ESPN's Boxing Coverage: Your opinion

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by compukiller, Jul 13, 2008.


  1. compukiller

    compukiller Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,428
    6
    Mar 4, 2006
    Vote in the poll, and discuss.
     
  2. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004
    I think you may be missing something here comp...LOL!
     
  3. compukiller

    compukiller Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,428
    6
    Mar 4, 2006
    What am I missing?
     
  4. Motor City Sam

    Motor City Sam Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,102
    1
    Mar 17, 2007
    I wouldn't say it's great or say that it sucks. Given the place of boxing in the maintstream American sports landscape, I think they do a good job. Granted, they don't give enough boxing highlights or results on Sports Center, but during the summer they are showing two live boxing cards most weeks on basic cable. They are limited by budget and by the lack of interest that most general sports fans have in boxing.
     
  5. LennoxGOAT

    LennoxGOAT Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,234
    4
    Apr 22, 2006
    It is getting better. They tried to ignore it (and mma) but sports are on the rise and they are being forced to cover it.
     
  6. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    I will talk about ESPN's coverage from two aspects--ESPN.com and ESPN the TV network.

    First, ESPN.com.
    It's gotten a lot better over the past year. In this past season alone, Manny Pacquiao, Mayweather, Joe Calzaghe, Bernard Hopkins, and yesterday, Wlad Klitchko have been on the FRONT PAGE of ESPN.com...not the Boxing page. In previous years, only Oscar and major heavyweight fights garnered front page headline status.

    Not to say that ESPN.com's analysis still doesn't need work. In terms of their budget, their frontmen consist of the mediocre Dan Rafael, flanked by Kieran Mulvaney, in addition to any other articles they can get from syndicated writers. Now while Rafael deserves credit for getting scoops on upcoming fights, his actual knowledge of boxing itself is questionable at best.
    This is a problem because when there is only one main writer, especially one who also gets on TV, then his words end up speaking for the whole network. This is turn causes the average Joe who is a casual boxing fan to take Dan Rafael's word as bible.

    Contrast this with their NFL coverage where you have former players, coaches, general managers, and even sportswriters debate topics over a variety of different articles.

    As far as TV coverage goes, this is something that again, has gotten better. Over the past 2 years, Brian Kenny has really championed the cause for boxing on mainstream cable. The guests they bring in studio are solid. I suggest they bring in more athletes/celebrities who are fight fans as well. Tessitore is a solid BBB man, and hate him or love him, Atlas is at least a recognizable face. However, the coverage is still lacking for a variety of factors. In my opinion, here they are:

    1. Budget. When your budget is limited, it means you won't get the juicy cuts on Sportscenter, especially when ESPN has bigger contracts with the NFL (Monday Night Football), MLB (Baseball Tonight), NBA (Playoffs), and even Arena Football (Playoffs). This alone means that like what occurs on ESPN.com, you will get buried in the newscast into a 6th or 7th hole unless the clip is out of the ordinary or it's a superfight. For example, this year you will see clips from all 162 regular season games + playoffs for a major league baseball team. But will you see clips or even results from every single fight from the Top 10 pound-for-pound fighters this year? I DOUBT IT.

    Also, due to the minuscule budget, ESPN can't get the best prospects to fight unless it's very early in their careers, and even in that case, you get them for one fight in a mismatch. Examples: Gamboa, Peter, Juan Diaz (although he was on twice when ESPN had a one-year deal with Main Events)

    2. Greedy promoters. This goes hand in hand with #1. Put yourself in Don King's shoes. These promoters don't care about the sport, because if they did, they would be thinking long-term by building fighters in the public eye and not care about losing potential money by not putting them on HBO right away. Instead, they maximize the profit out a fighter on premium TV for 4-5 fights, then get rid of him once he hits the canvas for the next best hyped thing. There is a reason why Leonard, Mancini, Tyson, and Holyfield were still big hits with the ratings after LOSING and being PAST THEIR PRIME. There is also a mirroring reason why quality fighters like Jermain Taylor, Tomasz Adamek and Winky Wright are always one damaging loss away from obscurity, past their prime or not. Because outside of the hardcore fan, no one knows who they are, and if they were to no longer be legitimate contenders to the hardcore fans, what purpose will they serve Arum or King?

    3. Greedy HBO and Showtime. They want to have it and they want to have it now. By that, I mean the showcased fighters and the revenue. Boxing is at the mercy of these two networks because if they really wanted to, they could abolish belts altogether just by putting up the biggest purses for the fights they want to see. However, they screw it up because their viewership as a premium (aka pay extra) cable channel is far, far, far, FAR more limited than ESPN. If they were any patient and force prospects to fight on ESPN or other network TV a few times, they could build fighters' reputations with the public like SpikeTV does with UFC fighters, then they would see more fans tuning in long-term on shows like WCB, BAD, and HBO PPV when these prospects would be good enough to fight. This would also result in more quality matchups. Sadly, they don't invest in the fan and allow the fan to get some freebies before they jack up the prices on fighters that most 9-to-5 average Joes don't know about. For instance, do you think Mike Jones in Waco, TX knows who Darling Jimenez is? Maybe not, but for your extra 29.99 in premium cable fees, you get to see him KO'd by Gamboa, who Mr. Jones probably hasn't heard of at all either unless he's an internet junkie or caught him that ONE time on ESPN.

    Prime example: everyone forgets that DLH's rise to popularity was caused by NBC's Barcelona '92 Olympic Campaign, where his story was on every 5 minutes that summer. Or how about Boom Boom Mancini on CBS and ESPN? The public sure knew who he was after fighting in double digits on those networks. And win or lose, the people would always tune in.

