Is Having So Many Belts A Good Thing Or Bad?

First topic message reminder :

With the ridiculous amount of belts that are around nowadays I thought I would gauge peoples opinions in whether it is a good thign having so many belts about.

Now clearly the cons with having so many belts about is it can get confusing to the average viewer of boxing, I.E at the moment having 3 World HW Champions at the same time seems odd to some people and they don't know who to trust as who is best and don't know who to spend the PPV money on to watch.

But there is good things with having so many belts, I was watching an interview with a fighter that lost to Felix Sturm, called Noe Tulio Gonzalez and he won one of the silver belts and he said that it was a major moment in his career and has given him the confidence to move on after his defeat to Sturm and progress as a fighter as he sees it as a milestone, so this can be very profitable for the growth of younger boxers.

What you guys think?

I concur.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

You do know watching a fight on a stream isn't legal right?

So if I pay to watch a stream legally it's illegal?? are you sure?

What legal streams are these then?

Scott i'm 95% certain that Froch/Pascal had viewing figures of around 6/7mil, will endeavour to find the exact numbers

Larger amounts of information on the internet don't translate to accessibility to me

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

You do know watching a fight on a stream isn't legal right?

So if I pay to watch a stream legally it's illegal?? are you sure?

What legal streams are these then?

Scott i'm 95% certain that Froch/Pascal had viewing figures of around 6/7mil, will endeavour to find the exact numbers

Larger amounts of information on the internet don't translate to accessibility to me

The ones that cost approx £1 a fight, some charge £3 month membership. You get high quality legal streams.

Greater access to fights translates as greater access to fights for me.

What sites are these then out of interest?

Where's the great access if they're not on TV, not shown in pubs or clubs, advertised heavily or easy to view for the average Joe.

Who were the ones that hosted Froch v Taylor. It was only available via internet stream.

To be fair I haven't live 'streamed' anything for quite a while because it's always on so late. I prefer watching it in Youtube the next morning.

Is streaming illegal anyway? Hosting maybe, and piracy, not sure about streaming though. I don't see how live streaming differs to watching Youtube.

Boxing has never been advertised heavily. Haye v Valuev was advertised as heavily as anything else I remember. People seem to have this view of the past like big fights were on live every week and everybody loved boxing. That was never the case. If boxing is so dead because of the lack of access to it how can Ricky Hatton sell out more arena than anyone before him, how can David Haye sell more PPV's than anyone even when fighing bums. Just how have these guys attracted the 'casual' fans that had no access to them?

Live streaming is illegal without doubt and so is posting any material that isn't your own on youtube or any such sites, both are a copyright infringement

Do you not think it's more accessible to watch Benn/Eubank on ITV rather than Haye/Harrison on PPV?

I thought primetime handled Froch-Taylor, or am I wrong? Anyway, there ARE legal streams out there, but it's no-one's preferred method of viewing.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Live streaming is illegal without doubt and so is posting any material that isn't your own on youtube or any such sites, both are a copyright infringement

Do you not think it's more accessible to watch Benn/Eubank on ITV rather than Haye/Harrison on PPV?

I think a lot of companies are a bit lax on YouTube, 'cause they figure the hassle of having stuff removed isn't worth the effort, and leaving stuff online gives them greater exposure without having to make any effort themselves.

Eubank v Benn is a good example of the times. Two domestic fighters, no where near as good as the likes of Jones and Toney, yet because no one had any means of finding out anything about Jones and Toney they got away with promoting it as the best v the best.

The terrestrial vs SKY TV arguement has finished.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Eubank v Benn is a good example of the times. Two domestic fighters, no where near as good as the likes of Jones and Toney, yet because no one had any means of finding out anything about Jones and Toney they got away with promoting it as the best v the best.

The terrestrial vs SKY TV arguement has finished.

Well they still managed to make the Haye/Harrison fight sellable despite this extra information, so not sure that would have made much difference

BALTIMORA wrote:I thought primetime handled Froch-Taylor, or am I wrong? Anyway, there ARE legal streams out there, but it's no-one's preferred method of viewing.

I think primetime did Froch v Kessler/Dirrell. Hennesy messed up the TV rights of Froch v Taylor and had to stick it on an internet stream. I can't remember what the site was called but I think they showed other fights aswell.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Eubank v Benn is a good example of the times. Two domestic fighters, no where near as good as the likes of Jones and Toney, yet because no one had any means of finding out anything about Jones and Toney they got away with promoting it as the best v the best.

