Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2012, 12:17 PM   #16
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxingAnalyst View Post
Frank is with BN, Maloney was rightfully kicked off..what do you expect?
I expect them to do more to support the domestic game by trying out shows from other promoters such as Dave Coldwell and Hard Knocks, and also to buy more overseas shows.

Is that really too much to ask for?!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-30-2012, 12:19 PM   #17
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieC View Post
tbf sky cant blame anyone else for hta? that was their decision, and the output has massively decreased in quantity and probably quality. If they don't want to work with the two franks fine whatever, but why no bring in a coldwell or wood and fill the gap left? they cant just say "well we sacked two of our main promoters and dont want to do international cards, what else do you want us to do?"
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 12:34 PM   #18
Beeston Brawler
Comical Ali-egedly
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: trying to increase my overdraft....
Posts: 23,342
vCash: 75
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

My issue with Sky is their lack of flexibility.

They shouldn't offer deals to promoters, they should invite bids from promoters to stage events and win TV backing, perhaps even PPV if it's that good.

Allegedly said the only way he could keep Khan was to go the PPV route, which was probably an ego trip from Khan's backers as much as anything else.

Boxing is crying out for some new blood promotionally, the likes of Coldwell and Mad Spence could do good things if given the right backing.

Plus, what Sky should have done when they had the promoters tied in is to issue a list of relevant, acceptable fights - and say this is what we believe our customers want to see.

With boxing, if you deliver a good product, people WILL watch. They'll get they mates around, with the beers and pizzas and watch it. If you deliver rubbish such as prospect bs African for a paper commonwealth title, they won't.

It's ridiculous the amount of money that's probably been paid to crap foreign opponents (and that's all a lot of them were, rather than genuine threats) when there would have been a perfectly capable domestic opponent parked up who'd take the opportunity.

In the modern era you can't just bring in people from hard sounding countries and expect people to buy into it, nor can you become overly enthusiastic when leading prospects are smacking around low level journeymen until a referee decides enough is enough.

People watch CL football because it showcases the best teams against the best teams. Likewise the Olympics, or world cups in whatever sport.

It's time boxing learnt some of the lessons.
Beeston Brawler is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 12:40 PM   #19
boranbkk
"ไม่ได้โม้นะ"
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
I posted the following in another thread on Sky's boxing coverage. That thread got derailed but I think it's an interesting subject, so I wanted to know what everyone else thinks of the current boxing we get on Sky. Personally, I'm glad that we aren't getting weekly shows because when we did have them, they were always of poor quality. The Hearn shows we're getting now, outside of the Prizefighter series, are packed with quality and that's the way to go for me.

...

I'm probably in a minority here, but good. I don't miss the plethora of dire small hall shows with one passable fight as the main event on top of an undercard of absolute mismatches. They're shite and don't do boxing any favours. If I had a choice between four awful cards, like the ones Frank provides, or one big show every four weeks, I know which I'd choose. Boxing fans should demand quality not quantity. In an ideal world, you'd have four good cards but that isn't going to happen, so it's a choice between quantity and quality. That's not a tough pick for me.

And I can't see why people hate Sky for this either. If I was running a company which needed TV ratings to make me money, I'd want good quality TV shows. Go back a few years ago and look at the dross we had on a weekly basis. Those shows would have done ****ing awful TV ratings so why should Sky accept that? Why should they show cards that nobody was interested in when they could show a much better run sport in, say, rugby league or something like that? It's not popular to defend the big companies, but Sky deserve a return on their investment which they weren't getting. Frank, Hatton and Maloney are the people at fault here because they provided a shower of shite which nobody cared about and they are the ones who ****ed up.

