Boxnation

by **hampo17** Thu 19 Apr 2012, 5:07 pm

First topic message reminder :

Looks like they've listened to customers and are now doing a rolling contract instead of 6 months. Personally £10 a month is great for what I get and the amount I watch of it.

by Rowley Tue 01 May 2012, 9:04 am

So from what I can gather those of us who object to the channel should just accept that the sport is a marginalised and fringe sport and not worry about a channel that will only serve to exacerbate this problem and the speed with which the sport reaches complete irrelevance because we get to watch Brandon Rios fights, I will endevour to get with the programme in future.

by **Union Cane** Tue 01 May 2012, 9:11 am

Playing devil's advocate here rowley, but did the fan base of boxing increase greatly in the several months that BoxNation was free to air?

by Rowley Tue 01 May 2012, 9:14 am

God knows Union, this is one of the other major problems of the channel it does not have the advertising budget or resources to reach out to anyone beyond the hardcore, so my instinct would be to say probably not, but how would anyone be able to tell.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 9:19 am

Your missing the point Rowley. Boxnation isn't trying to marginalise the sport it's trying to enhance it. Sky don't care much for boxing and channel 5 only have 3 fighters and 1 of them has only had 3 fight.

Boxnation is putting boxing back on TV for the boxing fans who have been at the hands of Sky for to long. How can you expect a sport to grow when the hardcore fans are saying to many big fights pass that aren't on TV.

This is no longer the case boxnation gives the British fans more boxing on TV than almost anywhere on the planet. They are going to be showing fights from Japan soon what more can you ask for than Koki Kameda on your telebox?

It also allows for Warren to put on more shows. This allows young fighters to be more active which is surely one of the problems our star crop of amateurs that turned pro around 4 years have suffered because of.

Whilst I respect everyones right not to buy the channel to try and have some sort of moral high ground over it is just daft. It's a good thing for boxing if only people would stop being so negative.

by Rowley Tue 01 May 2012, 9:27 am

I still have to disagree Kev, genuinely believe attracting new fans to a sport is crucial to its growth and I would genuinely struggle to imagine a worst way to do this than a dedicated channel showing nothing but this sport, don't get me wrong if sky or anyone else had set up a dedicated channel as they have with F1 that you get for the price of your normal sky I would have no issues but when you have to pay for a channel covering nothing else nobody outside the hardcore is going to watch it.

Also the hardcore fans are not the problem, we are addicts, we have been dumped on by the sport for so long we would have deserted it long ago had we any sense, we will see the fights we want irrepsective, either by them being shown legally or by more underhand methods, however my objections have never been whether this channel is a good thing for hardcore fans, would be churlish to argue that the chance to see every big fight is a bad thing

by manos de piedra Tue 01 May 2012, 9:28 am

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Your missing the point Rowley. Boxnation isn't trying to marginalise the sport it's trying to enhance it. Sky don't care much for boxing and channel 5 only have 3 fighters and 1 of them has only had 3 fight.

Boxnation is putting boxing back on TV for the boxing fans who have been at the hands of Sky for to long. How can you expect a sport to grow when the hardcore fans are saying to many big fights pass that aren't on TV.

This is no longer the case boxnation gives the British fans more boxing on TV than almost anywhere on the planet. They are going to be showing fights from Japan soon what more can you ask for than Koki Kameda on your telebox?

It also allows for Warren to put on more shows. This allows young fighters to be more active which is surely one of the problems our star crop of amateurs that turned pro around 4 years have suffered because of.

Whilst I respect everyones right not to buy the channel to try and have some sort of moral high ground over it is just daft. It's a good thing for boxing if only people would stop being so negative.

The point is it doesnt have the platform, at least at present, to acheive growing the sport.

Sky, for all their bit part coverage of the sport, do. You dont need to look much further than Hayes heavyweight campaign or Amir Khan to see the massive difference having boxing on a channel like Sky does in comparison to a niche subscription channells. Even a duff fight like Haye v Harrison which was poor on paper and even poorer in practice still probably got more people taking notice and talking than Mayweather/Cotto on boxnation will. Likewise the likes of DeGale/Groves etc.

I dont dispute that boxnation has every interest in trying to grow the sport. Boxing fans are critical to its survival and success. But I question that it has effective means to do that. Certainly in comparison with terrestial tv or Sky it doesnt.

