Boxnation Financial Figures released

although they shouldn't necessarily be compared, as the more boxing on my tv the better - and that includes channel 5 and now loaded. but as has been mentioned, the production has always been second tier especially compared to even a distinctly average looking matchroom domestic card. this wouldn't be a problem if the product was similar, but again if you look at februarys schedule, it is like chalk and cheese.

Frampton-martinez (lee undercard)
rees-broner
brook-alexander

all in consecutive weeks, and while you would expect frampton to win, the odds are fairly close. the bookies can hardly split brook and devon, and although rees will be a 10-1 outsider it will still be an interesting fight for as long as it lasts.

compare that with the usual groves, bjs, burns v 9/1 outsider when a domestic fighter is featured on BN. now admittedly hearn and matchroom have had their fair share of this last year, but you can't argue that (assuming the cards remain) that is a hell of a start for 2013 on skysports

 

Watched Rios - Abril, Salido - Lopez 2, JMM - Senchenko on BN this afternoon. Seen all before, live on TV at the time, but just the option to watch again this afternoon was worth the 32p it cost me for the channel today. I watched nothing else on the channel today though I think Cleverly - Karpency rerun is on later. I'm happy with my 32p a day fee for boxing on a big crystal clear TV.

 

I agreedwith most of what you were saying, but give this thing a ****ing rest. He goes down, helps out and signs a few autographs once a week. He certainly doesnt need to be at JJB to earn money. The guy's opening a gym soon so he says.

 

36p :good

 

actually, scrap that, miscalculation atsch

 

Your not much of a boxing fan then are you? Box Nation is great, every hardcore boxing fan should have this channel.

 

Whatever else we disagree on, I am 100% with you on the above. A year in and still no HD? That's just poor.

 

I agree they need HD like yesterday. It's the cost of two channels though- I can think of only one channel on Sky that is a HD exclusive (no SD exists) and that is NHK.

 

For Dec the calc came in at 32.2580645p per day, 31 days, £10 month fee. I'm not one to argue about fractions of pence.

 

HD is vastly overrated. I get such a good pic on my non HD TV that shelling out a bit extra for HD would be fruitless, simply because I can't tell the difference unless I'm sat ten centimetres aways from the screen. I'd rather sit in my normal seat and enjoy comfort watching fights, football, films and the like.

I only noticed a difference with HD when I watched World Cup football at my in-laws place, they had a ****ing huge TV with full HD, paid a load of money. You could see the sweat drop from the players cheeks, something I'm not that bothered about...

Quick question - would Hagler - Hearns have been better if it was screened in full HD? I don't think most folk would have given two ****s if it was broadcast in black and white or full HD or 3D? HD is completely overrated.

 

Is it available to watch online yet? As someone who doesnt get near the main tv in the house at the weekend, it being available on line would be a massive plus.

 

I think it is, but for you to sustain any kind of credible quality picture you'd have to have a lightning quick Internet connection.

 

see post #52 mate

 

Gotcha P:good

 

Your gunna say that, seeing as you don't have a HD tv, there is a massive difference if you have got a half decent HD tv, and yes Hagler - Hearns would have been better if it was in HD.