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 10-12-2012, 08:25 AM   #1
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Ringside hypocrisy......

I've just watched this weeks Ringside (pretty good episode in my opinion, the clip of Eubank trying to psych out Calzaghe before their fight was brilliant), but I just have to post this thread on the total hipocrisy of Sky with regards to the discussion on boxings future.

For those who haven't seen it yet, it was towards the end of episode and the discussion involved a female MP who is trying to increase exposure for the game and the female presenter who does the roaming interviews at the fights (I can't remember the MP's name but I think the presenter is called Charlie?).

There was Johnny Nelson quoting all these marvellous figures about the huge increase of people attending boxing clubs since the olympics, both he, Adam Smith and the ladies (with not much input of note from Joe Calzaghe!) were banging on about how wonderful it is (which of course I agree with wholeheartedly) and how important it is to increase the sports exposure and promote it to the general public, whilst at the same time Sky have massively reduced their boxing coverage and are showing less now than at almost anytime in its history!

They now look like delivering just the one show a month on average, and although these shows are generally of a good quality, and they now tend to be three instead of two hours long, they are still heavily edited and don't show a great amount of the undercard action.

It is not that long a go that Sky were delivering a live two hour show nearly every week during the season, often having both a Friday and Saturday 'Fight Night' in the same week!; for Sky to deny that their boxing content has reduced dramatically is simply untrue.

Due to the decline in boxing output from the terrestrial channels and the huge numbers of people now able to have access to Sky Sports in their homes, Sky are the main way most people get to see the sport on TV and for them to do an article celebrating the growth of the sport whilst reducing their support of it is laughable and reeks of hipocrisy.

I know that this forum has its supporters and detractors of both Sky and Boxnation, but his is not about who is best and who is worst.

This is simply about the major provider of televised boxing in this country taking the decision to reduce its boxing budget at a time when the sport is at its best (public perception wise) for quite some time.

The discussion and its irony really annoyed me.

Last edited by Michael300; 10-12-2012 at 09:26 AM. Reason: Silly typo pointed out by funtime!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-12-2012, 08:36 AM   #2
DrMo
Team GB
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 122
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Its not the least bit hypocritical, thats bit of a silly position to take on the subject imo

The presenters at ringside dont have control over what is & isnt shown, or what promoters do or dont get a contract on Sky

Ringside is a boxing program, why would they not celebrate the grass roots popularity of the sport?

Bunce has mentioned the similar figures on his BBC radio show & the BBC dont televise any boxing, is he also a hypocrite for doing this?
DrMo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 08:44 AM   #3
JamieC
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMo View Post
Its not the least bit hypocritical, thats bit of a silly position to take on the subject imo

The presenters at ringside dont have control over what is & isnt shown, or what promoters do or dont get a contract on Sky

Ringside is a boxing program, why would they not celebrate the grass roots popularity of the sport?

Bunce has mentioned the similar figures on his BBC radio show & the BBC dont televise any boxing, is he also a hypocrite for doing this?
but adam smith actually does have a say doesnt he?
JamieC is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:08 AM   #4
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMo View Post
Its not the least bit hypocritical, thats bit of a silly position to take on the subject imo

The presenters at ringside dont have control over what is & isnt shown, or what promoters do or dont get a contract on Sky

Ringside is a boxing program, why would they not celebrate the grass roots popularity of the sport?

Bunce has mentioned the similar figures on his BBC radio show & the BBC dont televise any boxing, is he also a hypocrite for doing this?

Silly position?! Why is it silly? Because you disagree with it?!

It is hypocritical when an individual or group do not practice what they preach, Ringside ran an article on the importance of promting the sport and increasing its exposure, all the while reducing their coverage.

How is this not hypocritical?!

With regards to Steve Bunce making the same comments on BBC, no it isn't hypocritical.

The BBC dropped boxing coverage years a go, and also they showed the bloody olympics thus can be thanked for being largely responsible for the success in the general publics interest!

