BoxRec

3am start.....well done setanta

next question i see new customers have got sentana for 9.99 a month and 3 monthers got it for 15.99 plus 2 months free. when this ends will we be on 9.99 a month or on 14.99. if 14.99 anyway to get it to 9.99

I'm glad they chose this one. I know the Marquez-Vazquez has the better main event. But Morales-Diaz has a talent packed undercard - Juan Manuel Lopez, Julio Cesar Chavez Jr, and a cracking IBF junior flyweight fight, Solis-Mayol.

Nice one Setanta. They were due a US card, IMO.

Solis-Mayol will be good, Mayol gave the excellent Eagle Kyowa a good argument before Kyowa caught up with him and Solis is on good form.

As for Setanta...i have a basic Daewoo Setpal Digital box (freeview). I wonder if i can get the fights, i'm not sure if i have a card slot.

No Marquez? :(

Twisted Transistor wrote:No Marquez? :(

Unfortunately not , but this is still very good news . It shows us they're going to pick up some of the American action and means more boxing on our screens .

Shit, the program's only on for 90 mins. That means there isn't going to be much undercard coverage. There's a world title undercard. And there's 2 top prospects.

Bloody hell, I hope there will be some early knockouts because we might not be getting much coverage.

Still, it's good that we get something.

Still not enough to warrant a subbsription, especially if it's a shitty 90 minute show.

Does anyone really wanna see Morales in the ring now?

Try harder Setanta.

Twinkle Toes wrote:Still not enough to warrant a subbsription, especially if it's a shitty 90 minute show.

Does anyone really wanna see Morales in the ring now?

Try harder Setanta.

still, they have done well. all i can recall of them in the past was Hopkins-Eastman show and Klitschko-Byrd 2. In June they were brilliant, with live broadcasts of Cotto-Judah & Hatton-Castillo, as well as a terrific docu on journeyman Tony Booth. July - zilch - but they made Calzaghe-Kessler and signed a 7-fighter with Warren. August, we ARE at least getting Morales live. We're also getting Bernard Dunne v Kiko Martinez.

I'd like to see 'em show German and Canadian stuff.

Also, it seems they'll be showing Clinton Woods' IBF defenses - I've really enjoyed following him since he's changed his diet and buckled down on his skills.

Not sure where they stand with hatton - if Hobson is retained as UK promoter, but isn't promoting the Floyd fight, does that count as part of their deal or not?

Setanta is free if you go to Virgin Media's XL tv package.

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/phoe ... highlight=

Setanta have done a bit more than that. Hopkins vs Haakar, Earl vs Bennett, Tyson vs McBride, Jones vs Ruiz... all on Setanta.

Did you like that Tony Booth doc, VM. I thought it protrayed him as a lazy so and so who couldn't be arsed to get a proper job and liked a drink.

it was definitely an honest docu

i wasn't really around for some of those other fights that Setanta did. So they've been sporadic over the last few years. Good to see them making progress.

BigEars wrote:

Twisted Transistor wrote:No Marquez? :(

Unfortunately not , but this is still very good news . It shows us they're going to pick up some of the American action and means more boxing on our screens .

Yeah we need a channel to show the American action too but not the washed up or recycled fighters.

Autobarn wrote:it was definitely an honest docu

i wasn't really around for some of those other fights that Setanta did. So they've been sporadic over the last few years. Good to see them making progress.

It was honest, not a great advert for the sport IMO, but honest.

I did think production was a bit on the cheap... not sure about you but I had trouble understanding Tony, not that he is punchy - just think the sound production was poor - I couldn't hear what he was saying half the time.

I also thought it was a little bit pointless to be honest - could have been alot more interesting IMO.

Anyway, I shall stay up for Morales-Diaz, short show or not. Hoping it's early KOs all round as I want to see Chavez jr and Lopez, not to mention the main undercard.

Best boxing docu ever is FIGHTERS, funded by Channel 4 in the early 90s. Nothing else seems to be able to touch it.

stujones wrote:

Autobarn wrote:it was definitely an honest docu

i wasn't really around for some of those other fights that Setanta did. So they've been sporadic over the last few years. Good to see them making progress.

