Well done Sky, you just destroyed Boxing's reputation to the general public.

HBO do worse, they hype up fighters and get them undeserving title shots and given them inflated purses. HBO try to tell us who the stars are rather than letting the fighters sort it out for themselves in the ring.

If people are stupid enough to buy into Sky's hype has only got themselves to blame. You don't have to be a boxing expert to know Audley's not on Haye's level. No one had a gun to their head forcing them to fork out 15 quid for a mismatch, everyone that bought the fight chose to do so.

 

Exactly:good. When those annoying people scoff at you for liking boxing, and say things like...'boxing is ****' 'i cant stand boxing anymore' 'im not paying/staying up for that crap you should watch UFC instead' and 'boxing is a ****ing joke and is always a let down' ....

Well its just getting harder and harder to argue against these people.

Greed and bull**** has made boxing a laughig stock to everyone but us lot, the hardcore fan

 

1) I don't work for Sky, I was just meaning British fans faults in general. That bell-end Mad Ballster made that comment.

2) Gooners, does Sky doing their job as a voracious, expansionist media company surprise you? It shouldn't - that's their business model. £50 for the full TV package, oh and £10 for HD. And, hey they're pushing 3D. Didn't News Corp, their major shareholder, bring out the biggest 3D film ever, Avatar? Could the two be connected?

Yes, they are. Sky want to make money. Plenty of media outlets, the 'fair and impartial' BBC included, made this fight what it was. They joined in with Sky on selling it.

And seriously, HBO don't sell complete dogs? Are you kidding? Their commentators are frequently cheer-leading undeserving fighters. To say otherwise is terribly naive. They aren't some sort of bastion of journalistic integrity. 24/7 was a shameful exercise in making Pac-Marg seem like it was worth PPV money. Anyone who paid attention could see it was biased, selective bollocks.

Showtime, less so. But the way they tried to sell Ward's unimpressive victory over Green tells you everything.

Sky are a media company. A commercial one. They rely on three things: advertising, subscriptions and PPV. They will do anything to build those things. Why would you expect different?

Me, I respond by just ignoring it. I watch in pubs, I go to friends' houses. Hype is easy to spot, the folly many made here was falling for it. Audley is EXACTLY what he was a decade ago. People were foolish to think he'd changed. Sky just did their jobs.

 

Klitscko vs Briggs was 1million times better than last nights fight. The defence of the fight DF by yourself and others is that it would do good for British boxing when it far more likley to have done the opposite.

 

I don't recall saying it was good for boxing... Please show me when I've said that.

It was good for Haye's bank account and it's been high-profile. Do you think that'll distract people from watching Haye again? It won't. They blame Audley because it was Audley who didn't want to fight.

And Vitali-Briggs was just as bad, Rob. That was a truly awful fight - Briggs just stood there and let Vitali unload on him. It says more about Vitali that he couldn't put him away.

 

It sounds like your saying, if you were stupid enough to let us rip you off by listening to the stuff we!! were telling you, then more fool you, that about right ?

Now you seem annoyed at some of the people who did not have the foresight to see this, the people who are now blaming the people who tried to pull the wool over their eyes with what they were telling them.

 

Sky have been doing this for years. Christ, the way they marketed Hatton-Lazcano would have made you thought Juan was a secret Kostya Tyszu!

I don't like it, but I'm smart enough not to believe it. If you believe and throw £15 down the drain, how is that Sky's fault? Their job is to sell you entertainment. It's up to you if you want to pay for it.

Did you honestly expect Sky to say to everyone that it's a **** fight?

 

Doesn't make it right no matter how many times they do it, also, Lazcone was a fringe to world class fighter at one point.



Yet you want to get disgruntled cause other people aren't, and wonder why they might be directing their anger at the people who were coercing their views on the fight? offering something for you to buy is one thing, trying to sell it to you by relentlessly trying to coerce your judgment is another, particularly when your doing it to casual fans who dont know any better. When you buy something, you expect to get whats on the box, or somewhere close to it, and if you not as clued up about that particularly thing, you listen to the so called experts, which is where Sky have taken liberties, but hey, if Sky want to drive potential generation of fans away, then its on them, they will lose more money in the long run when they turn to other combat sports like MMA.

Of coarse not, but taking it from one extreme to another to HL your point does not make it logical. You can still sell a fight sufficiently but telling the truth to a degree!, you can also still coerced people to a degree, but when you show a complete disregard for people the way Sky did prompting this fight, its sicking, particularly when the majority of people your selling the fight to, are casual fans, and your already mindful of that, particularly as the fighters themselves had already! done a good job of promoting it, not to mention how Haye and Harrison are relativity house hold names, no Sky have to go after it relentlessly, like they dont give a damn whether its unsatisfactory or not.

 

HBO are worse??? please don't talk ****? you honestly think HBO would ever show someone as bad as Harrison??

 

Maybe Sky should stop putting **** fights on ppv, that would be a step in the right direction. If Haye insists on fighting domestic level opposition he should get the same treatment as a domestic level fighter. When he fights a worthwhile challenger then Sky can ask their customers to pay a premium to watch it.

 

I honestly don't think Audley had any intention of winning that fight and I don't think him and Haye ever fell out. This whole thing was set up. They arranged it a couple of years back with their bull**** ''sparring liberties''. If Haye really wanted to punish Harrison he wouldnt have gifted him the biggest payday of his career and a crack at the world title. Harrison agreed not to throw a punch and basically let Haye KO him. Audley most likely won a nice few bets on that fight too.

 

DFTaylor this is why you **** me off. always got to act smart and be right. take your tongue out of hayes ass and admit last night was a farce. you have defended the joke all the time, just admit it was a pile of ****. you as deluded as harrison.

 

This^^

Sky put the Prescott Khan fight on PPV, and whilst Prescott has proven to be fringe a world class contender, Sky didn't know anything about him aside from his big KO record over obscure opposition in Columbia.

Of coarse Sky are there to make money, but you might argue they are there to give value for money so the punters buy PPV again, therefore they should be mindful when making these match ups, hyping them up as relentlessly as they do.

 

This is the network that showed Pavlik-Lockett and in two weeks is showing Berto-Hernandez whilst paying crazy money for it.

They pushed Chris Arreola as a legitimate HW contender, putting him in against a half retired Jameel McCline, Brian Minto and Israel Garcia (who was Audley's sparring partner!).

 

I swear some people on these boards come across as incredibly dim. This fight had no place on PPV. Very few fights do - including the Mag 7. Not a single PPV-worthy fight even on the original line-up.

Not sure how often I have to say it - this was a terrible fight. It had no business happening and certainly not on PPV. But once Sky did, of course they're going to want to maximise the revenue from it. But same as I will never subscribe to the ****ers' service, I wouldn't pay £15 for a fight. I went to a pub.

This is what I don't understand: people are angry over Sky's business model - why? They are a commercial TV company who rely on subscriptions. **** sake, Sky + is a product riddled with the same bugs TEN YEARS AFTER IT CAME OUT!

No one forced the public to believe it. This bollocks about 'trusting experts' = they're experts working for the company trying to sell the fight! They have no credibility as impartial judges.

At least after the fight they didn't try and coat it.