Sick to my back stomach

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

Your opinion is your opinion, something you seem to struggle to understand. So, because you know some people who aren't good at football and don't like it, everyone who dislikes it must do so because they're not good at it?



To base such a broad opinion on your limited experience just shows how arrogant and ignorant you are. Be quiet little boy, adults are talking.

nobody likes you.

[Jack]

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.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by boranbkk

Guess I must be a. I admit I'm probably a bit odd.

Can't stand football never could, not enough contact frustrating to play and a snoozefest to watch. From a young age pretty much only followed and participated in combat sports.

Originally Posted by dftaylor

You're trying so hard to get a rise out of me. Why is that?

I might be strange, I leave that for others to decide. As for the sports thing, I was all right. Sprinted and did hurdles for my school, played rugby to a decent standard. But my interest was always in arty things - more girls in those classes.

I said people who don't like football are either;

a) strange
b) shit at sports

the 3 of you in this thread have all confirmed that you are in fact strange. your own words.

so i was right! lol

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by Jack

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.

well said. i have been really happy with the quality of the cards Hearn has been putting together.

you also think peiple who dont like football are strange right?

[boranbkk]

Originally Posted by Jack

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.

You're not alone, great post.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

You're trying so hard to get a rise out of me. Why is that?

like allot of other people, i really dont like you and wish you would go away.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

yes but that dislike came from not being good at it.

No, it just comes from finding it dull. This is not complex.

John Pigler is one of the most over the top journos i have come across. i havent read his murdoch stuff though. but like i have said, to become a US citizen you have to renounce the country your from. if you wanna stay in the US perm, you will need to do the same thing.

Pilger's one of the best journalists ever. The "extreme" slur has been applied by much of the right wing press and regurgitated by idiots like you.

I have no issue with someone rescinding their citizenship, but you need to know why Murdoch did it and why it was such a big deal. Go read about it and you'll see.

I here this but i don't see it. Murdoch is quite clear in his support of the republican party yet all UK media is extremely pro Democrat/Obama. If he really controlled the press why would Romney/Bush get such a hard time. You see this on Sky & The Sun two of his companys.

Well, 1) as someone who often complains about boxing journos being biased, this is a remarkable thing to say. So it's ok for Murdoch to deliberately lie and misrepresent the truth to damage the reputation of the Democrats? Hardly fair and impartial news.

2) various research agencies found that the media largely let Bush off the hook when he invaded Iraq. There was very little negative coverage. In fact, only a few papers actively stood against him.

I don't read much mainstream news any more, because the clear bias is just boring. But even two weeks in the US showed the clear bias of FOX towards Romney and the Republicans, and this was generally upheld by the other channels. The only notable exception was MSNBC.

You need to do some research rather than just spewing out your own limited observations.

[Michael300]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

nobody likes you.

Good retort Jonsey, first class.

No go back inside now playtime is over..........

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

nobody likes you.

Originally Posted by Jonsey

like allot of other people, i really dont like you and wish you would go away.

No, YOU don't like me because I make you look like the idiot you are. The fact you think this is personality competition, or that I would really be upset by anything you have to say, shows how you hate that.

Really, it's a compliment when you try to argue with me. Because even over the internet, I clearly bother you so deeply.

Considering the best you could do was to say I was unwashed and unkempt tells me exactly what a child you are.

[boranbkk]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

I said people who don't like football are either;

a) strange
b) shit at sports

the 3 of you in this thread have all confirmed that you are in fact strange. your own words.

so i was right! lol

Fair enough, but nothing wrong with strange.

Strange people like me tend to think anybody who watches football are either:

a) dull
b) shit at sports

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Michael300

Good retort Jonsey, first class.

No go back inside now playtime is over..........

Give him a break, he's operating at the limits of his intellectual capacity.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

No, it just comes from finding it dull. This is not complex.



Pilger's one of the best journalists ever. The "extreme" slur has been applied by much of the right wing press and regurgitated by idiots like you.

I have no issue with someone rescinding their citizenship, but you need to know why Murdoch did it and why it was such a big deal. Go read about it and you'll see.



Well, 1) as someone who often complains about boxing journos being biased, this is a remarkable thing to say. So it's ok for Murdoch to deliberately lie and misrepresent the truth to damage the reputation of the Democrats? Hardly fair and impartial news.

