Channel 5 pulling out of Boxing??

This is really bad news. Regardless of what you think about how far Fury, Degale and Eubank will go, having boxing on terrestrial TV is good news.

Viewing figures with regards terrestrial tv I am told are not that good. However, when you put into the context of boxing they are bloody good. Could you imagine the money Eddie Hearn, Carl Froch and co would make if they got 2m ppv buys for the fight in may like Tyson Fury gets views on channel 5.

Whether we like it or not the viewing figures on terrestrial tv are a lot higher than what Sky or boxnation get. Final point dont think for one minute Frank ****** is finished yet because the way I see it boxnation are at the moment the only viable proposition to Sky tv and its time we supported them otherwise boxing will go to small hall shows.

 

In these hard times any exposure boxing gets is good. We as die hard fans cannot keep moaning otherwise there will be none of it on our screens.

And with regards to your poor product point, its not only the responsibility of the promoter to put on good shows to keep his contract alive, but, it is also the responsibility of the TV Executives give their viewers value for money to. Dont just blame the promoter.

My final point is perfectly clear. We need to stop moaning about boxnation and support it, how clear can that point be? Boxing on our screens is good news for boxing fans. No boxing would be a right ****

 

Maloney and Hearn say C5 is dead or dying and everyone believes it??

Hennesy fights are on C5. Come on, schoolboy error...

 

Exactly.

I'm not a huge rugby league fan but I'll watch games because I know they'll be competitive and hard fought. I don't enjoy tennis but I'll watch a game which you know is going to be entertaining, like Djokovic against Murray. This is where boxing suffers because even though boxing fans will sit through mismatches, every day of the week, casual fans hate them. They don't care about watching a fighter beat someone up for 12 one sided rounds, like Groves/Johnson, they want to see drama.

British boxing is full of mismatches at a low level. How many completely one sided fights have Eubank Jr., Galahad or DeGale been in under Mick? Far too many. I get the impression promoters like mismatches because they think it'll impress casual fans who will be conned into thinking they're watching someone brilliant, but I don't think that's the case. Casual fans aren't arsed about good boxing, they want good fights, and Mick doesn't provide that.

A good promoter for attracting casual fans would be Coldwell. Does he have a great stable? No. Does he have any future world champions? No. Does he provide good entertainment, match fighters well and give fans a good night? Absolutely. That's what is needed, not bull**** padding of records.

Casual fans don't want to see fighters pad their records in mismatches. Boxing fans will accept that but casual fans won't. For boxing to succeed on national TV, the mentality has to change and there needs to be a higher quality of fights.

Not one single poster on ESB will have become a boxing fan because of a mismatch. That tells you something about what non-fans want to see.

 

Exactly.

Two crap fighters is usually better than watching one good one vs an average one.

 

Calzaghe-Lacy was a mismatch and is largely responsible for many of the current generation of boxing fans following the sport. Good product isn't always about competitive matches (although it usually is).

From a marketing perspective a good story sells a lot more than a hood event. Mainstream viewers bring the money, and you only get them with a great narrative.

So Haye-Harrison, while a terrible match to regular viewers, was a great match for the mainstream. And it's bull**** if people say it killed ppv at the time. Sky was delighted with the numbers.

The notion of only middle-aged white men watching the sport isn't entirely true either. Considering that trope started 10 years ago nearly, we should see a new demographic of elderly fans!

Boxing's major problem, in my eyes, isn't just access or quality fights - it's the inability of the sport to tell a good story.

The reason David Haye is a star and Carl Froch isn't? Haye's fights create a storyline, Froch's don't.

 

The problem is, at least for the first 12-18 months, careers are built on mismatches. In an ideal world those fights would be fights number 4 or 5 down the bill but Mick doesn't have the stable to do that.

 

2.9 million

http://www.badlefthook.com/2011/7/25/2292419/chisora-vs-fury-does-strong-ratings-on-channel-5

 

Fights being a mismatch in hindsight is different from them being a **** fight on paper. Calzaghe shutting out Lacy was a good thing for boxing because it was a great performance, but that sort of fight is entirely different to a shut out against an overmatched opponent.

 

This seems like a bit of mischief making on the part of Maloney who probably knows little more than we do about Channel 5/Hennessey. I'd laugh if Hennessey got booted off Channel 5 only for him to sign an exclusive arrangement with Loaded TV though.

 

No mainstream fan in the UK was aware who Lacy was. It was a completely uncompetitive 12 rounds. Why did it gave such an impact on Calzaghe's career?

The story. It's no different to Froch smashing **** out of Bute, but it didn't have half the impact, even though Bute was the favourite, just like Lacy was. Why?

Because Froch wasn't a compelling character and the fight didn't offer a compelling story to the mainstream audience.

 

I thought C5 had agreed to show Fury/Cunningham, and the fight was taking place in the afternoon US time so C5 could show it live in a 10pm slot?

Why would they pull out now?

 

i think even W@ARREN mentioned this in his article today