The terrestrial vs SKY TV arguement has finished.

Well they still managed to make the Haye/Harrison fight sellable despite this extra information, so not sure that would have made much difference

The Harrison fight sold because loads of people knew who he was I guess.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:I thought primetime handled Froch-Taylor, or am I wrong? Anyway, there ARE legal streams out there, but it's no-one's preferred method of viewing.

I think primetime did Froch v Kessler/Dirrell. Hennesy messed up the TV rights of Froch v Taylor and had to stick it on an internet stream. I can't remember what the site was called but I think they showed other fights aswell.

It was a Primetime internet stream.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Eubank v Benn is a good example of the times. Two domestic fighters, no where near as good as the likes of Jones and Toney, yet because no one had any means of finding out anything about Jones and Toney they got away with promoting it as the best v the best.

The terrestrial vs SKY TV arguement has finished.

Well they still managed to make the Haye/Harrison fight sellable despite this extra information, so not sure that would have made much difference

The Harrison fight sold because loads of people knew who he was I guess.

The same reason why Eubank/Benn was watched by so many as well surely irrespective of their talent

Scottrf wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:I thought primetime handled Froch-Taylor, or am I wrong? Anyway, there ARE legal streams out there, but it's no-one's preferred method of viewing.

I think primetime did Froch v Kessler/Dirrell. Hennesy messed up the TV rights of Froch v Taylor and had to stick it on an internet stream. I can't remember what the site was called but I think they showed other fights aswell.

It was a Primetime internet stream.

Either way, it was definitely kosher.

As for Eubank-Benn receiving more exposure than Jones-Toney-are we talking UK? Because I thought two UK fighters getting more UK press than two Americans would be a no-brainer.

As for Eubank-Benn receiving more exposure than Jones-Toney-are we talking UK? Because I thought two UK fighters getting more UK press than two Americans would be a no-brainer.
..............
I remember watching Jonathan Ross' countdown to the fight, Toney came on and got absolutely hammered by Benn and Eubank, mentioned Eubank's mam, proved the fat no-mannered chav he is, Benn would of beat him as well as Chris in my opinion. Roy Jones absolutely schooled him as well, Coxy.

Jukebox Timebomb

The problem I have with what you are saying is that the climate of todays boxing has progressed beyond ten or twenty years ago. That the best must fight the best and so on. Its not the case. The environment is still there for defending alphabet titles, protecting fighters and padding records.

You say Naseem Hamed was protected? Really? He had acheived a heck of alot more than Kell Brook at the equivalent stages. He fought some good opposition in the U.S (McCulluogh, Kelley) and was eventually beaten by Barrera which finished his career. in effect. Fighters like Bute, Zavek, Senchenko, Burns to name but a few all regularly defend their belts without facing top oppositon. Saul Alvare v Hatton was for a Light Middleweight title!

You also insinuate fans now are much more informed based primarily on the internet? I have followed boxing for decades and managed just fine knowing who were quality fighters and who were not without the internet.

You are also using examples of fights such as Pacquiao v Mosley, Ward v Abraham and Froch v Johnson as examples of premier fights. These are not premier or the best facing the best by any stretch.

Your point about the internet allowing more accessible information is entirely valid but as far as I can tell it hasnt made fans more knowledgeable and in some cases quite the opposite from guys who read boxrec and believe themselves to be experts without ever watching a fighter. I repeatedly run into people who clearly have just scanned boxrec and are basing entire opinions on a win/loss column or date in it.

To give you example, it is a belief held by many that Ray Robinson avoided fighting Charley Burley in the 40s. I was told recently that this fight was never possible because Robinson only moved to Middleweight when Burley was near retirement. This is clearly a case of somebody just looking at boxrec to form their judgement which was incorrect as the fight could have happened long before that and Robinson could have moved up to Middle, or Burley down to Welter at plenty of stages in the 40s. Is this really a case of the internet resulting in the more informed fan? To me its an example of the internet actually producing a skewed and incorrect point of view based on boxrec results.

It would be like someone telling you in twenty years that Calzaghe was better than Jones because he beat him and that Calzaghe only moved to Light heavyweight around 2008 and therefore could never have met Hopkins earlier. Clearly Calzaghe could easily have been at light heavyweight years before if he wished.

