BoxRec

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 03:35**

could it have been any worse?

-Witter and Froch looking foolish vs spoilers
-Williams pulling out vs Skelton
-losing Hatton
-matching Calzaghe against a guy he has to punch down to with a hard head
-loads of padding
-tedious fights

(maybe it'd be better off our terrestrial TV screens. just gives it a bad name to the wider audience. hell, at least Sky are more watchable now since they're showing more international stuff. but they should've picked up the Morales-Raheem & Pac-Velasquez fights instead of Clinton Woods fight an uninspired fight in an uninspired division for a bogus title.)

on the plus side, Khan has shown good development, sitting down on his punches more now.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 04:13**

The presentation was pretty good, not sure about Duke commentating though! Rawling was pretty good I thought.

And I love the music!

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 05:40**

not like the early-mid 90s though. they showed some great fights with a great atmosphere. now it's just a parody.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 05:45**

no, it couldn't have been much worse. The fights were terrible and were bound to be terrible from the off.

The music, while good and a refreshing change to today's f**king annoying attitude to modernising everything, nevertheless seems a bit too dated.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 08:05**

viciousmaussa wrote:(maybe it'd be better off our terrestrial TV screens. just gives it a bad name to the wider audience. hell, at least Sky are more watchable now since they're showing more international stuff. but they should've picked up the Morales-Raheem & Pac-Velasquez fights instead of Clinton Woods fight an uninspired fight in an uninspired division for a bogus title.)

on the plus side, Khan has shown good development, sitting down on his punches more now.

How much criticism would Sky have come under if they didnt show a British fighter in a world title fight in favour of Morales and Pac in so called warm up matches.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 11:08**

I thought ITV were crap too. The first hour and 10 minutes consisted of 4 x3 minute rounds of boxing. Pathetic.

TV scheduling ran over AGAIN, which isn't on for those who bothered to tape it.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 11:17**

Yep I missed the Calzaghe fight tape run out cheers itv
In future I put a brand new 4 hour tape in.

By the sounds of things I did not miss much.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 11:58**

I didn't think it was that bad to be honest I suppose it's partly down to how high your expectations are.

There is of course room for improvement.

They can be contacted here.

http://www.itv-boxing.com/

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 12:02**

leforge wrote:Yep I missed the Calzaghe fight tape run out cheers itv

Lucky bugger

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 13:16**

I'm not sure that ITV's boxing coverage is so bad.

Consider this: which boxer to most sports fans who don't mind boxing but aren't really, really into it likely to want to see? They'll have heard of Hatton and Kahn, but I'd say it's debatable how much they'll have heard of Calzaghe, Witter etc.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's imperative Ricjy Hatton's next fight is on ITV for his longer term marketing.

Ultimately terrestrial TV boxing coverage has to be viewed from the point of view of the casual sports fan.

And I can't be arsed with Calzaghe....I watched the tennis instead. Much more entertaining.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 13:25**

The overrunning needs to addressed, twice now they gone over the time frame by a good half an hour.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 13:34**

I dont think they expected either fight to go the distance to be honest. Bad planning!

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 14:30**

I still think Steve holdsworth was the best. Hatton was the best co comm

.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 16:56**

steve689 wrote:The overrunning needs to addressed, twice now they gone over the time frame by a good half an hour.

Its better that it is live and over running than they cut out fights due to one fight going a few rounds more than expected.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 18:17**

I really enjoyed the ITV coverage. The show was slick and they seemed to dig more into fighters profiles etc in the build up than SKY which was good. As people have mentioned, the over-run is really bad planning. Also, with Calzaghe being on so late I fell asleep in the latter rounds (not a bad idea actually!).

All inall if they tweaked things a bit I think they will put on a better show than SKY.

Koomey

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 18:42**

Hell your not getting Warren fights on your digital subcription nomore and your getting them for free on ITV now as you only pay a tv licence for BBC channels so why complain? Plus you can turn them overif youhate them.

I liked Khans fight and I liked Calzaghe's too and I see why people are pissed off with him because he's very talented.

Wonder if it was true they never recommended him for the Olympics like he said because heprobably could of brought back a gold.

Posted: **12 Sep 2005, 19:39**

A lot of old women voicing their opinions. Some of you would moan if you got the all clear on an AIDS test.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 02:54**

you must dig boxing of a horribly low standard. it's been a dreadful time.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 06:05**

At least were getting to watchthese fights for free and it'snot like there big fights.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 06:15**

music was excellent, wondered if i would ever hear that again. khan looked awsome with such variety of punches. calzaghe boring load of crap.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 07:00**

Calzaghe;s entrance music was the best.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 07:50**

Max Molyneux wrote:Calzaghe;s entrance music was the best.

i think he used that 3 times, mitchell, veit 2 and his last fight.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 08:26**

Aren't times hard, we've got sky putting on more 50-50 matches in the next few months than they have done in the last few years, we've got boxing back on terrestrial television on Saturday nights with proper promotion as to when the programme will be on. Of course the ITV presentation will involve a lot of background to the fighters, the magority of viewers won't have a clue and it build interest. ITV are also willing to put fights that aren't big enough for ITV on ITV2 so we don't miss anything. And how can anyone have a problem with Sky showing the Woods fight?

We're a lot, lot better off than we were 6 months ago.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 09:05**

Lenny Albert wrote:Aren't times hard, we've got sky putting on more 50-50 matches in the next few months than they have done in the last few years, we've got boxing back on terrestrial television on Saturday nights with proper promotion as to when the programme will be on. Of course the ITV presentation will involve a lot of background to the fighters, the magority of viewers won't have a clue and it build interest. ITV are also willing to put fights that aren't big enough for ITV on ITV2 so we don't miss anything. And how can anyone have a problem with Sky showing the Woods fight?

We're a lot, lot better off than we were 6 months ago.

that's what i said at the beginning of this thread - about the boxing on Sky being good. since warren took his fighters over to ITV we've been getting loads of better fights; it's the ITV ones that are sucking. Before Warren went, we seldom got good fights unless they had something to do with Hatton, Calzaghe and Harrison. Since (and even a bit before) we've had some fine international fights on Sky quite regularly.

Posted: **13 Sep 2005, 10:57**

Going off on one here, but I was just thinking (makes a change) -

Assuming Hatton never fights for Warren/ITV again. Do you think ITV will force Warren, or Warren will feel the need, to push some of his fighters into world title fights in order to get back some glamour for the ITV shows. Because Hatton was going to be on a par, if not more so after the zoo fight, than sicknote in terms of audience pulling par. Now he's gone, that leaves sicknote Harrison as the only passible world title headliners - for ITV1 at least.

So, will Warren feel the need to produce another world title holder. If so, will he persist with the WBU, which was barely passible when attached even to the huge talents of Hatton, so I don't see, for example, Michael Jennings holding down a prime time show with a WBU title fight. Will he go for WBO titles, or 'big 3' titles?

BoxRec

ITV boxing

ITV boxing

Re: ITV boxing