It was honest, not a great advert for the sport IMO, but honest.

I did think production was a bit on the cheap... not sure about you but I had trouble understanding Tony, not that he is punchy - just think the sound production was poor - I couldn't hear what he was saying half the time.

I also thought it was a little bit pointless to be honest - could have been alot more interesting IMO.

I thought the program was a good insight into a life of a journeyman boxer (slightly overhammed in places). Laughed my head off when in one of Booth's fights, when he was acting the clown too much, the ref came over to his corner and told him 'to get on with it, it's not a pantomime'. Booth replied 'Oh yes it is'.

Not sure whether I'm looking forward to the Diaz-Morales fight, but will certainly watch it nonetheless

Twinkle Toes wrote:Still not enough to warrant a subbsription, especially if it's a shitty 90 minute show.

Does anyone really wanna see Morales in the ring now?

Try harder Setanta.

I've never known such a grouchy bunch as are on this forum. Welcome to the modern world - you get nowt for free, my son. I doubt Setanta are expecting to draw any new subs on the basis of a 3am card featuring a washed up Mexican legend and a relatively unknown yank, but on the overall package (a range of top US fights, the Warren lot and possibly Hatton).

Earlier this year and last year, these boards were full of complaints about the lack of boxing on tv, with only Sky showing anything worthwhile. Along came Amir and ITV showed an interest. Yet people whinged that there were not enough free shows on ITV (despite the fact that boxing punters were getting more than they had had before). Now we have a third serious competitor in Setanta. They have signed up most of the FW stable and are showing some US fights. Fights it should be noted that would not otherwise be broadcast on UK tv (terrestial, or otherwise). It's no use harking back to the days of 4 (and 3) channel TV - this is a different era. I'd love my TV to be free, but i'm realistic enough to know that I must pay more to watch the boxing (and the football) that I want to see.

Us fans have 2 choices - we either pay the extra subs for Setanta and Sky to watch the fights that they bring us; or we rely on 'free to air' tv and stop grumbling about that which we can't see.

if only I had a dodgy cable box lol

Autobarn wrote:Shit, the program's only on for 90 mins. That means there isn't going to be much undercard coverage. There's a world title undercard. And there's 2 top prospects.

Bloody hell, I hope there will be some early knockouts because we might not be getting much coverage.

Still, it's good that we get something.

According to the Sky Guide, it's two and a half hours - 3am-5.30am.

earsjohn wrote:

Twinkle Toes wrote:Still not enough to warrant a subbsription, especially if it's a shitty 90 minute show.

Does anyone really wanna see Morales in the ring now?

Try harder Setanta.

I've never known such a grouchy bunch as are on this forum. Welcome to the modern world - you get nowt for free, my son. I doubt Setanta are expecting to draw any new subs on the basis of a 3am card featuring a washed up Mexican legend and a relatively unknown yank, but on the overall package (a range of top US fights, the Warren lot and possibly Hatton).

Earlier this year and last year, these boards were full of complaints about the lack of boxing on tv, with only Sky showing anything worthwhile. Along came Amir and ITV showed an interest. Yet people whinged that there were not enough free shows on ITV (despite the fact that boxing punters were getting more than they had had before). Now we have a third serious competitor in Setanta. They have signed up most of the FW stable and are showing some US fights. Fights it should be noted that would not otherwise be broadcast on UK tv (terrestial, or otherwise). It's no use harking back to the days of 4 (and 3) channel TV - this is a different era. I'd love my TV to be free, but i'm realistic enough to know that I must pay more to watch the boxing (and the football) that I want to see.

Us fans have 2 choices - we either pay the extra subs for Setanta and Sky to watch the fights that they bring us; or we rely on 'free to air' tv and stop grumbling about that which we can't see.

the problem is, that most people who follow boxing are already paying.

1 Their TV licence
2 A Sky Subscription

Now add to that another 15 quid a month for Setanta, and you're suddenly paying well in excess of 600 quid a year.

I only have Sky for the boxing, if it weren't for that, I wouldn't bother, and the package is expensive too.

You can get phone, free evening and w/e calls, tinternet and Virgin XL package (inc setanta) for £32 a month.

