Boxnation or Sky Sports. Which do you prefer?

Why is the comparison between Hearn and Frank more appropriate? Because it suits your agenda?

MUTV is a dedicated football channel. Does that mean we shouldn't compare its output to Sky's since Sky is a general broadcaster?

You and Rob seem to have this insistence on trying to limit the argument as and when it suits you. Sky chooses to show boxing, but it's a vastly shallow offering compared to the variety and quality of fights on BoxNation.

You can't really deny that, can you?

That's the only question to answer here.

 

Why does he have an agenda, he's just been objective. Of course Boxnation will have more Boxing, its a channel solely dedicated to it whereas Sky show a range of sports so the Boxing output will be lower.

A comparison is pointless, there can be no debate, Boxnation will always show more fights, they seemed to have to have reached a compromise though, Boxnation have the international fights and Sky have the top domestic fighters and Boxnation keep the rest.

This seems to be great for Boxing fans, I don't think we've ever had it so good.

 

There'll be people dancing on BoxNations grave if it goes tits up. Crazy.

 

It is an agenda when you keep bringing the differences between Hearn and Frank into it. The comparison is irrelevant to the discussion. If the question is "Do you prefer Sky Sports or BoxNation for boxing?" you can't bring in other elements just because it doesn't give you an answer you like.

 

I like Nelson and you can't beat the quality of Sky's HD.
But obviously Nation because its solely a boxing channel.

 

Surely comparing Hearn and Frank on a Boxing forum makes more sense than comparing a dedicated Boxing channel and one that does a range of sports, I'm not sure why the comparison is even being made.

 

Not in this thread.

 

:thumbsup

 

Don't be disingenuous. They're the two major boxing broadcasters. It's entirely appropriate to compare them. You may acknowledge that Sky's approach is more general, but that is a factor in deciding which is a better channel for boxing.

This isn't difficult to grasp, surely?

It's the same as if you said, "Who does a better job of broadcasting F1, Sky or BBC?"

 

My original reply wasn't very christian.

 

Sky show countless sports whereas BoxNation only show boxing. They are entirely different channels, to the point where you can't really make a comparison. Hearn is the sole British promoter on Sky and Frank is the sole promoter of British shows on BoxNation, so it's a far better comparison to make.

I'm not limiting the argument to suit me, I'm limiting it because any other comparison is ****ing absurd. Sky and BoxNation aren't rivals and they aren't competing for the same demographic. Hearn and Frank are direct rivals.

 

I do detest Murdoch, but the Sky service in and of itself is high quality, especially since it started Sky Atlantic. I also think, as a broadcaster, it does a good job of listening to its customers.

But you've pretty much hit on my point. If someone said, "I think the production quality of Sky is better, but the content on BoxNation is better" then ok. That's a valid opinion.

But, arguing that the two can't be compared on a specific product they offer, like for like as Jack did, is daft. Also bringing Hearn and Frank into it, when the majority of BN's content isn't from Frank's stable, is even more ludicrous.

 

Whoever is voting for Skysports is a *****.

So if Boxnation disappeared..? You would not get a weekly dosage of boxing, this is a fact!

 

If we're talking boxing only then it's Boxnation hands down.

 

The only sports i really follow these days is Boxing & Formula One and Athletics from time to time.

So i don't really care for Sky Sports, and i can't stand the way they jumped in on Formula One.

Boxnation is number 1.