I accept your point that sites like youtube and tools like online streaming can be utilised by fans to great affect and give them acessability that was not there in the past. But I dont believe fans are any more informed these days and nor do I think the days of protected fighters and padded records are no longer around. There is just little evidence to support this. Boxing in my view has become more marginalised as the years have gone on because despite the internet being widely available the honus is put entirely on the potential fan to go searching for it. In past eras boxing was widely covered in newpapers and free to air television. The likes of Bruno, Eubank and Benn were household names in Britain because of this. Nowadays somebody like Sergio Martinez or Nonito Donaire are top pound for pound stars yet they receive minimal coverage outside dedicated followers of the sport despite being top pound for pound names. Just because the information is there doesnt mean people are going to avail of it and it has become far more niche these days than the mainstream coverage boxing used to enjoy.

Steven_89 wrote:As for Eubank-Benn receiving more exposure than Jones-Toney-are we talking UK? Because I thought two UK fighters getting more UK press than two Americans would be a no-brainer.
..............
I remember watching Jonathan Ross' countdown to the fight, Toney came on and got absolutely hammered by Benn and Eubank, mentioned Eubank's mam, proved the fat no-mannered chav he is, Benn would of beat him as well as Chris in my opinion. Roy Jones absolutely schooled him as well, Coxy.

In a talking match, Toney wins by KO. In boxing he beats Eubank by wide UD and Benn via KO.

Steven_89 wrote:As for Eubank-Benn receiving more exposure than Jones-Toney-are we talking UK? Because I thought two UK fighters getting more UK press than two Americans would be a no-brainer.
..............
I remember watching Jonathan Ross' countdown to the fight, Toney came on and got absolutely hammered by Benn and Eubank, mentioned Eubank's mam, proved the fat no-mannered chav he is, Benn would of beat him as well as Chris in my opinion. Roy Jones absolutely schooled him as well, Coxy.

With Mickey Rourke standing in the background!!

I believe Toney was a level above the likes of Benn and Eubank.

I accept your point that sites like youtube and tools like online streaming can be utilised by fans to great affect and give them acessability that was not there in the past. But I dont believe fans are any more informed these days and nor do I think the days of protected fighters and padded records are no longer around. There is just little evidence to support this. Boxing in my view has become more marginalised as the years have gone on because despite the internet being widely available the honus is put entirely on the potential fan to go searching for it. In past eras boxing was widely covered in newpapers and free to air television. The likes of Bruno, Eubank and Benn were household names in Britain because of this. Nowadays somebody like Sergio Martinez or Nonito Donaire are top pound for pound stars yet they receive minimal coverage outside dedicated followers of the sport despite being top pound for pound names. Just because the information is there doesnt mean people are going to avail of it and it has become far more niche these days than the mainstream coverage boxing used to enjoy.

With more information readily available, I fail to see how fans couldn't be more informed today.

I've probably seen all of Martinez's major fights. Could I have seen the top P4P guys fights back in Benn and Eubanks days, no.

The likes of Ricky Burns will remain small fry until he is matched decently. Of course the difference is we can all tell how good his opposition is nowadays without having to rely on what Frank Warren says.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

I accept your point that sites like youtube and tools like online streaming can be utilised by fans to great affect and give them acessability that was not there in the past. But I dont believe fans are any more informed these days and nor do I think the days of protected fighters and padded records are no longer around. There is just little evidence to support this. Boxing in my view has become more marginalised as the years have gone on because despite the internet being widely available the honus is put entirely on the potential fan to go searching for it. In past eras boxing was widely covered in newpapers and free to air television. The likes of Bruno, Eubank and Benn were household names in Britain because of this. Nowadays somebody like Sergio Martinez or Nonito Donaire are top pound for pound stars yet they receive minimal coverage outside dedicated followers of the sport despite being top pound for pound names. Just because the information is there doesnt mean people are going to avail of it and it has become far more niche these days than the mainstream coverage boxing used to enjoy.

With more information readily available, I fail to see how fans couldn't be more informed today.

I've probably seen all of Martinez's major fights. Could I have seen the top P4P guys fights back in Benn and Eubanks days, no.

The likes of Ricky Burns will remain small fry until he is matched decently. Of course the difference is we can all tell how good his opposition is nowadays without having to rely on what Frank Warren says.

