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

Rob, you must have selective reading skills. I've said about 50 ****ing times now: it's a **** fight. It was always a **** fight. Harrison had no place fighting for a title and Haye had no place fighting him when there were better opponents out there.

Last night was about making money. Plain and simple. You cannot blame Sky for doing what they are here to do: make money from their content. If you choose to buy that content, it's on you.

I'm not even defending Haye. I've bigger things in my life, including the thing we're working on now. It was a poor fight as you and I agreed when it was announced. My attitude hasn't changed. And Haye's performance was less than impressive considering he had a crash test dummy in front of him.

But beyond that - I made my feelings known. I didn't buy the fight, I didn't support the night and I certainly don't give Haye any credit for it.

So please, before you climb your high horse again, check what I've written. My opinion on this fight hasn't changed.

 

You are the only one coming across as dim, dim and in denial. Why are you trying to defend this ****? You are obviously one of the oh so enlightened few who don't fall for Sky's hype but thousands of people do buy into it. You are basically condoning Sky ripping off thousands of paying customers, and why? Because you are a Haye fan! Pathetic.

 

The general public are naive. A large portion of the public are susceptible to being coerced by what the media is telling them, not just in sport, but in all walks of life, beit fashion, what ever, which is where Sky have a duty, to make money, but also not to take the ****, only as I say, if they want to do that, its on them, as in the long run they will potentially drive a portion of the next generation fans away to other combat sports.

I thought you said WE!, implying you work for Sky?

Whats so hard to understand about certain people directing the anger toward the people who tried to tell them this fight was going to be something it wasn't? and were not just talking about hardcore fans here, we are talking about casual fans who dont know any better, and so are listening to the views of the various Sky pundits.

Well you would expect a portion of those pundits to be truthful to the point where if the fight does disappoint, that they aint just lost a potential subscriber as they tried to completely! pull the wool over his eyes, as apposed to doing it a little bit, where he did not notice, therefore will come back again.


BTW, why are you getting so exasperated about this, not everyone thinks the way you and I do, why is that so hard to grasp?

 

How can you even interpret this as condoning it?

I DIDN'T PAY FOR THE FIGHT! I told everyone I know who asked about it that it was a terrible fight. My best friend sat there beside me, who knew almost nothing about boxing, and said "Isn't Harrison a bit ****?"

It's not about being enlightened. It's about knowing how Sky works. I don't like it (especially their appalling news coverage), but you can't blame them for trying to sell their product.

It's nothing to do with being a Haye fan. He had no business agreeing this fight. I've said that like six times today on this forum.

Here's a question: are you a Sky subscriber?

If so, why don't you cancel your service in protest?

 

Mate, that's not why. It's that simply pointing this out sees me being accused of bias and defending something that it's obvious I disagree with.

Was Sky's behaviour and marketing shamefully misleading? Yes. So was HBO's of Pac-Margo. Don't see then getting the same **** right now.

I don't see how pointing this out and saying that's what their job is, is the same as me saying it's ok. It's not.

 

I've spent the last few weeks pleading with a mate not to put money on Harrison. This mate has Sky but not Internet access cause he's of the older generation. He generally watches Sky programming and has been brainwashed into thinking Fraudley had a chance. This same mate watches all the boxing he can get his hands on but doesn't follow it like I do. It's been interesting trying to explain to him why Harrison didn't have a chance but the combination of Skys marketing and the temptation of Skybet were too much. He didn't bet luckily but the texts between us were certainly interesting last night. I called it 2 rounds but the fight went EXACTLY as I had explained to my mate. He won't stop watching and paying for boxing cause he really does love it but he's not obsessed enough to analyse the fights.
It's these people Sky have by the bollocks.
BTW there where loads of polls on this forum about who was going to pay for the PPV, and if I remember correctly, there were far more people saying yes than no.

 

Do you think Jim Lampley was getting excited about Robert Allen's chances against Nard when they fought a 3rd time? no, he wasn't, infact you could here the distain in his voice, I mean how many times have you heard Merchant lambasting an opponent for the way they are fighting, questioning their credentials? lets face it, all networks do it to degrees, but no one is relentless as Sky.


Arreola is a fringe world class contender, infact he would run through Harrison like wet paper himself.

 

By passing the blame onto the "dim" people who buy into the **** Sky pimps you are in essence condoning them ripping people off. It's not Sky's fault, it's the thick ****s who buy it after weeks of being bombarded with the hype who are to blame, right?!

I am a Sky subscriber but I did not pay from that sham last night. Why would I cancel my subscription? I'm happy to pay for it as it means I get boxing on a weekly basis plus other sports. For boxing fans to cancel their subscriptions would be like cutting off their nose to spite their face. It's the ppv scam I have a problem with, not my Sky subscription.

 

Its obvious to you, but as I say, why is it so hard for you to understand that different people have a different thought process, and that some are more susceptible to being coerced into buying into hype? particularly casual fans.

Dude, this is what makes me think you have a self serving agenda here, dont play like that. Margo had a legitimate chance to beat Pac, he is a world class fighter, was a world champ, just cause we saw him get a thorough beating, does not mean we can play revisionist historian now, where as with Harrison we can, cause we already knew that fight would go do pretty much how it did, that he was not a world class fighter, or even a fringe world contender, that he has literally NO! chance.


Their job, therefore seemingly okay from what I have gathered from talking to you.

 

-sigh- if I buy something based on marketing alone, I'm being a fool. Trusting sky for anything is a bad idea.

 

I give up. I don't like being told I condone something when I don't. I haven't defended anything.

As for margarito, he had no chance. Most picked against him. And the fight was more or less as expected. Let's not revise history - as you rightly said.

 

Im sticking the facts, it seems to me your revising history cause you have now seen how it played out, thus making the assertion he NEVER had a chance, when he clearly did, infact you can bump threads on various sites, this one included, where some picked him by KO, try and find many that picked Harrison to win by or KO, or see how many pundits who picked Margo, than what picked Harrison to win.

 

Ive read most comments but not all. Anyway, heres my 2 pence.

Sky have a duty to serve up a good fight between 2 credible opponents and especially for a top of the bill fight which is available as PPV. Fighters can get knocked out early which is fair enough but this was a serious mismatch with one fighter too scared to fight.

Sky wont give a crap about serving up a **** fight as all they are worried about is increasing their subscriber base and increasing revenue. Ive only ever paid for 1 fight... Hatton v Mayweather. They will only take notice if people dont pay for the ppv. Therefore my advice is... dont pay for it.

 

I believe that Sky probably has severely damaged boxing's reputation to the general public, simply because the public do not know who is a good fighter and what is a good matchup, they have to rely on national media sources and they will always big up a fight involving a big-name British fighter.

The fact that either Klitschko vs Haye would be a competitive match-up is irrelevant - the people have been told that Harrison/Haye was a big-time fight and they have been heavily deceived. They don't know that the Klitschko's are any better, they are going to get their information from sources they may not trust anymore. If that's the case, major damage has been done.

 

Those of us old enough to lived through the Tyson era will remember how many times people said they felt ripped off when staying up late to watch him.
Michael Spinks, Carl Williams, Henry Tillman, Peter McNeely, Bruce Seldon... I remember people fuming over those fights as well.
After a short while we forget the disapointment and only remember the result.

Next time Haye fights the media it's going to all over the fight once again.
Wait and see.