Sky boxing - Quantity or quality?

[flatulent_bob]

Although the irony of Mr Proud Christain (well the bits he likes) firing judgemental posts about others can't be lost on the forum members.

[GazOC]

I think on the Brit side of things you can argue that quality has been been better than quantity since Hearn got his monopoly but Skys international output has been indisputably sub standard during the same time period IMHO.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by JamieC

tbf rob he's got a point there, why mention an apartment in the US?

because if i had pointed out why i have a subscription to Showtime & HBO i probably would have been asked why.

to be clear i am not a baller with apartments all over the world. i am moving to the US in a few weeks time and my apartment which i will share with my soon to be wife has HBO & Showtime already set up because there was an offer on when I was last visiting and it worked out cheaper to pay for an extra few months than pay full whack.

so no that wasn't what i was doing.

regarding the aviator. you get a ton of fighters and people on this forum talking about keyboard warriors and hiding being names. So I like to be open about who I am so that people can't accuse me of that.

The only thing I am showing of is my red WAR hat which i would imagine everyone is really envious off as allot of people on here have aviators of photoshoped red war hats.

if i really wanted to show off i would tell you that i met 2 of the girls from the MTV show The Valleys today!

[Michael300]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

PM me and enlighten me. Your turning this thread into a hate session against me.

I will not be PM'ing you Jonsey, you have been quite happy to criticise others publically so I see no difference here.

I am most certainly not turning anything into a hate session against you, you have done a perfectly good job of that yourself with some of your ridiculous comments on other threads.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it back Jonsey, your main problem.

I have no wish to lose my anonimity on this site, my first name is all I'm really happy to share, but I will say that I spend most of my days working with young offenders being kept at her majesty's pleasure and apart from the glimpses of intelligence in some of your posts you would fit right in with your extreme views, insulting language and infantile comments.

I get paid to spend time with them, I have had enough of doing it for free today.

I'm off to spend the rest of my evening with adults, night night Jonsey

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by Michael300

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_p2_8aZ7hon...or-500x400.jpg

hence why my aviator is a photo of myself. this is the only forum or internet site i have ever used where people aviator is not a pic of themselves.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Michael300

I will not be PM'ing you Jonsey, you have been quite happy to criticise others publically so I see no difference here.

I am most certainly not turning anything into a hate session against you, you have done a perfectly good job of that yourself with some of your ridiculous comments on other threads.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it back Jonsey, your main problem.

I have no wish to lose my anonimity on this site, my first name is all I'm really happy to share, but I will say that I spend most of my days working with young offenders being kept at her majesty's pleasure and apart from the glimpses of intelligence in some of your posts you would fit right in with your extreme views, insulting language and infantile comments.

I get paid to spend time with them, I have had enough of doing it for free today.

I'm off to spend the rest of my evening with adults, night night Jonsey

And as we've discovered, Rob knowing my name led to his trying to accuse me of being a fat ginger.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by Michael300

I will not be PM'ing you Jonsey, you have been quite happy to criticise others publically so I see no difference here.

I am most certainly not turning anything into a hate session against you, you have done a perfectly good job of that yourself with some of your ridiculous comments on other threads.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it back Jonsey, your main problem.

I have no wish to lose my anonimity on this site, my first name is all I'm really happy to share, but I will say that I spend most of my days working with young offenders being kept at her majesty's pleasure and apart from the glimpses of intelligence in some of your posts you would fit right in with your extreme views, insulting language and infantile comments.

I get paid to spend time with them, I have had enough of doing it for free today.

I'm off to spend the rest of my evening with adults, night night Jonsey

well if you read the first post in this thread he made it clear he didn't this thread to turn out that way.

if you read back this thread you can see that it was you that turned it into a hate session.

i would also be interested to know what my extreme views are!!!?

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by GazOC

I think on the Brit side of things you can argue that quality has been been better than quantity since Hearn got his monopoly but Skys international output has been indisputably sub standard during the same time period IMHO.

i tend to agree but I think Sky are biding there time and waiting for box nation to fall apart.

[BoxingAnalyst]

Originally Posted by JamieC

but not ours and sky havent replaced the boxing content. its their fault they only have one promoter who doesnt have a big enough stable and isnt putting on quality match ups, i feel shortchanged. Its not the point if other channels have it, I want sky to have more, as a boxing fan i want lots of channels to show more boxing, but sky have cut there's in quantity and quality, thats why im disgruntled

Hearn is putting on by far the best cards in Britain.

And as for you wanting to see more boxing..how? BN pick up most international cards!

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by flatulent_bob

Although the irony of Mr Proud Christain (well the bits he likes) firing judgemental posts about others can't be lost on the forum members.

well you wouldn't understand but thats not how it works. i tired to explain but you wouldn't listen.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by BoxingAnalyst

Hearn is putting on by far the best cards in Britain.

And as for you wanting to see more boxing..how? BN pick up most international cards!

I guess the point is that, when Sky charge so much for the sports channels, it's galling to have to pay another £10 a month to get the sport you want to follow.

It's not Sky's fault as such, the fans just aren't driving the numbers and advertising revenue needed to broadcast late night cards. But considering some of the random things they do show, it is a bit poor.

Incidentally, who broadcasts the NFL in this country? Is it through that online season pass?

[p.Townend]

Originally Posted by Jack

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 fucking 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 fucked 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.

did not rate the last show at all. All the fights went totally as expected and to be honest were borderline mismatches. I might have this wrong but the only footage I saw sky show of brook's opponent was of him getting stopped in round 1. Is that all they had? Poor channel for boxing fans.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

I guess the point is that, when Sky charge so much for the sports channels, it's galling to have to pay another £10 a month to get the sport you want to follow.

It's not Sky's fault as such, the fans just aren't driving the numbers and advertising revenue needed to broadcast late night cards. But considering some of the random things they do show, it is a bit poor.

Incidentally, who broadcasts the NFL in this country? Is it through that online season pass?

Sky Sports show 3 games and BBC show 1.

1 game on thursday night
2 games on sunday night
BBC show the monday night game on the red button.

i think NFL do offer an online season pass though for the other games. NFL to me seems more popular than boxing these days.


your right it is sad. personally like michael i was excited about the idea of a boxing channel but i just dont think it has delivered in any way.

do Sky really charge that much. I pay £15pm for Sky Sports

[GazOC]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

I guess the point is that, when Sky charge so much for the sports channels, it's galling to have to pay another £10 a month to get the sport you want to follow.

It's not Sky's fault as such, the fans just aren't driving the numbers and advertising revenue needed to broadcast late night cards. But considering some of the random things they do show, it is a bit poor.

Incidentally, who broadcasts the NFL in this country? Is it through that online season pass?

I look at it the other way DF. I'm a boxing fan, I'm happy to pay 10 quid a month to follow the sport rather than 50 for a some boxing and a load of sports I don't follow.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by GazOC

I look at it the other way DF. I'm a boxing fan, I'm happy to pay 10 quid a month to follow the sport rather than 50 for a some boxing and a load of sports I don't follow.

I agree with you, Gaz - BN is better value for money overall, even if it didn't live up to its promises. Certainly if you're a boxing fan it's a good choice. But Sky's realignment of its boxing programming is poor considering it does drive good ratings.