I hope we do get more boxing but I hope we've seen the last of the terrible cards which have plagued Sky in recent years. They are awful for the viewer, they don't bring in good ratings, fans who buy the tickets are given shit shows, they don't attract sponsors and they won't generate interest in boxing. Quality is the way to go, not quantity.
I agree with you. I only have Sky for the boxing and combined with BN gives me more than enough ( I watch other combat sports to and there's onlt X amount of time in a day....). Although, as Nafflad26 said I would like to see at least one big US show every month.
boranbkk is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 12:44 PM   #20
Robert
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

for me the drop in volume of cards has not increased the quality of match-ups the only decent card so for this season has been the Moliter-Frampton and i didnt even watch it because of Burns Vs Mitchell, granted not every show on boxnation is brilliant or even good but they try just look at there November schedule every show is interesting sky-sports only has Froch(easiest fight for 4 years) and Bellew(against another one of Hearns Argentinean record filler)

Matchroom sports for Football and Franknation for boxing
Robert is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:08 PM   #21
BoxingAnalyst
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: England
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieC View Post
tbf sky cant blame anyone else for hta? that was their decision, and the output has massively decreased in quantity and probably quality. If they don't want to work with the two franks fine whatever, but why no bring in a coldwell or wood and fill the gap left? they cant just say "well we sacked two of our main promoters and dont want to do international cards, what else do you want us to do?"
Maloney and Hatton were given a chance to put on better cards, they kept feeding us fat Latvians, It's they're own fault.
BoxingAnalyst is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:11 PM   #22
BoxingAnalyst
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: England
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael300 View Post
I expect them to do more to support the domestic game by trying out shows from other promoters such as Dave Coldwell and Hard Knocks, and also to buy more overseas shows.

Is that really too much to ask for?!
Sky don't see small hall shows as the future unfortunately, they won't benefit from airing them.

On the other hand Boxnation will, we've spoke about this before, Small hall shows are suited to BN.
BoxingAnalyst is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:20 PM   #23
kosaros
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,328
vCash: 999
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxingAnalyst View Post
Maloney and Hatton were given a chance to put on better cards, they kept feeding us fat Latvians, It's they're own fault.
Sorry, but you can't aim that criticism at Hatton Promotions. They never really had any star attractions, but they more often than not put on an interesting card with depth. Even a couple of their non-TV cards were better than some of the stuff that was on Sky.
kosaros is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:20 PM   #24
Jonsey
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,720
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael300 View Post
I'm no Stephen Hawking Jonsey but I make that 58 shows?

Thats pretty good wouldn't you say?

Thats nearly 3 times what Sky are showing.

End of.
You certainly are not Stephen Hawking....because thats 3 TV Channels. 58/3 = 19.33 Shows. Skys deal with Matchroom is for 20.
Jonsey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:39 PM   #25
RJJ's Jab
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 882
vCash: 1185
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

TBH so far I'm pretty pleased with the Matchroom cards can't complain much although I do feel they could up the amount of International cards.
RJJ's Jab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:45 PM   #26
BoxingAnalyst
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: England
Posts: 9,577
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kosaros View Post
Sorry, but you can't aim that criticism at Hatton Promotions. They never really had any star attractions, but they more often than not put on an interesting card with depth. Even a couple of their non-TV cards were better than some of the stuff that was on Sky.
Yeah, my criticism of Hattons may be harsh, they were new to promoting, I found a lot of they're cards lacking in depth though, seeing his prospects knocking over Georgian journeymen week in week out was hard to watch.
BoxingAnalyst is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:46 PM   #27
craney91
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,474
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Sky Sports need somebody like me covering Boxing. I can draw the viewers in, as seen on this forum. Whether they like it or not, they listen, I believe this could make a lot of money for Sky, if we take advantage of my followers. I offer faultless predictions with 100% accuracy, as proven so far here. I have a wealth of boxing knowledge and people want to hear what I have to say.

I ask Sky to give me this opportunity, on my platform, to shine and send Bunce and Boxnation packing.

It's me you want Sky, I'm the savior.
craney91 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:52 PM   #28
Jonsey
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,720
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

I have said this time and time again. In September 2010 Sky gave 8-12 Fights deals to W*rren, Hatton, Maloney & Hearn. Barney Francis gave an interview with Boxing News where he said the promoters had to delivery otherwise they would not renew there contracts. If none of them deliver they would drop boxing all together.

So All 4 Promoters/Companys were aware of what was happening. It was made perfectly clear to them.