Not bad value in my book.

Morales Diaz is repeated at 12 noon and 10pm Sunday.

Yes, but you cannot get sky sports, unless you want to pay another whopping fee on top.

I used to have homechoice, and it cost me 29 quid a month, just to add the sports channels. This was on top of the 35 quid a month for cable and broadband.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

earsjohn wrote:

Twinkle Toes wrote:Still not enough to warrant a subbsription, especially if it's a shitty 90 minute show.

Does anyone really wanna see Morales in the ring now?

Try harder Setanta.

I've never known such a grouchy bunch as are on this forum. Welcome to the modern world - you get nowt for free, my son. I doubt Setanta are expecting to draw any new subs on the basis of a 3am card featuring a washed up Mexican legend and a relatively unknown yank, but on the overall package (a range of top US fights, the Warren lot and possibly Hatton).

Earlier this year and last year, these boards were full of complaints about the lack of boxing on tv, with only Sky showing anything worthwhile. Along came Amir and ITV showed an interest. Yet people whinged that there were not enough free shows on ITV (despite the fact that boxing punters were getting more than they had had before). Now we have a third serious competitor in Setanta. They have signed up most of the FW stable and are showing some US fights. Fights it should be noted that would not otherwise be broadcast on UK tv (terrestial, or otherwise). It's no use harking back to the days of 4 (and 3) channel TV - this is a different era. I'd love my TV to be free, but i'm realistic enough to know that I must pay more to watch the boxing (and the football) that I want to see.

Us fans have 2 choices - we either pay the extra subs for Setanta and Sky to watch the fights that they bring us; or we rely on 'free to air' tv and stop grumbling about that which we can't see.

the problem is, that most people who follow boxing are already paying.

1 Their TV licence
2 A Sky Subscription

Now add to that another 15 quid a month for Setanta, and you're suddenly paying well in excess of 600 quid a year.

I only have Sky for the boxing, if it weren't for that, I wouldn't bother, and the package is expensive too.

As I said you have 2 choices - pay and watch or don't pay and miss. If Setanta weren't offering Boxing, the morales fight would not be on terrestrial or Sky instead. Your choice, therefore, is simple - do you want to watch the Morales fight (and whatever else Setanta offer) enough to pay your money? If yes, then you sign up. If no, then you have made your decision and can't complain that you haven't been given it for free.

It's churlish to use the TV licence as you would have to pay that if there was no boxing on TV at all (unless you only own a TV for the sporadic shows on ITV).

You have made a decision to subscribe to Sky only for the boxing - therefore, you consider that their output matches your investment (their coverage of boxing has been pretty consistent for a while now).

Setanta are a different company to Sky and ITV, why should they offer their services for free?

We might not like it, but it's the way of the world nowadays.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, but you cannot get sky sports, unless you want to pay another whopping fee on top.

I used to have homechoice, and it cost me 29 quid a month, just to add the sports channels. This was on top of the 35 quid a month for cable and broadband.

With Virgin you can get the XL tv package (which gives you Setanta sports for free), phone & Broadband. for about £30 a month, with Sky sports around 40 odd quid. The trick is to ring them and tell them what you want and negotiate a discount (say you are on Sky) , thats what I did.

You also get twin tuners (allows you to record two programmes and watch a third) and also a vast library of tv on demand for free.

In America, you have to be fairly affluent to be a boxing fan. We're well into the PPV era, which went into overdrive when Tyson came out of the slammer. You want it, you have to shell out.

Believe me, Yanks have to pay more than us. HBO, Showtime, $50 PPVs

I'm with earsjohn. We moan when there's nowt on. When it is on, we moan that we have to pay for it. On the TV licence issue, since boxing fans pay TV licences, then why don't the bastard BBC provide for the boxing fans?

The Beeb don't give a damn. ITV don't even make an effort w US fights. It's mostly in the hands of cable TV so when they're making an effort, what is there to complain about?

Setanta come along as comp to Sky, making Sky try harder to compete.This is good stuff.

Anyway, you'll all be last minute Setantaing for Calzaghe-Kessler if you're not at the fight.