2) various research agencies found that the media largely let Bush off the hook when he invaded Iraq. There was very little negative coverage. In fact, only a few papers actively stood against him.

I don't read much mainstream news any more, because the clear bias is just boring. But even two weeks in the US showed the clear bias of FOX towards Romney and the Republicans, and this was generally upheld by the other channels. The only notable exception was MSNBC.

You need to do some research rather than just spewing out your own limited observations.

I never said its ok for him to go against the democrats, i questioned how Murdoch can be accused of controlling the british press when the british press and notably his outlets are paticuarly negative and biased against the political party he supports so strongly?

just because my opinion is different to your own does not mean its ill informed. to say that MSNBC is the only pro democratic channel is laughable. please remember i have actually lived, am going to live and have a fiance who is from the US. so i have watched for more US news that you did in 2 weeks.

[Jonsey]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

Give him a break, he's operating at the limits of his intellectual capacity.

i am smarter than you. and my girlfriend is better looking than yours. going to bed. night

[P Parkker]

Originally Posted by Pale Destroyer

This isn't exactly a new topic but I wanted to vent some anger.

I am a Sky subscriber and cannot believe the lack of cards being shown at the moment I am a cunt's hair away from cancelling my subscription. how the **** can they justify not having any live action for 2 or sometimes 3 weeks at a time. I have been a subscriber to sky for some time now and the schedule has never been this thin, where has all the domestic and international action gone.

Despite this they still have Ringside on EVERY single week wether there is live action that coming weekend or not. Now in my opinion Ringside is an ok show but its a supplementary programme, in the respect that it should supplement Sky's boxing output by reviewing the previous weeks fights and previewing the coming weeks fight, basically build up and reaction.

But whats the point in having a supplementary magazine style programme when there is no ****ing boxing for it to supplement! If sky has budget issues then I would rather have a card (any card really) and no ringside for the week.

I mean how the **** can they justify refusing to shell out for any domestic or international boxing but Adam Smith can find the money to send himself and his chum (and a whole camera and sound crew) out to Miami to speak to David Haye, or Johnny to the Philippines to speak to Amir Kahn or both of them to spain (or somewhere hot, can't remember where) to chat to Tennis player and new found friend of the pair Andy Murray.

Its the arrogance of the whole thing thats really got to me, its like they think they are that incredible at broadcasting that we the fans would rather watch them buffing there own bell ends on Ringside every week or 8 or 9 commentators and pundits covering one show than the sport we love on a regular basis.

Imagine the uproar if Sky started doing this with their football coverage. I would think almost every fan of every sport in the world would agree that actually watching their sport is far more important to them than watching pundits talk about it.

Now whats that boxnation number?

That's what happens when you take away promoter competition and use just one promoter.

[dftaylor]

Originally Posted by Jonsey

I never said its ok for him to go against the democrats, i questioned how Murdoch can be accused of controlling the british press when the british press and notably his outlets are paticuarly negative and biased against the political party he supports so strongly?

just because my opinion is different to your own does not mean its ill informed. to say that MSNBC is the only pro democratic channel is laughable. please remember i have actually lived, am going to live and have a fiance who is from the US. so i have watched for more US news that you did in 2 weeks.

Misinformed again, Rob. I watch a LOT of US news because the business I work for has a huge operation there. In fact, I probably see it more, and in more depth, that you ever will living there. I read most of the US papers a couple of times a week, I watch MSNBC, FOX, CNN, Bloomberg when I'm at my desk and seeing what's happening, and we get regular briefings from press analysts on the key political stories across the UK, US and Asia.

You are ill-informed because you know ****-all about what you're talking about. Seriously, look up Media Matters and their report on the representation of Democrats versus Republicans.

You think Sky or The Sun are pro-Obama? REALLY!?

This is the same Sky that nearly jizzed itself over Romney's debate performances and slated Obama's while ignoring how consistently Romney lied. This is the same Sky that nearly jizzed itself when the Israelis slaughtered innocent women and children in Palestine.
This is The Sun that lovingly described how impressive Romeny had been and cooed over Clint Eastwood's cameo at the conference.