I know that the coverage is crap but people should lay off them. think of the fights we would no be seeing for the rest of 07, Cotto vs Mosley, Barrerra vs Pacquiou 2, Vargas vs Mayorga, Diaz vs Diaz.
The coverage is pretty poor, but they need time to 'bed in' as they say, as boxing is such a subjective sport. They need time to get to know us. get rid of Woodhall though, hes a nice guy but hes too biased in favour of his own. You cannot argue with setantas schedule though, they are putting their money where their mouth is, & any competition for SKY must be a good thing.
Good shout Dunky, with the cost of Sky I hope the competition makes them drop some prices but I reckon its wishful thinking 36 quid for Sky sports is scandalous imo and its 90% cricket, rugby and golf which are imo as entertaining as watching paint dry.
I think they went into it much better than BBC did. They are retaining the best of BBC and ITV. They just need to refine it a bit.
The Woods broadcast was watchable. I'm not really a fan of boxing, but I managed to watch Setanta for 2.5 hours last week when that fight was on.
i've got virgin media and setanta is free on it. who gives a toss who's commentating, at least we get to see some top fights. i'm gonna set my alarm for mab v pac and last weeks woods/gonzalez fight was a *******.
i hate that il have 2 pay for all of them 2 watch individually bcoz i aint allowed to have the channel
the presentation isn't great but i'm only really interested in the fights anyway. and as someone has already said, they are showing loads more international fights than sky sports, who annoyed me by showing taylor - pavlik on SS2 when all their other boxing is on SS1 (I've just got the SS1 and SS3 package) and anyway, there is already a noticeable difference in the presentation since the cotto fight
thats a difficult question to answer. Jacobs was poor, but Woods is also poor. For different reasons. You fancy a discussion about it?:yep