And finally with regards to the 'presenters' having no input, Adam Smith is actually the head of boxing at Sky Sports, so if he has no input as to the content who bloody does?!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:13 AM   #5
Funtime Frankie
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Hyp*
Funtime Frankie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:18 AM   #6
paddymickey
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 933
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Ironic - yes. Hypocritical - no.
Adam Smith would love more air time but he is not the boss of sky sports.
Do you really think if Adam Smith isn't trying his best to get mroe air time?
paddymickey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:23 AM   #7
Nafflad26
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

It wound me up when Ed Robinson was giving his round up of the latest boxing news and mentioned the Doniare fight this weekend and then showed a snippet from the press conference and then basically said it was a massive fight.

My thoughts are if its a massive fight why not show it instead of winding people up by talking about it. Sky could of shown this on delay at 10am on sunday morning along with the Rios fight!!!!
Nafflad26 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:31 AM   #8
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtime Frankie View Post
Hyp*
Spelt right in the actual piece though!

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddymickey View Post
Ironic - yes. Hypocritical - no.
Adam Smith would love more air time but he is not the boss of sky sports.
Do you really think if Adam Smith isn't trying his best to get mroe air time?
I like Adam Smith a lot, and agree that he is most likely doing his very best.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafflad26 View Post
It wound me up when Ed Robinson was giving his round up of the latest boxing news and mentioned the Doniare fight this weekend and then showed a snippet from the press conference and then basically said it was a massive fight.

My thoughts are if its a massive fight why not show it instead of winding people up by talking about it. Sky could of shown this on delay at 10am on sunday morning along with the Rios fight!!!!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 10:09 AM   #9
JFT96
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,323
vCash: 75
Default Re: Ringside hypocrisy......

It would have been great if Sky could have got Donaire-Nishioka, even if only on tape delay. I'm sure a lot of people would be happy waiting til the morning to get to see the fights if it meant more were picked up by Sky. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen.
JFT96 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 10:43 AM   #10
DrMo
Team GB
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 122
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

[quote=Michael300;13973828]Silly position?! Why is it silly? Because you disagree with it?!

It is hypocritical when an individual or group do not practice what they preach, Ringside ran an article on the importance of promting the sport and increasing its exposure, all the while reducing their coverage.

How is this not hypocritical?!

With regards to Steve Bunce making the same comments on BBC, no it isn't hypocritical.

The BBC dropped boxing coverage years a go, and also they showed the bloody olympics thus can be thanked for being largely responsible for the success in the general publics interest!

And finally with regards to the 'presenters' having no input, Adam Smith is actually the head of boxing at Sky Sports, so if he has no input as to the content who bloody does?! [/quote]

Smith isnt in charge of Sky sports, as far as I know he doesnt set the budget & didnt choose to drop Hatton & Maloney.

Sky is a business & have chosen to invest more money in other sports which get better ratings.

Ringside doing a positive piece about the sport's current popularity seems to me, to be swimming against the tide at Sky, rather than taking a hypocritical stance.
DrMo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 10:56 AM   #11
redandwhiterob
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 253
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hypocrisy......

I am guessing Adam Smith will get a budget every year and then be told to do with it more or less how he pleases. Really not to sure if the bosses at Sky sports will be that bothered if he decides to put 3-4 low quality shows a month on or just one good quality one
redandwhiterob is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 11:48 AM   #12
cheekyvid
Detroit, I shall return.
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: That gum you like is going to come back in style
Posts: 3,677
vCash: 4289
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

[quote=DrMo;13974317]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael300 View Post
Silly position?! Why is it silly? Because you disagree with it?!

It is hypocritical when an individual or group do not practice what they preach, Ringside ran an article on the importance of promting the sport and increasing its exposure, all the while reducing their coverage.

How is this not hypocritical?!

With regards to Steve Bunce making the same comments on BBC, no it isn't hypocritical.

The BBC dropped boxing coverage years a go, and also they showed the bloody olympics thus can be thanked for being largely responsible for the success in the general publics interest!

And finally with regards to the 'presenters' having no input, Adam Smith is actually the head of boxing at Sky Sports, so if he has no input as to the content who bloody does?! [/quote]

Smith isnt in charge of Sky sports, as far as I know he doesnt set the budget & didnt choose to drop Hatton & Maloney.