Where are you getting that people ever had to listen to Frank Warren to find out how good someone was? Do you really think that people couldnt tell who was good from who wasnt before the internet arrived? Is this what you are saying. Because as someone who has followed boxing in five decades I can assure you that this is not the case. There were enough publications and sources of informtion in the days before the t.v never mind the internet to allow people to know what fighters were quality. Just because information is there on youtube doesnt mean that everyone is going to access it and everyone is an expert. The casual boxing fan who read the paper or watched the news or listened to the radio every day in past eras would encounter mainstream reporting of boxing. This promoted the sport firstly, and secondly was ample coverage to inform even the most casual of readers. Nowadays boxing coverage is not mainstream at all. It rarely makes the papers (which are read by millions) and it rarely makes the news (which is watched by millions). Thus its losing a massive audience. This point seems lost on you. Instead its been confined to the internet, and while still available, does not nearly have the same widespread appeal as the entire honus is on people to go searching for it. For hardcore fans the internet has facilitated boxing but not for the public in general or the sport in general as they have no incentive to go searching online to watch Sergio Martinez, a guy they have never heard of. Has there ever been an era where the general public knows so little about boxing or its current competitors? So while the internet is great if you were a fan of the sport years ago its done very little for the sport as a whole and is not substitution for the mainstream coverage and appeal the sport once had.

How could a fan of Boxing find out anything about the sport 20 +years ago.

All you had were highlights on grandstand, maybe one live fight a month and the odd newspaper column. Only the die hards would subscribe to Ring Mag, and there wasn't much info in that.

How would you get to watch a fighter like Sergio Martinez years ago? You'd know next to nothing about him.

Why are fairwether fans so important. It's the same with the Premier League. The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:How could a fan of Boxing find out anything about the sport 20 +years ago.

All you had were highlights on grandstand, maybe one live fight a month and the odd newspaper column. Only the die hards would subscribe to Ring Mag, and there wasn't much info in that.

How would you get to watch a fighter like Sergio Martinez years ago? You'd know next to nothing about him.

Why are fairwether fans so important. It's the same with the Premier League. The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

This is where you are incorrect. Martinez would not be unknown years ago. The guy is a top 10 pound for pound rated fighter. Are you really saying boxing fans would know next to nothing about him in these circumstances?

Martinez would be more widely known because he would receive more mainstream coverage in a sport that recieved more mainstream coverage.

I dont know when you began following boxing so I cant comment on what eras you grew up watching. But I began following it before the internet and I can promise you I did not need it to tell me who was rated or who was legitimate. Boxing sources were readily available.

I accept your point that nowadays the internet has improved things for boxing die hards. My point is there is less and less of them because outside of the internet it is not getting the same coverage. How do most people begin following it? It isnt through searching for it online. Most people get into boxing either through doing it, reading about, seeing it on tv and seeing coverage of it. If the honus switches to people having to search it out online then they arent being introduced to it and the sport becomes marginalised as a whole and the number of fans following it diminishes. I cant think of another era where so few people are aware of so many boxers.

To emphasis my point, the boxers that have had the most interest in Britain recently have been the ones that recive the most coverage. A useless boxer like Harrison is more well known in Britain than probably our best champion Carl Froch. This is due to all the media coverage Harrison gets. Not because people follow him online. Its important that boxing maintains a strong following in order to flourish so if one adopts the attitude that only the die hards matter and that the information is all online its up to you to find it then the consequences for the sport and its fanbase in general is a negative one. Carl Froch is a case in point to this A British World Champion that has been in some brilliant fights against top opposition yet only a tiny percentage of British people know about him. Is this really indicative of more knowledged and informed fans or a healthy state of the sport?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Well, you wouldn't know, since you weren't there forty five years ago, would you ? Some of us were there, and we are in a better position than you are to say whether the coverage was good enough.

I'm only 26 so going on what my Dad and Grandad told me the mainstream coverage of boxing was much better years ago. Only hardcore fans go on the internet and look for fights. Their is no coverage of boxing on free to air TV in Britain anymore so it clearly doesn't get the exposure it used to.

The thing about Carl Froch is that he did have mainstream coverage. Someone commented earlier that one of his fights had something like 5 mil viewers. Froch's problem is that he's been promoted awfully, just as he was becoming a star fat Mick couldn't get him a TV contract.

Ricky Hatton on the other hand has never been on mainstream TV, and yet is prob the most popular British fighter of all time and everyone knows who he is.