W*rren

Jumped ship half way through his contract to form Box Nation when he found out that Sky were not going to do PPV anymore. The reason for this was valid, the level of PPV being put together by the Promoter was not deemed good enough. It was made clear by Francis that they would consider re introducting PPV in the future (meaning if the product was good enough)

Honestly had W*rren stuck around I beleive we would have seen 15 cards with W*rren and 15 cards with Matchroom. But it was W*rrens choice to jump ship and nobody elses as he doesn't feel the money paid to him by Sky would allow him to put on big shows. He also felt the same about ITV and Setanta and Sky funnily enough, so it seems theres no pleasing him. He now has his own TV channel which he claims is going amazingly well, so good luck to him. Personally I dispute his figures and cannot see it being around in a few years time.

I can only think of two quality non PPV card that W*rren put together in the last 2 years and that was Mitchell vs Murray and Martinez vs Burns.

Maloney

Gave us the same old BS. We had David Price face bum after bum in live fights. It was actually a joke. Everybody on this forum would complain when a Maloney card would come up. Lets not forget Shinny Bayaar vs Ashley ***ton was a main event in a 2 year period where Maloney was told "Deliver quality or your out".

Hatton

I think the biggest thing from Hatton is that they f*cked up the Khan vs McCloskey undercard by putting Munroe & Murray in WBA Inter-something fights agaisnt Brazilian bums, then when the Macklin world title eliminator fell through they were up shit creek. I can only remember one quality Hatton card in the 3 years with Sky and that was Quigg vs Munroe.

Hearn

Theres several reason why Hearn got the exclusive deal with Sky Sports. Hearn has come in and out worked, out promoted, hustled more, aquired a talent base and inovated the product he deliverd. None of the other promoters did this.

Maloney, Hatton and W*rren have no idea about marketing, have no idea about how to get outside the box, how to get blue chip co-sponsers. Hearn showed an ability to promote a big event without PPV. W*rren could only do it with PPV, Maloeny and Hatton just couldn't do it.

Hearn got 8,000 fans in to see Kell Brook vs Matthew Hatton & Carson Jones. Hearn got Lucian Bute to come to Nottingham to fight Carl Froch without PPV. These shows drew record viewing figures on Sky Sports. The Prizefighter series continues to be a ratings success and the we have seen packed out arenas with great atmospheres. Hearn has also shown a willingness to co-promote. He has done shows with Hennesey, Woods and Coldwell and I am sure he will continue to do so.

These promoters have lost there TV deals and they blame it on Eddie Hearn, but they should look in the mirror and blame it on themselves for poor promotion.


In terms of the list that was put together, how many of those cards/fights would get onto Sky Sports nowdays. Not many of them because there not competative. I understand allot of you wish to see boxing every single week, but I personally prefer things the way that they are. Were getting bigger shows with better more competative fights.

If Hearn continues to deliver, which I beleive he will, then history tells us Sky will increase his output. Over time more and more fighters will sign with Matchroom,.

I agree that one promoter is not great for the sport. But if you have Matchroom with 35 dates on Sky, and Hennesey with 12 Dates on Channel 5 thats the perfect place to be. If Hearn and Hennsey deliver the quality product which gets good viewing figures, Sky and Channel 5 will invest in more shows. If you had the number of dates that I just mentioned, it's enough spots to have quality boxing almost every weekend, 2-3 hour live shows and the small hall circuit will also be improved.
Jonsey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 01:56 PM   #29
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonsey View Post
You certainly are not Stephen Hawking....because thats 3 TV Channels. 58/3 = 19.33 Shows. Skys deal with Matchroom is for 20.
You are actually wrong Jonsey (no surprise there).

Both HBO and Showtime are not sports channels, they are multi-platform channels dedicated to showing a variety of material.

Yes they show some boxing, but it is some way down their agenda; they primarily show films and tv dramas.

They are actually more like ITV if anything.

Sky Sports is a dedicated SPORTS channel, end of.

They SHOULD be showing more boxing than these individual channels.

Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 02:04 PM   #30
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonsey View Post
I have said this time and time again. In September 2010 Sky gave 8-12 Fights deals to W*rren, Hatton, Maloney & Hearn. Barney Francis gave an interview with Boxing News where he said the promoters had to delivery otherwise they would not renew there contracts. If none of them deliver they would drop boxing all together.