Sky is a business & have chosen to invest more money in other sports which get better ratings.

Ringside doing a positive piece about the sport's current popularity seems to me, to be swimming against the tide at Sky, rather than taking a hypocritical stance.

He is Sky Sports Head of Boxing though, surely he has a say in what promoters they use
cheekyvid is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 12:01 PM   #13
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hypocrisy......

I think the point I'm trying to make is getting rather lost here.........

I'm not Sky bashing (I'm a long time subscriber), I'm not Adam Smith bashing (I like the fella, have done for a long time), and I'm not implying that any other channel is any better than Sky.

All I'm saying is that at a time when the sport is more popular domestically than it has been for quite some time (the Olympics, Hattons return and even the Haye/Chisora fight have all played a part in this), it would really benefit from some extra coverage from Sky.

Instead they have chosen to reduce the coverage.

They have chosen to spend the money on other sports such as F1, this really disappoints me as a boxing fan, particularly when you consider that the price paid for the rights to broadcast just one F1 race are as much as several months worth of live boxing (I have read that Sky have paid between 30 and 40 million pounds for the overall rights).

As a dedicated sports channel they have an obligation to give the viewer the best coverage they can on as many sports as possible, I understand that they are a business and must make decisions accordingly, but I just feel that their decison to reduce the boxing output and work with just the one promoter is extremely disappointing.

How can any boxing fan disagree with this?!

What they have done is not good for the fans and not good for the sport, and I just felt that for them to sit there and bang on about how important it is that more resources and funding are put into the sport whilst they give little or no attention to the amatuer game and reduce coverage smacked of hypocrisy.

How can anyone think that the direction Sky Sports have chosen to go in with boxing is good for the sport?!
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 12:03 PM   #14
Michael300
Fighting back.....
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Up and about
Posts: 1,656
vCash: 500
Default Re: Ringside hipocrisy......

[quote=cheekyvid;13974675]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMo View Post


He is Sky Sports Head of Boxing though, surely he has a say in what promoters they use
Michael300 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 01:50 PM   #15
ashedward
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Devon
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ringside hypocrisy......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael300 View Post
I think the point I'm trying to make is getting rather lost here.........

I'm not Sky bashing (I'm a long time subscriber), I'm not Adam Smith bashing (I like the fella, have done for a long time), and I'm not implying that any other channel is any better than Sky.

All I'm saying is that at a time when the sport is more popular domestically than it has been for quite some time (the Olympics, Hattons return and even the Haye/Chisora fight have all played a part in this), it would really benefit from some extra coverage from Sky.

Instead they have chosen to reduce the coverage.

They have chosen to spend the money on other sports such as F1, this really disappoints me as a boxing fan, particularly when you consider that the price paid for the rights to broadcast just one F1 race are as much as several months worth of live boxing (I have read that Sky have paid between 30 and 40 million pounds for the overall rights).

As a dedicated sports channel they have an obligation to give the viewer the best coverage they can on as many sports as possible, I understand that they are a business and must make decisions accordingly, but I just feel that their decison to reduce the boxing output and work with just the one promoter is extremely disappointing.

How can any boxing fan disagree with this?!

What they have done is not good for the fans and not good for the sport, and I just felt that for them to sit there and bang on about how important it is that more resources and funding are put into the sport whilst they give little or no attention to the amatuer game and reduce coverage smacked of hypocrisy.

How can anyone think that the direction Sky Sports have chosen to go in with boxing is good for the sport?!
I agree that it`s very disappionting that Sky have dropped the budget for the likes of f1 and especially Nfl which is a joke.The Maloney leisure centre shows wernt working but what thay should have kept on Hatton.

They should of given Hearn and Hatton around 10 shows each and have about 6 or 8 dates for where the likes of Coldwell,VIP and Goodwin could compete for.We would of have allot more variety in the shows if they did it like that.The problem with the American shows is that they are in the early hours of the morning so dont do great rating but they should of kept some money for the really big ones
ashedward is offline  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 08:35 AM.


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