Hatton had a freakishly large following which no one has enjoyed since and not many before him had. Their is no real mainstream coverage of boxing on British TV outwith the weekly stuff from sky. Nothing on free to air TV because of Skys contracts with promoters isn't good for the sport.
Froch getting 5 million viewers shows how good a backing the sport can get but how long ago was that? He's been on Primetime since.

Froch v Pascal was his last fight on ITV I think. There's more boxing on Eurosport now than there ever was on old terrestrial TV. Back in the day there were only really two channels. If boxing was on it was guaranteed good viewing figures.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Well, you wouldn't know, since you weren't there forty five years ago, would you ? Some of us were there, and we are in a better position than you are to say whether the coverage was good enough.

Agreed. It was good enough years ago. We had you-tube, live streaming, PPV channels, boxing on a weekly basis on several channels. Yep, sportsnight and grandstand as well as World of Sport was just as good.

AZ the point is it's mostly hardcore fans that use youtube and live streaming to watch fights.
When fighters like Calzaghe and Froch were on ITV they pulled in great audiences which isn't the case with fights on Sky. Boxing is becoming a niche sport in that respect.
No coverage on free to air TV is bad for the sport in terms of not getting the mainstream coverage and having the casual fans it once enjoyed.

azania wrote:Agreed. It was good enough years ago. We had you-tube, live streaming, PPV channels, boxing on a weekly basis on several channels. Yep, sportsnight and grandstand as well as World of Sport was just as good.

Well I guess that begs the question as to why you know sod all about anything, then.

prettyboykev wrote:AZ the point is it's mostly hardcore fans that use youtube and live streaming to watch fights.
When fighters like Calzaghe and Froch were on ITV they pulled in great audiences which isn't the case with fights on Sky. Boxing is becoming a niche sport in that respect.
No coverage on free to air TV is bad for the sport in terms of not getting the mainstream coverage and having the casual fans it once enjoyed.

The thing here imo is that access to boxing is easier. But knowledge of current boxing is far lower because they are not on free TV. Joe Public know Haye, Khan and errrrr who else? Boxing hardly makes the back pages and if it does, its a small article buried somewhere. As a sport it is becoming marginalised unfortunately.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Agreed. It was good enough years ago. We had you-tube, live streaming, PPV channels, boxing on a weekly basis on several channels. Yep, sportsnight and grandstand as well as World of Sport was just as good.

Well I guess that begs the question as to why you know sod all about anything, then.

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:AZ the point is it's mostly hardcore fans that use youtube and live streaming to watch fights.
When fighters like Calzaghe and Froch were on ITV they pulled in great audiences which isn't the case with fights on Sky. Boxing is becoming a niche sport in that respect.
No coverage on free to air TV is bad for the sport in terms of not getting the mainstream coverage and having the casual fans it once enjoyed.

The thing here imo is that access to boxing is easier. But knowledge of current boxing is far lower because they are not on free TV. Joe Public know Haye, Khan and errrrr who else? Boxing hardly makes the back pages and if it does, its a small article buried somewhere. As a sport it is becoming marginalised unfortunately.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The thing about Carl Froch is that he did have mainstream coverage. Someone commented earlier that one of his fights had something like 5 mil viewers. Froch's problem is that he's been promoted awfully, just as he was becoming a star fat Mick couldn't get him a TV contract.

Ricky Hatton on the other hand has never been on mainstream TV, and yet is prob the most popular British fighter of all time and everyone knows who he is.

Hatton got loads of mainstream coverage. He was no more popular than the likes of Frank Bruno or Henry Cooper before him. Especially in comparison to someone like Froch. You are skimming around the issue. Froch is barely known in England and that is a direct result of having little or no coverage as boxing is no longer considered mainstream. It doesnt matter thant you can find out his middle name and where he lives and view his fights online. People wont know much about him if he isnt getting proper coverage. The same with Martinez, or Donaire or a whole host of other fighters.

If you put the guy on Sky Sports news and cover his fights then he becomes more popular and well known. It would be almost unthinkable for Britain to have a world champion that was so unknown in previous decades. Eubank, Benn, Bruno, Lewis, Hamed were all far more widely known.