Its early days with the channell though and its unrealistic to expect it to be a powerhouse in its first year of operation. Possibly in the future it can expand and have the budget to become boxings exclusive channell. But at present I dont think its a good thing to have all the big fights in boxing split over two or three subscriptions channells either in terms of attracting new fans or for the exixting fan who has to shell out for mulitple channells to follow the sport.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 9:42 am

The channel is now pay per month though making it cheaper than PPV and you get about 8 shows for your money. My point is how can you expect to grow the fan base of the sport when the hardcore are complaining?

Surely in order for the sport to grow it needs to actually be on TV. I think it will end up a sort of feeder channel for Sky building fighters to a level before they leave Warren for Matchroom or Hatton.

I do think that if ti was another promoter like Maloney or Hatton then the hardcore fans who have been against it from the start would have took to it a bit better. Mr Warren is not a liked man and rightly so he's a horrible man and this gives him free licence to make the matches he wants.

That's true but lets not pretend Sky demand 50/50 match ups after all they gave us Haye v Harrison for the generous price of £15! Warren does get more scope to bring the council workers over to fight for World titles but I would be happy to pay for the foreign output alone and I imagine a lot of fans are the same.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 10:00 am

Macklin left Warren for Hatton.

Time will tell if Sky are demanding better match ups I'm not convinced but we will see. One thing that you can't argue with is they don't care about boxing that much. They very rarely show big fights from abroad any more.

Froch isn't PPV because he has no personality so the public won't pay £15 to watch him fight. Khan has a 3 fight deal no PPV but Sky will bring back PPV if they can get Khan v Brook made.

by manos de piedra Tue 01 May 2012, 10:01 am

Warren is nothing to do with my own feelings on the channel. Im merely speculating on whether moving boxing to a niche subscription channel is overall a good thing for the sport.

At the moment, as things stand, you have boxing coverage in the UK split between two channels mainly which are both subscription. This doesnt represent value for the fan. If it were a choice between not having boxing on tv at all or having boxnation then of course boxnation would be prefferable. But what its doing at the moment is essentially competing with Sky for boxing coverage and I would imagine if it becomes a success Sky would not be too disappointed to give boxing up to them.

I think isolating or marginalising the fight through tools like niche channels and most of all ppv have really hurt the sport long term and will continue to do so. If you look at Germany and boxing in Eastern Europe its shown on RTL which is a regular channel and the sport has really reaped the benefits in terms of growing its fanbase. Even the Klitschkos who are two of the biggest stars in boxing at the moment fight on regular tv. As such the divisions like heavyweight and cruiserweight which have a large European flavour have really taken off there. The drawback is that individually boxers like the Klitschkos cant make the kind of mega millions per fight somebody like Mayweather can, despite having a huge audience but for the health of the sport in general its far better. Mayweather is lucky is he gets a couple of million people to pay ppv for his fights in a country the size of the U.S. The Klitschkos are exposed to a far bigger audience by virtue of terrestial tv.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 10:10 am

But we are in a position that if it isn't on boxnation then it isn't on TV. Sky have no interest in what goes on in the rest of Europe except for the Klitschkos. Their interest in what goes on in the States is minimal. They were outbid for Mayweather v Ortiz and Pacquiao v Marquez by Primetime.

by manos de piedra Tue 01 May 2012, 10:21 am

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:But we are in a position that if it isn't on boxnation then it isn't on TV. Sky have no interest in what goes on in the rest of Europe except for the Klitschkos. Their interest in what goes on in the States is minimal. They were outbid for Mayweather v Ortiz and Pacquiao v Marquez by Primetime.

Yes I think you are right in that regard. I would agree that if its a choice between very limited coverage of the sport or having it on a channel like boxnation then boxnation is the lesser of two evils. But really I think the sport needs to look at ways of getting itself back into the mainstream. Mainland Europe has show it can be done with great benefits to the sport. Sky dropping ppv is a positive move.

I think in the short term, you are probably right in your view on boxnation. But Im questioning if long term it will be any benefit to the sport or just further self cannibalisation of a marginalised sport the way ppv ultimately did.

Even Tyson Fury being on terrestial tv in my opinion shows that there is still and can be a demand for boxing on regular tv. As far as I have heard he does pretty decent viewing numbers despite his opposition not always being decent. If millions are willing to tune in to watch him then why not others?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 12:14 pm

manos de piedra wrote:
SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:But we are in a position that if it isn't on boxnation then it isn't on TV. Sky have no interest in what goes on in the rest of Europe except for the Klitschkos. Their interest in what goes on in the States is minimal. They were outbid for Mayweather v Ortiz and Pacquiao v Marquez by Primetime.

Yes I think you are right in that regard. I would agree that if its a choice between very limited coverage of the sport or having it on a channel like boxnation then boxnation is the lesser of two evils. But really I think the sport needs to look at ways of getting itself back into the mainstream. Mainland Europe has show it can be done with great benefits to the sport. Sky dropping ppv is a positive move.

