Boxnation announces long term output deal with GBP

This content is protected

 

Wow that's a good deal Brits. Anyway i was wondering. What does this boxing channel cost? Around $50 a month I would imagine?

 

You'll be please to know that it is only ten english pounds a month. :shock:

 

Wow! That's what, only about $15 or something. This boxnation sounds like fantastic value.

 

It's not.

 

It is.

 

It really is, but I'm sure it could cost £1 a month and we'd still have people pissing in our ears about how much of a rip-off it is. :verysad

 

This is good for boxing in Britain. We have already seen Sky and Hearn step it up in response to BN's birth with the Brook-Hatton promotion and now Fwank has responded with the GB deal. This competition can only be good for boxing fans:bbb

 

Not to mentioned the fights that probably would've been on PPV.

 

I'm glad you and others think so, but ultimately it's subjective and comes down to the individual.

For someone who cannot stand listening to Steve Bunce for more than a few seconds due to the 'nails on a chalkboard' effect, a lot of the channels output is simply unwatchable. I am actually developing a theory that considers whether Bunce is the potential cause of spontaneous human combustion.

In terms of fight cards, December with the Cotto/Margarito card was definitely worth it, February with Vitali/Chisora was maybe just about worth it. January and March were pretty much write-offs. So after four months I'd give it a 50% value-for-money rating, at best.

Add the fact that the channel has very poor presentation and is now taking fights that Sky would have picked up, so essentially people are paying more money to watch fights with poorer quality picture/sound/presentation than they would have if the channel never existed.

And then there's the issue of actually funding the channel/promotion and the man behind it, so he can continue his scamming, propaganda and outdated methods of low-risk matchmaking that epitomises the very opposite of 'value for money'.

I would absolutely love boxing to prosper in the long-term, at all levels. But I can't see how BoxNation will have much of a positive effect here given that it is taking boxing OUT of the spotlight. Other than the fact that it's given hardcore fans a few more foreign cards to watch (without the need of an internet stream) I can see few benefits, and sadly I see it as detrimental to the growth of both boxing as a sport and the fighters under FW's employ.

 

Yes, I was obviously being flippant in aping the tone of your last.

I do see where you are coming from, but for me there have been a lot of fights in the undercards which were good fun, Enzo Mac most recently. I'd take issue with your suggestion that Chisora-Vitali only just scrapes in as an acceptable fight - a competitive British world heavyweight title challenge surely justifies airtime, and not too long ago would have been ppv on Sky.

Also, even if you have found the entertainment as thin as you say, at such a cheap rate you have paid, what, £50 total for all the good bits? One can tune out a lot of dross at that rate, and still consider £50 or so very decent value for the bits one likes of what remains.

It is simply a fact that the free to air future of most popular sport is pretty bleak. Sky is expensive, and BBC/ITV just won't put the sort of weight behind sport to show much of a cross section. Sure, Channel 5 have a handful of Mick's fighters, but if they did not have Fury to headline they basically wouldn't show anything. The writing is on the wall for free to air television per se, the licence fee will likely be gone within ten years and certainly within 20-25, it is entirely outmoded and does not reflect a modern society. Sky themselves are a subscription service, and while their generalist nature does give them a wider audience, it also dilutes how much detail they can give each individual sport. It is clear to anyone that for the last few years they have very much been picking and choosing which boxing to give priority to.

So while I get your underlying argument, really I do, I just think that boxing has to move with the times and through BoxNation or a similar model we will get more boxing on television than through any of the viable alternatives.

HD is supposed to be coming, and some of the presentational rougher edges will smooth out over time. Starting up a whole channel from scratch some things were bound not to be perfect out of the box.

Many on here are still very rude about the Sky boxing show, yet they have years of experience under their belts.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether the owner is a scammer. Hold most people up to scrutiny and most of us will find things we disagree with, but his presence on the scene has also let to many fights happening that have provided great entertainment. If he were that bad, there has been plenty of opportunity for someone else to come along and do better - but so far, noone has given us anything like as many good fights. I like the look of Matchroom, but it is small beer at the moment compared with the BoxNation back catalogue, and it remains to be seen how big they can get.

It's not just BoxNation that show fights with low risk matchmaking - there have been some terrible mismatches/superweak defences shown on Sky and all the other broadcasters, too - that is a fault specific to boxing, not to BoxNation. How often are the top P4P fighters really taking genuine, live risks? Disappointingly infrequently.

Anyway, this is an appalling ramble. I get that the audience is not mainstream, that some fights are weaker than others, that some fighters seem protected, but there is no alternative large audience for anything but the odd marquee fight, boxing is always going to have poor matches and protected fighters, I think we get more boxing this way than we would were they to fold in the current and future climate.

ST

 

Compare it to America. They will have to pay about $55 just for Mayweather vs. Cotto I think.

Or compare with Sky. Sky Sports is OK if you want the football or whatever else. If you're just a boxing fan, then it's a bit of a rip-off.

BoxNation you can get through Sky without needing to pay a subscription for any Sky channels.

 

I can't believe people are complaining

We all knew that with it being Frank's channel the domestic stuff might be a bit **** at times but the overseas stuff they're giving us is top-notch.

Not to mention the exposure a lot of these prospects are getting. Sky for some reason don't show many of the 4,6 and 8 rounders anymore whereas with boxnation we can watch most of Frank's prospects develop.

We'd never have had an opportunity to see the likes of Buglioni or Skeete without boxnation.

 

it hardly exposure when there 6 people watching.

 

You do make a good point ishy, it is good value and its good to see the prospects, its major downfall is Fwank himself.
He is the Adolf Hitler of boxing.