Take snooker as a non boxing example. Its a sport I never really followed but in the late 70s and into the 80s it got huge coverage in Britain and I could tell you all about Davis, White, Taylor, Higgins and so on. Now the info and matches may be available online but I know very little about the sport and who is prominant in it outside a few names simply because it no longer gets the same sort of coverage. Im sure dedicated snooker fans might avail of the online phenomenon but the sport in general has lost serious viewers and is nowhere near as prominant.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Well, you wouldn't know, since you weren't there forty five years ago, would you ? Some of us were there, and we are in a better position than you are to say whether the coverage was good enough.

I started wacthing in the 90's. I remember a sports show on TV whwere they showed highlights of Jones v Toney. Up until then I'd though Benn and Eubank were obviously the worlds best, how would I know any different, but it was obvious Jones was on a different level. I think the first time I got to actually watch a full Jones fight was when he fought Clinton Woods, which highlights what it was like back then. Jones was prob the best fighter of that generation, I was a fan, but couldn't get to see him fight. It ws only because he was fighting a Brit that the BBC bothered picking it up. All you got to see back then was domestic fighters and the odd super-fight, nothing in-between.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Well, you wouldn't know, since you weren't there forty five years ago, would you ? Some of us were there, and we are in a better position than you are to say whether the coverage was good enough.

I started wacthing in the 90's. I remember a sports show on TV whwere they showed highlights of Jones v Toney. Up until then I'd though Benn and Eubank were obviously the worlds best, how would I know any different, but it was obvious Jones was on a different level. I think the first time I got to actually watch a full Jones fight was when he fought Clinton Woods, which highlights what it was like back then. Jones was prob the best fighter of that generation, I was a fan, but couldn't get to see him fight. It ws only because he was fighting a Brit that the BBC bothered picking it up. All you got to see back then was domestic fighters and the odd super-fight, nothing in-between.

I wouldn't disagree with that, Juke.

My point was more along the lines that boxing used to be a high profile sport, but it has, over the last few decades, become increasingly marginalised. The net, and particularly youtube, are a great blessing to hardcore fans, but in general the coverage of the sport is pretty poor, nowadays.

Take snooker as a non boxing example. Its a sport I never really followed but in the late 70s and into the 80s it got huge coverage in Britain and I could tell you all about Davis, White, Taylor, Higgins and so on. Now the info and matches may be available online but I know very little about the sport and who is prominant in it outside a few names simply because it no longer gets the same sort of coverage. Im sure dedicated snooker fans might avail of the online phenomenon but the sport in general has lost serious viewers and is nowhere near as prominant.

Snookers popularity isn't dwindling because of a lack of mainstream coverage. Mainstream coverage has been cut-back because it isn't so popular nowadays.

Boxing was the opposite. It became popular enough to be put on PPV and so it's main stream coverage reduced.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:AZ the point is it's mostly hardcore fans that use youtube and live streaming to watch fights.
When fighters like Calzaghe and Froch were on ITV they pulled in great audiences which isn't the case with fights on Sky. Boxing is becoming a niche sport in that respect.
No coverage on free to air TV is bad for the sport in terms of not getting the mainstream coverage and having the casual fans it once enjoyed.

The thing here imo is that access to boxing is easier. But knowledge of current boxing is far lower because they are not on free TV. Joe Public know Haye, Khan and errrrr who else? Boxing hardly makes the back pages and if it does, its a small article buried somewhere. As a sport it is becoming marginalised unfortunately.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

What? Hang on a mo! You agree with me on something boxing related?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:The greater access to all things Boxing we have nowadays far out-weighs the paltry mainstream coverage of years ago.

Well, you wouldn't know, since you weren't there forty five years ago, would you ? Some of us were there, and we are in a better position than you are to say whether the coverage was good enough.

I started wacthing in the 90's. I remember a sports show on TV whwere they showed highlights of Jones v Toney. Up until then I'd though Benn and Eubank were obviously the worlds best, how would I know any different, but it was obvious Jones was on a different level. I think the first time I got to actually watch a full Jones fight was when he fought Clinton Woods, which highlights what it was like back then. Jones was prob the best fighter of that generation, I was a fan, but couldn't get to see him fight. It ws only because he was fighting a Brit that the BBC bothered picking it up. All you got to see back then was domestic fighters and the odd super-fight, nothing in-between.

That's a very good point Juke. Boxing on free TV focussed on mainly UK fighters. Obviously Tyson was shown as well as Leonard and the fab 4. Outside of that I used to but boxing news, Ring and KO/Boxing Illustrated (3 months behind). RJJ only made TV here with the Toney and Woods fights.