I think in the short term, you are probably right in your view on boxnation. But Im questioning if long term it will be any benefit to the sport or just further self cannibalisation of a marginalised sport the way ppv ultimately did.

Even Tyson Fury being on terrestial tv in my opinion shows that there is still and can be a demand for boxing on regular tv. As far as I have heard he does pretty decent viewing numbers despite his opposition not always being decent. If millions are willing to tune in to watch him then why not others?

Sky dropping PPV isn't a positive move. A few years ago Ricky Hatton done good PPV numbers before him Hamed did very good numbers. Lewis did great figures over here considering he fought mainly in the States but he was a heavyweight. Sky dropping PPV looks like boxing has no star in this country.

I think the damage was done before boxnation which makes it a positive move just getting more boxing on TV regardless of the platform.

Terrestrial TV can't generate the cash Sky can so Fury although I do really like what Mick Hennessey is doing and I think he has put himself in a great position to pick up a few of the Olympians because he missed out badly with the last group of decent amateurs we had around 2008. Micks problem will come if any of his fighters move onto World level and they want to earn big money. Channel 5 have shown no interest in showing any other boxing.

by manos de piedra Tue 01 May 2012, 12:57 pm

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:
manos de piedra wrote:
SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:But we are in a position that if it isn't on boxnation then it isn't on TV. Sky have no interest in what goes on in the rest of Europe except for the Klitschkos. Their interest in what goes on in the States is minimal. They were outbid for Mayweather v Ortiz and Pacquiao v Marquez by Primetime.

Yes I think you are right in that regard. I would agree that if its a choice between very limited coverage of the sport or having it on a channel like boxnation then boxnation is the lesser of two evils. But really I think the sport needs to look at ways of getting itself back into the mainstream. Mainland Europe has show it can be done with great benefits to the sport. Sky dropping ppv is a positive move.

I think in the short term, you are probably right in your view on boxnation. But Im questioning if long term it will be any benefit to the sport or just further self cannibalisation of a marginalised sport the way ppv ultimately did.

Even Tyson Fury being on terrestial tv in my opinion shows that there is still and can be a demand for boxing on regular tv. As far as I have heard he does pretty decent viewing numbers despite his opposition not always being decent. If millions are willing to tune in to watch him then why not others?

Sky dropping PPV isn't a positive move. A few years ago Ricky Hatton done good PPV numbers before him Hamed did very good numbers. Lewis did great figures over here considering he fought mainly in the States but he was a heavyweight. Sky dropping PPV looks like boxing has no star in this country.

I think the damage was done before boxnation which makes it a positive move just getting more boxing on TV regardless of the platform.

Terrestrial TV can't generate the cash Sky can so Fury although I do really like what Mick Hennessey is doing and I think he has put himself in a great position to pick up a few of the Olympians because he missed out badly with the last group of decent amateurs we had around 2008. Micks problem will come if any of his fighters move onto World level and they want to earn big money. Channel 5 have shown no interest in showing any other boxing.

I disagree completely. No ppv is only a good thing for boxing. PPV damages the sport. Nobody wants to pay 15 or 20 quid for a fight if they could watch it for free. America is the worst. You have wash out match ups like Jones v Trinidad charged at 40 dollars a pop. Its a rip off.

I dont think Channel 5 isnt interested in showing other boxers its just that most boxers want to fight where the money on offer is greater. I also think the numbers Fury gets viewing his fights indicates that the appetite out there for boxing is not as weak as might seem. 5 million tuned in to watch him fight Chisora in the UK. thats almost 5 times as many people that payed for Mayweather v Ortiz on ppv in a country the size of the U.S for example just to put it in perspective. There is too much short term thinking and greed in the sport and not enough regulation. It would be better if the BBBC could issue licence to fighters and centrally contract them to organisation and then look to control the tv rights to boxing which could be sold exclusively to highest bidding tv channels rather than having numerous fighters and promoters all operating as individuals.

Im looking at what options are best for the development of the sport. Not where individual fighters and promoters can fleece the most money. The model in germany is far healthier for the sport. And it also appears to work well for all parties concerned. Fans, fighters and promoters. Big time boxing on terrestial tv broadcoast to lots of countries. Without ppv, the money the fighters earn is not the same as the top U.S guys. But its still more than sufficient to earn a comfortable living and the sport thrives as a result.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Tue 01 May 2012, 2:27 pm

Tyson Fury pulls the viewers in about 3m apparently. I think Galahad and Eubank pulled in about 1.7m viewers. Calzaghe pulled in great viewing figures so did Froch but both had to go to Satellite to make good money.

