Tell ESPN you want to see Boxing here

I am going to ask for more german football and repeats of 1980's show jumping or whatever **** they show.

 

Where are the facts for the Froch fight? Also, if he's such a big draw why did no-one give a **** that his fight against Taylor wasn't live? Can you imagine the uproar if a Calzaghe/Hatton/Hamed/Benn/Eubank even Khan fight wasn't shown live? But no-one really cared about Froch - you think if he had really hit five million ITV wouldn't have been really interested? I heard three million for the Pascal fight which is still impressive, but why haven't any TV stations been in contact for the Super Six with a serious offer? Cos boxing isn't a draw!

Imagine if fifteen years ago one of our very few world champs was involved in one of the most exciting things to happen to boxing in ages (the super six)? It just wouldn't happen! If boxing was still popular, and we still had characters the people in television would show it - if everyone started hankering over watching Kilroy rather than Corrie you can be damn sure that he'd be on telly four times a week at prime time.

and re: boxing being second on Setanta, purely the way I saw it. Boxing had it's own dedicated show, frequent advertising and that. I certainly never watched rugby on Setanta but then I'm not a middle aged toff with worries over my sexuality like all rugger fans seem to be.

 

ESPN are the only channel likely to pick up any boxing. Once they're happy that they are now up and running ... and when they realise that they've a lot of empty Saturday nights next season when they're down to just 23 Premiership matches ... they might just get interested again.

I did hear some news that they might pick up on golf's USPGA rights which they might look to plug the gaps left by missing football. Which could be bad news!

Boxing News campaign to bring back boxing on the BBC is pointless. The Beeb are not interested and they have no money. So why would they spend big money for fights at 0300 in the morning for a couple of hundred thousand viewers. Why would they spend a lot of money to put fights on BBC3. The heads of sport there don't like boxing and above that the controllers of the channels don't want boxing cluttering up their channels.
They might raise an eyebrow if they were offered Amir Khan. They've heard of no one else and care even less!

If ITV do leave the sport then ESPN are last channel standing (other than Sky). They do have money. It's whether they care or think it will add any subscriptions.

 

^Too long to quote, but just one points - is it really down to the promoters, or to the actual boxers? How many superstars have we got? Way I see it, since Lewis, we've had one - Hatton, and his PPV results show just how successful he was. Sure, he had the Manchester following, but it spread organically.

That's the problem with promotion - you can't force people down the throats of the general public. Take Khan, beloved after the Olympics and then reviled for a couple of years until beginning to get a bit more popular recently - although only really within boxing circles. You can tell how popular people are when they go from free to paid - Howard Stern kept the majority of his audience when he went to radio you had to pay for, yet Khan's audiences have plummeted. Is that down to poor promotion, or just uninteresting boxers?

Would the premiership be as popular without Torres, Gerrard, Giggs, Drogba and Heskey?

 

and fifteen quid with adverts - absolute disgrace, what the **** am I paying for?

 

If you want more laughs, check out my blog http://martinthecity.wordpress.com

 

:rofl:rofl

 

For a PPV to "do well" it doesn't need to do huge numbers or an opponent. Khan-Presccot, Hatton-Paulie etc will all have made Sky/Warren a ruck of money to more than offset the advertising lost.

 

Im going to email them anyway, just incase.

 

Tell them you know "GazOC off of the Internet", it might get your foot in the door.