But even british fighters are getting overlooked because of SKY as they are no longer on free tv. Not everyone gets sky sports.

I think this debate has run its course.

It all depends on what yopu prefer.

Mainstream low volume coverage of Boxing, or greater volume and pay for it.

Is it better for Boxing having 2 mil casual fans, or 1 mil true fans?

Skys contracts with promoters don't allow them to go to other British TV channels which is ridiculous. Domestic boxing on free to air TV would be good for British boxing and would probably help enhance the sports standing in Britain boosting Skys viewing figures.

prettyboykev wrote:Skys contracts with promoters don't allow them to go to other British TV channels which is ridiculous. Domestic boxing on free to air TV would be good for British boxing and would probably help enhance the sports standing in Britain boosting Skys viewing figures.

It did wonders for Khan. As soon as he went to sky he was PPV material.

British boxing is in good shape domestically plenty of good fighters around. Sad thing is though a large number of the British public won't know who DeGale and Gavin are.
A large number don't know who Froch and Burns are and they are World champions.
Sky have been good for boxing in Britain with the introduction of PPV fights but recently maybe because of the emergence of Setanta a few years ago they are doing buisness with a self preservation attitude that isn't good for the sport in general.

prettyboykev wrote:British boxing is in good shape domestically plenty of good fighters around. Sad thing is though a large number of the British public won't know who DeGale and Gavin are.
A large number don't know who Froch and Burns are and they are World champions.
Sky have been good for boxing in Britain with the introduction of PPV fights but recently maybe because of the emergence of Setanta a few years ago they are doing buisness with a self preservation attitude that isn't good for the sport in general.

I think many know DeGale as he has done several interviews for various papers. But not many know Groves and as you say Gavin who imo is the top prospect. Sky pay the boxers well so they do not want to fight on free tv. Sad but true.

If DeGale, Groves and Cleverly had a few fights on free to air TV Sky would have more buys for their upcoming PPV. They aren't household names. Very short sighted approach.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Take snooker as a non boxing example. Its a sport I never really followed but in the late 70s and into the 80s it got huge coverage in Britain and I could tell you all about Davis, White, Taylor, Higgins and so on. Now the info and matches may be available online but I know very little about the sport and who is prominant in it outside a few names simply because it no longer gets the same sort of coverage. Im sure dedicated snooker fans might avail of the online phenomenon but the sport in general has lost serious viewers and is nowhere near as prominant.

Snookers popularity isn't dwindling because of a lack of mainstream coverage. Mainstream coverage has been cut-back because it isn't so popular nowadays.

Boxing was the opposite. It became popular enough to be put on PPV and so it's main stream coverage reduced.

No you keep putting a spin on things.

Boxing is dwindling now. Just as snooker has. That is the comparison. If it was so popular then why is barely mentioned in the news or papers? Just because it has ppv doesnt mean the average news channel or newspaper cant include some columns on it. Only the very biggest fights get covered. This was not the case years ago.

All the online facilities in the world wont help the sport if it dwindles in popularity. And the numerous weights, titles and lack of mainstream coverage is a huge factor in this. You need the internet now to follow the sport effectively. That wasnt the case for the vast majority of time.

I agree with you 100% that the internet has helped hardcore boxing fans. But it hasnt made the sport bigger, more popular or fans more informed. Its simply facilitated those that already followed the sport. I dont consider this sufficient substitute for the days when most people would now who the majority of boxing champions were, journalists for newspapers would follow and cover the sport in depth and in the media boxing would make the headlines. I dont think the internets impact has helped in that regard.

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:British boxing is in good shape domestically plenty of good fighters around. Sad thing is though a large number of the British public won't know who DeGale and Gavin are.
A large number don't know who Froch and Burns are and they are World champions.
Sky have been good for boxing in Britain with the introduction of PPV fights but recently maybe because of the emergence of Setanta a few years ago they are doing buisness with a self preservation attitude that isn't good for the sport in general.

I think many know DeGale as he has done several interviews for various papers. But not many know Groves and as you say Gavin who imo is the top prospect. Sky pay the boxers well so they do not want to fight on free tv. Sad but true.

If DeGale, Groves and Cleverly had a few fights on free to air TV Sky would have more buys for their upcoming PPV. They aren't household names. Very short sighted approach from the biggest broadcaster in this country.