This reminds me a little of the situation that ITV and their boxing coverage faced two years ago...they had no money, the usual argument, for extra shows .... but the 'talent' of Rosencrantz, Lord Rawling, Sir Duke, the soppy skinny geezer and King Barry was costing 800,000 pounds per year! Ouch!!! Adios.
Its just so frustrating that Sky serve up fights between one fighter fighting garbage week in week out and then when that fighter steps up, they don't even show that fight. So why build him up in the first place? Then we get the money excuse yet Smith has no problems flying over to Miami to lick Hayes arse for an hour at our expense.
I think Sky have had a nice return on investment with Haye to be fair It's simple really, what sells? David Haye sells... So a hour special show on Ringside makes sense. Plus I'm sure it's for another 2 fights, and they are going to make Sky $$$.... Plus it will get public talking about the Haye fights (especially if/when it is against one of the klitschko's), which is good for Boxing in general.
I have to admit i thought Adam Smith getting the job was good for boxing,but we are getting worse main events on SNF,**** PPVs and less U.S fights. If it is down to cost why all the extra pundits? I like the addition of woodhall mcguigan,but nothing agianst bob mee but what have they got him doing apart from clarifying rules everyone already knows?
One thing about Smith... I don't think he cares too much about what boxing fans think. The guy kept doing a job that 90% of boxing fans think he is awful at for the past 15 years. Ed Robinson came on here before and said that he wouldn't bother commentating because he knows he is awful at it and wouldn't disrespect the fans by doing a job he knows he cant do for years. I think he was talking about Smith when he made that comment.
I told people that this was the reason for Katisdis/Marquez not being shown and they dismissed it as a possibility. The fact that Hatton is not being shown just confirms it to me.
That may be the rationale but it's a bull**** excuse isn't it? Don't remember them not showing the Ryder Cup because it clashed with some Premier League football. It's just an excuse to avoid paying for the boxing.
It may not be the most sophisticated of analogies but the one that sticks out when I think of Sky Boxing is "you cannot polish a turd". I think they have made some very positive improvements recently but they are still badly lacking where in one area, the actual Boxing. Other than McDonnell-Jamoye none of their fights have really been of any interest to me and I cannot think of one undercard fight that they have put on that I have been really interested in. If the poor standards are down to low license fees then I don't blame the promoters for the crap that some of them have put on, as the saying goes you get what you pay for. The main thing I hate about British Boxing is the secrecy that the promoters and networks have in place. In the States you know the TV Licence Fees, PPV Figures, Fighters Purse's, Attendance, Gate Receipts and they announce their viewing figures. In the UK you can't find any of that, you can find the viewing figures if you go looking for them and even then you can only find it on occasions. If we are being honest threads like this are working of hearsay and presumptions and that is frustrating because I and I'm sure many of you as well want to know why Sky's Boxing Content for the most part is utter crap.
That generally echoes my sentiments on the subject it seems like they are touching it up round the edges a bit slicker presentation, new faces here and there, trying the odd different format but the actual end product, the boxing, has stayed the same or got worse. They need to either make the main event fights top level competitive fights. Ive got no problem with a low budget undercard if most of the money has been spent on getting a good opponent in for the main event. If this is not the case then get some decent undercard scraps on doesnt have to be big names but decents scraps or fights of interest.