Thats boxing. Jan and half of Feb are usually crap. People will be moaning about the same thing next year though!
1. Why did you post this in this thread? 2. You can't compare BoxNation and Sky Sports. They both serve a different purpose. 3. Nobody is holding a gun to your head an forcing you to subscribe.
When Sky took all Frank ******'s fighters from ITV in 1995 it was because boxing pulled in massive viewers on Saturday nights and Sky wanted part of the action . Since then they have run the sport into the ground. I am sick of hearing how Sky have kept boxing alive - they ruined it in the first place. If boxing is bad business for Sky now it's completely their fault.
1. Because Frank deserves a little appreciation don't you think? 2. Yes I can and I did. There "purpose" is to make money; they have the same purpose. 3. I know. I don't subscribe to either.
2. From a selfish point of view I can defiinatly compare Sky Sports with Boxnation. I want a channel where I can watch boxing and those seem to be the 2 options. 3. If only the anti-Boxnation fans would take those sage words on-board!
1. As a Boxing channel, they are providing the bare minimum required. Most of the criticism of Frank has been as a promoter as is almost entirely valid. He hasn't done one good thing as a promoter in 2013. 2. So which will have a higher profit margin?
I'm not sure if Clev/Dracula is 50/50 but it's not a mismatch and a better fight than Clevs previous 2 opponents. Its Franks coty, then again its only his second card this year, providing the fighters get paid I can accept it.
Theres a few (Rampart etc) and more pop up on quiet months. Plus theres Robs, "this time its personal", sniping.
2. Thats fair enough but it's not objective. As a Multi Sports channel do Sky provide enough boxing? No. As a dedicated Boxing Channel do BoxNation provide enough boxing? NO 3. You could say the same thing to the anti Sky Sports brigade.