So All 4 Promoters/Companys were aware of what was happening. It was made perfectly clear to them.

W*rren

Jumped ship half way through his contract to form Box Nation when he found out that Sky were not going to do PPV anymore. The reason for this was valid, the level of PPV being put together by the Promoter was not deemed good enough. It was made clear by Francis that they would consider re introducting PPV in the future (meaning if the product was good enough)

Honestly had W*rren stuck around I beleive we would have seen 15 cards with W*rren and 15 cards with Matchroom. But it was W*rrens choice to jump ship and nobody elses as he doesn't feel the money paid to him by Sky would allow him to put on big shows. He also felt the same about ITV and Setanta and Sky funnily enough, so it seems theres no pleasing him. He now has his own TV channel which he claims is going amazingly well, so good luck to him. Personally I dispute his figures and cannot see it being around in a few years time.

I can only think of two quality non PPV card that W*rren put together in the last 2 years and that was Mitchell vs Murray and Martinez vs Burns.

Maloney

Gave us the same old BS. We had David Price face bum after bum in live fights. It was actually a joke. Everybody on this forum would complain when a Maloney card would come up. Lets not forget Shinny Bayaar vs Ashley ***ton was a main event in a 2 year period where Maloney was told "Deliver quality or your out".

Hatton

I think the biggest thing from Hatton is that they f*cked up the Khan vs McCloskey undercard by putting Munroe & Murray in WBA Inter-something fights agaisnt Brazilian bums, then when the Macklin world title eliminator fell through they were up shit creek. I can only remember one quality Hatton card in the 3 years with Sky and that was Quigg vs Munroe.

Hearn

Theres several reason why Hearn got the exclusive deal with Sky Sports. Hearn has come in and out worked, out promoted, hustled more, aquired a talent base and inovated the product he deliverd. None of the other promoters did this.

Maloney, Hatton and W*rren have no idea about marketing, have no idea about how to get outside the box, how to get blue chip co-sponsers. Hearn showed an ability to promote a big event without PPV. W*rren could only do it with PPV, Maloeny and Hatton just couldn't do it.

Hearn got 8,000 fans in to see Kell Brook vs Matthew Hatton & Carson Jones. Hearn got Lucian Bute to come to Nottingham to fight Carl Froch without PPV. These shows drew record viewing figures on Sky Sports. The Prizefighter series continues to be a ratings success and the we have seen packed out arenas with great atmospheres. Hearn has also shown a willingness to co-promote. He has done shows with Hennesey, Woods and Coldwell and I am sure he will continue to do so.

These promoters have lost there TV deals and they blame it on Eddie Hearn, but they should look in the mirror and blame it on themselves for poor promotion.


In terms of the list that was put together, how many of those cards/fights would get onto Sky Sports nowdays. Not many of them because there not competative. I understand allot of you wish to see boxing every single week, but I personally prefer things the way that they are. Were getting bigger shows with better more competative fights.

If Hearn continues to deliver, which I beleive he will, then history tells us Sky will increase his output. Over time more and more fighters will sign with Matchroom,.

I agree that one promoter is not great for the sport. But if you have Matchroom with 35 dates on Sky, and Hennesey with 12 Dates on Channel 5 thats the perfect place to be. If Hearn and Hennsey deliver the quality product which gets good viewing figures, Sky and Channel 5 will invest in more shows. If you had the number of dates that I just mentioned, it's enough spots to have quality boxing almost every weekend, 2-3 hour live shows and the small hall circuit will also be improved.
There you go again Jonsey spouting out views, guesses and opinions as if they are facts!

When will you learn?

Just how on earth do you know that Sky will increase Matchroom to 35 shows a year? What do you base this on? You are just grabbing figures out of the air and using them to support your argument! (Nothing new there then).

Yes I agree if in a fantasy world your figures were correct we'd probably all be happy, but we don't live in that world.

We are complaining about now!

It is rubbish what Sky are doing, I have been with them twenty years and it has never been this bad for boxing coverage.

You can disagree if you want but I am completely entitled to my
opinion and it is based on experience, you cannot tell me my feelings are wrong on the subject!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013