Less money from TV means a lesser level of opponent comes over here due to there not being as much money in the sport. Boxers don't care about the good of the sport they care about making money. Terrestrial TV isn't interested in boxing.

There was nothing stopping the BBC or ITV picking up the hundreds of good fights Sky have ignored over the year. TV isn't ignoring boxing for no reason there is no conspiracy it just isn't the sport it used to be in this country.

The fact it draws viewing figures on channel 5 is irrelevant really because almost any sport that is solely on satellite and then went on terrestrial TV on the rare occasion is going to see a massive hike viewing figures.

by **Seanusarrilius** Wed 02 May 2012, 1:02 am

Boxnation is a nice enough channel but not as a subscription channel. Sky sports could offer so much more exposure. Boxing is a small cake and it's already sliced into too many pieces as it is. Terrestial and Sky sports. or a dedicated channel that doesn't charge. Otherwise. No new fans

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed 02 May 2012, 9:33 am

I'm not arguing with that but how can you expect to grow the fan base of a sport when the existing fan base is complaining that far to many good shows aren't on TV over here. That's the position we were in before boxnation.

Sky are an irrelevance boxnation haven't took much away from Sky. If Sky wanted to they could have gave us the sort of output that boxnation do but they chose not to. terrestrial TV don't care about boxing. Like I said above there is no conspiracy and it is no accident there has been so little boxing on free to air TV over the last few years.

As for boxnation not charging how would that work?

They need to make money they don't get the rights to show all the shows from overseas they do for free.

by **Union Cane** Wed 02 May 2012, 9:41 am

If they didn't charge they'd have to fill the shows with adverts, which would mean less Bunce, so isn't all bad, but if it came down to a choice between paying £10 a month or having adverts in between rounds, I'd rather pay the tenner.

by The Galveston Giant Wed 02 May 2012, 9:45 am

I'd rather have adverts Laugh

by **Union Cane** Wed 02 May 2012, 10:20 am

Spoiler:

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed 02 May 2012, 3:58 pm

Just to further show Boxnation is the way forward Sky have cut their boxing budget by half for their next season of boxing and are looking to put on around 24 shows way down on the 44 they had hoped to put on.

This was the reason they let Hatton go. It seems that David Pryce saved Frank Maloneys backside. It will be interesting to see what Hatton does because as of the end of July he needs a TV deal.

I can't see him striking up a deal with Warren to go on boxnation and free to air TV have shown little interest in boxing so it's hard to imagine any of them being keen to sign up Hatton considering he has no star in his stable.

by Soldier_Of_Fortune Wed 02 May 2012, 4:01 pm

I think Quigg has a good chance of making a name for himself, although his fight against Munroe could go either way (am edging towards Munroe ATM).

Towers also has got the tools to make a bit of an impact in the heavyweight division. Everyone loves a big heavyweight who can punch.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Wed 02 May 2012, 4:18 pm

I would go for Munroe on that one as well. Not convinced he is World class but I think he might just be a bit too good for Quigg right now. Quigg had no amateur experience so he is still quite inexperienced. Munroe also seems a bit riled about the exposure Frampton and Quigg have had which might make Munroe a bit more hungry to put on a show.

He could end up on Eurosport he's put a show on that before.

by Sugar Floyd Louis Thu 03 May 2012, 12:56 pm

Can anyone just confirm with me... I'm only interested in May 5th, if I subscribe can I cancel next month?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Thu 03 May 2012, 1:12 pm

Yes you pay £10 and get it for the month of May. Just go on their site.

by The Galveston Giant Thu 03 May 2012, 1:13 pm

Do you have to cancel at the end of the month Kev or just pay a one off payment every month?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Thu 03 May 2012, 1:18 pm

You can choose on their website to only take it for a month. You can take a 1 month rolling contract which you can cancel at any time. That's what I have.

by Sugar Floyd Louis Thu 03 May 2012, 1:28 pm

Thanks for the info PBK

by The Galveston Giant Thu 03 May 2012, 1:52 pm

Cheers Kev. thumbsup

by Adam D Thu 03 May 2012, 1:55 pm

who would have believed that boxnation would get positive, constructive comments! Thank you Primetime!

by Adam D Thu 10 May 2012, 9:19 pm

Does anyone get a sneaky suspicion that by the time that the Haye Chis fight happens, that Boxnation might be back to a longer tie in period?

by Sponsored content

Boxnation

Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation

Re: Boxnation