Page 1 of 2
Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:08
by chinny
That is, is it very important to you that you're watching a fight live? Or is it enough to not know the result?
If it has to be live, why do you think that is?
I used to hate missing the live feel, but with Sky + now it is really basically the same for me if I watch it first thing in the morning not knowing the result. It is only the HUGE fights I'll stay up for now.
Bizzarely, it doesn't work if I'm not watching the 'live recording'. This is because I've convinced myself I can tell from the presenters face what has happened.
I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:11
by Coco
It doesn't have to be live as long as you live in a cocoon!
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:13
by jameswilson
Yeah if it isnt live Ill just look the result up.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:16
by Chambers2
I'm quite happy to watch the fight the following morning, if I can't be arsed with a late one, but I much prefer to watch it live
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:24
by banjo
Doesn't matter to me if it's live or if I know the result before watching a rerun, at least I know beforehand if the fights a stinker. The only fights I watch live these days are the ones on at a normal time unless of course someones having a get together and watching the fight as well with a few beers then I'll watch the big ones that are usually 3-4 in the morning jobbies.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:25
by Asterix
I find it quite important. I love knowing that elsewhere in the country/World, the fight is happening almost as I'm seeing it. It feels more personal and exciting.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:27
by emma
I prefer it live.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 25 Nov 2008, 18:43
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
I always want to stay upto 4am for the fight rather than watch it the next day, I like the 'being there' feel
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 04:38
by Poncey
I prefer watching it live at the event to TV. You get a very different view sometimes.
For the US fights I catch them online the next day if they're not on Telly.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 04:55
by Deserter
Live all the way for me - temptation to find out the result/forward the Sky Plus between round etc gets too much otherwise and it just loses the whole 'event' feel. Love the butterflies/nervous tension in the lead-up to a live fight and no recorded fight I've watched has generated that same level of intensity.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 04:56
by Poncey
Surely you fast forward the adverts, though?
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 05:03
by Mensa07
depends on the fight for me. Floyd/Hatton I stayed up in the boozer for, but Calzaghe/Jones I'm happy to watch the next morning. I'll always avoid the result in the morning tho till I've watched it, keep tv/radio/pc off etc.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 08:02
by Coco
I remember staying up for Bruno-Tyson II, even took the night off work for it, McGuigan even managed to convince me Bruno would win.
I had to sit through a dire undercard, I think the show started about 1am and I thought that when the fight was on, instead it came on about 4.30, I had dozed off a couple of times, woke up with my neck in agony, just to see one of the most disappointing events ever
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 08:06
by sweetscience
defo has to be live
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 08:41
by chinny
Coco wrote:I remember staying up for Bruno-Tyson II, even took the night off work for it, McGuigan even managed to convince me Bruno would win.
I had to sit through a dire undercard, I think the show started about 1am and I thought that when the fight was on, instead it came on about 4.30, I had dozed off a couple of times, woke up with my neck in agony, just to see one of the most disappointing events ever
Really? I thought Bruno-Tyson II was about as exciting as it gets. It almost looked as though Tyson was back.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 08:54
by Coco
chinny wrote:Coco wrote:I remember staying up for Bruno-Tyson II, even took the night off work for it, McGuigan even managed to convince me Bruno would win.
I had to sit through a dire undercard, I think the show started about 1am and I thought that when the fight was on, instead it came on about 4.30, I had dozed off a couple of times, woke up with my neck in agony, just to see one of the most disappointing events ever
Really? I thought Bruno-Tyson II was about as exciting as it gets. It almost looked as though Tyson was back.
Well the fight wasn't at all competitive, Bruno was overawed and folded easily, personally I wasn't concerned about Tyson having another dynasty, I really wanted Big Frank to win
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 08:58
by youngrell
Deserter wrote:Live all the way for me - temptation to find out the result/forward the Sky Plus between round etc gets too much otherwise and it just loses the whole 'event' feel. Love the butterflies/nervous tension in the lead-up to a live fight and no recorded fight I've watched has generated that same level of intensity.
I thought I was the only one who got those feelings before a fight. Sometimes (especially if one of my fav fighters are on) I get mental nerves. I often wonder how the hell fighters family and friends cope.
And for me LIVE is the way to do it, even not knowing the result and watching it at a later time there is still something missing, quite strange really. I also get this when watching football.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 09:48
by whicker
I'll always check a result rather than watching pre-recorded footage later. The thing with a live event is that you are watching something as it happens- which is the whole point!
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 13:09
by doctorboxing
I love staying up and watching it live, in the knowledge it is actually happening. That said I often watch a lot of fights on Sunday morning as my fiancee isnt that keen on me staying up most Saturdays until 5am.
If I watch it on a repeat I feel weird shouting or encouraging a fighter forward (something I have no problem doing live) - as if my shouts from across the Atlantic might make a difference if its live!
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 14:12
by m1kee50
Asterix wrote:I find it quite important. I love knowing that elsewhere in the country/World, the fight is happening almost as I'm seeing it. It feels more personal and exciting.
snap, and knowing your mates (online mates/acquaintances) are watching, or ringside, or sometimes in the ring!
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 14:21
by lefthook82
Live KO1 Delayed
I have seen two crackers delayed knowin the result- Mitchell v Johanson and Castillo v Corrales 1. Stil great fights, but probbly would have been in my top 5 if I had let it unfold in front of my eyes rather than know eactky what was going down
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 16:29
by Deserter
youngrell wrote:Deserter wrote:Live all the way for me - temptation to find out the result/forward the Sky Plus between round etc gets too much otherwise and it just loses the whole 'event' feel. Love the butterflies/nervous tension in the lead-up to a live fight and no recorded fight I've watched has generated that same level of intensity.
I thought I was the only one who got those feelings before a fight. Sometimes (especially if one of my fav fighters are on) I get mental nerves. I often wonder how the hell fighters family and friends cope.
And for me LIVE is the way to do it, even not knowing the result and watching it at a later time there is still something missing, quite strange really. I also get this when watching football.
Good to know I'm not alone

When Calzaghe got decked by Hopkins I almost couldn't bear to watch the rest of that round and then when Jones put him down I actually couldn't - was just dreading him being stopped so much I basically hid until I heard the bell to end the round go... pathetic

Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 16:32
by TerribleTerry
Deserter wrote:Live all the way for me - temptation to find out the result/forward the Sky Plus between round etc gets too much otherwise and it just loses the whole 'event' feel. Love the butterflies/nervous tension in the lead-up to a live fight and no recorded fight I've watched has generated that same level of intensity.
Deserter has it bang on

Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 16:34
by Goz
I mainly watch the fights first thing in the morning now. I can't be doing the 5am+ thing these days.
It's ok for me as long as I don't know the result.
Re: Does it have to be live?
Posted: 26 Nov 2008, 17:06
by black panther
Nothing like watching it live - I remember watching Hatton-Tszyu live. Can't beat it but as Goz says I really can't be arsed staying up until 4/5am to watch a fight unless its a really big fight these days. I used to go out and then come back and watch the fight but that was a bad idea as I was usually so pissed I'd fall asleep and miss the main event!

I missed the first two rounds of Kessler-Calzaghe because of that but thankfully the voice of John Rawling brought me to my senses by round three.