    Now look at HBO charging you 49.95 for Casamayor-Marquez or Top Rank hitting you up for 39.95 to see Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. Sure, they might turn a short-term profit on these fights because they will cater to hardcore fans. But be honest. Most boxing fans are 35 and up. How much longer until that generation dies out? Unless you fight in the gym yourself, or have parents/family that were big boxing fans and had HBO/Showtime at home, chances are slim that you are the type of fan that will buy the aforementioned PPVs above. Boxing fans are lying to themselves if they believe that there are more new boxing fans under 30 than there are MMA fans. Whose fault is that?

    4. Most importantly, the overall mainstream fan DEMAND. And this goes hand in hand with #1, #2, and #3. Coverage, of course, stems from potential ratings, and if you don't know who Joe Calzaghe is because you a) don't have the money for HBO/Showtime, b) don't talk about boxing with your friends, and c) go to a bar where they don't show boxing, why would you care if he's fighting tonight? Will you tune in to Sportscenter for that, or will you tune in because the Cubs are on an 8-game winning streak?

    I think overall that ESPN is doing the best it can on the internet and on TV, especially with the stacked deck they are up against. However, things are out of their control that impede any progress. If you want a model of how to build a sport and improve coverage, look no further than Dana White's relationship with SpikeTV for the UFC. I hate to say it, but it's true: MMA is marketed in a fashion much more accessible to the average Joe than boxing.
     
  7. Motor City Sam

    Motor City Sam Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,102
    1
    Mar 17, 2007
    Sweet Pea, that's a solid post. Well said.
     
  8. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    In all honesty, I don't think the sanctioning bodies are poisoning boxing as much as the promoters and premium cable is, because the latter two can control the sanctioning bodies. Money makes the world go round, and if business is business, then the WBC is at the mercy of HBO. Try this one:

    You are Humberto Soto. Coming off that last debacle against Lorenzo, let's say you have two options:

    1. Fight Lorenzo in a rematch for the interim belt and pay the WBC a sanctioning fee that would eat the majority of his already small 5-figure purse.

    2. Fight Manny Pacquiao in a NON-TITLE fight for a 7-figure purse put up by Top Rank and HBO.

    No brainer, right? Here's the key point. Pacquiao could vacate his belt, much like he did when he was featherweight champ, and not lose any money or ratings. The hardcore fans will watch whether or not a little belt is on the line, fully knowing that Pacquiao never lost the belt in the ring (this would be stated over and over by Lampley & Co. of course).

    This is the power they have, and they refuse to use it for good.
     
  9. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    Oh yeah, compukiller, you need a spot in your poll for "as good as it can get"
     
  10. compukiller

    compukiller Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,428
    6
    Mar 4, 2006

    Well thought out post, totally unbiased and reasonable. I would agree with your points, but add that I wish ESPN would at least secure one world championship fight a year. :good
     
  11. El Borracho

    El Borracho Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,053
    0
    Jun 22, 2008
    ESPN.com sucks

    FNF is pretty good, at this point I am accustomed to Teddy's and Tesatore's personalities. And, even Brian Kenny can be entertaining, though completely biased. Besides, who else consistently shows two free cards per week?
     
  12. soxfan57

    soxfan57 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,597
    2
    Jun 28, 2008
    ESPN.com coverage is good. FNF is good. Sportcenter's coverage is awful and it's ashame; that would help the sport out a lot.
     
  13. Brickhaus

    Brickhaus Packs the house Full Member

    22,296
    5
    Mar 14, 2007
    Great post SPP. The one place I feel like they could improve is with a weekly wrapup on Sportscenter once a week, just to give analysis of the week's fights. Give Dan Rafael or Teddy Atlas 2 or 3 minutes a week to talk up the sport on Sportscenter, with at least still shots from major fights if they won't let them use actual clips.
     
  14. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    Again, the fan demand and money need to be there. The last time ESPN ponied up any kind of money or production for true world championship fights was three years ago. We got:

    1. Juan Diaz over Julien Lorcy (WBA light)
    2. Juan Diaz over Billy Irwin (WBA light)
    3. O'Neil Bell over Dale Brown (IBF cruiser)...bull**** decision where Kevin Kelley grilled Bell in the postfight interview
    4. Juan Urango over Naoufel Ben Rabah (IBF jr. welter)...another bull**** decision which was for Ricky Hatton's vacated belt at the time
    5. Antonio Margarito over Kermit Cintron (WBO welter)...this card was ESPN's big foray into big-time PPV boxing. If anyone remembers this card had Sugar Shane on it too. It was CHEAP at 19.99. And NOBODY BOUGHT IT. Which probably told ESPN execs all they needed to know about whether or not to expand the boxing budget.

    If there are any others I forgot, my apologies.

    However, my belief is that the ratings were so low that it made no sense for ESPN to shell out money for future fights when they could get similar results/ratings with a cheaper card.
     
  15. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    This is something I wholly agree with. We always get a good 3-min. rundown of upcoming major fights and results from Kenny and guest in the studio during FNF. I don't see why they couldn't do that for the weekend Sportscenter since they recycle the S.O.S. 5 times a day. This in turn would help ESPN market FNF better to the fans since a lot of them don't tune in only because they don't know the fighters involved.

    Another thing I forgot to mention is the stupidity of premium cable and promoters yet again. For those who didn't watch the fights, they need to release the KO clips for shows like Sportscenter and ESPN.com. This is ridiculous, as this isn't the 1960's. If the fan wants to see the KO he can always get it via message board, YouTube or SopCast. HBO cannot stop you or me from seeing the clip. That doesn't mean that we won't watch the fight as a whole just because we saw the KO. Therefore it makes no sense to hold onto the clips until 2 weeks after they become relevant to the casual fan. Utter stupid **** from HBO, Showtime, Top Rank, DKP, GBP, etc.