all the political bullshit, and the non-existant structure in the sport. Not to mention the viewing figures are shit, because the average Joe hasn't got a clue about boxing anymore. There's a whole host of different champs in each division, and all of them come out with the same shitty lines. 'I'll fight so and so, as long as the money's right'. That's all good and well, but their over inflated vision of the right money is a complete fornicating joke.

With every other sport, the tv exec's know what their getting for their money.

Yeah i think the young fellas got it spot on

BOLLOCKS19842003 wrote:

josh fg wrote:What dose boxing have to do to get good coverage. Why are both ITV 1 and sky sports 1 both showing the bloody superbowl a sport which no one understands about other than a less flowing version of rugby where they are not hard enough to take proper tackels. Yet they do not show Howard Eastman fight arguably the worlds best fighter.

Surely more people would watch boxing than that non sport Amir Kahn's performance in front of however million people watched him in the olympics proved that.

It shows how little british TV seems to be willing to get behind british talent.

It's simple. Why would a tv exec want to deal with the stupid pudenda that are boxing promoters/managers?

It's a fornicating nightmare to make big fights with all the political bullshit, and the non-existant structure in the sport. Not to mention the viewing figures are shit, because the average Joe hasn't got a clue about boxing anymore. There's a whole host of different champs in each division, and all of them come out with the same shitty lines. 'I'll fight so and so, as long as the money's right'. That's all good and well, but their over inflated vision of the right money is a complete fornicating joke.

With every other sport, the tv exec's know what their getting for their money.

I agree with a lot of this but I reiterate - the viewing figures for boxing are NOT shit on terrestrial telly.

It would be interesting to do a 'cost per view' on boxing compared to something like Eastenders.

I don't know that boxing can compete with the guaranteed viewing figures you get for some daft as assholes murder mystery programme.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

BOLLOCKS19842003 wrote:

josh fg wrote:What dose boxing have to do to get good coverage. Why are both ITV 1 and sky sports 1 both showing the bloody superbowl a sport which no one understands about other than a less flowing version of rugby where they are not hard enough to take proper tackels. Yet they do not show Howard Eastman fight arguably the worlds best fighter.

Surely more people would watch boxing than that non sport Amir Kahn's performance in front of however million people watched him in the olympics proved that.

It shows how little british TV seems to be willing to get behind british talent.

It's simple. Why would a tv exec want to deal with the stupid pudenda that are boxing promoters/managers?

It's a fornicating nightmare to make big fights with all the political bullshit, and the non-existant structure in the sport. Not to mention the viewing figures are shit, because the average Joe hasn't got a clue about boxing anymore. There's a whole host of different champs in each division, and all of them come out with the same shitty lines. 'I'll fight so and so, as long as the money's right'. That's all good and well, but their over inflated vision of the right money is a complete fornicating joke.

With every other sport, the tv exec's know what their getting for their money.

I agree with a lot of this but I reiterate - the viewing figures for boxing are NOT shit on terrestrial telly.

They are in the sense that tv companies have to put alot more effort in to get decent fights which will bring in good numbers.

With every other sport, all they have to do is pay for the rights, and then sit back, and watch the best against the best.