Does Froch v Kessler prove that Boxnation et al are NOT helping the sport

Now, I don't like Adam Smith any more than the next guy, but it is hard to deny that SKY is the only way to go. Getting on channels 1-5 on a regular basis is the Holy Grail, true. But since Froch has been back with SKY his profile with the general public has soared. He has gone from the obscure Primetime fighter to a guy who sells out 17,000 tickets in a day or two. That is insane. I was never entirely sold on BoxNation, but truth be told, if I was a top British prospect I would be jumping ship to Hearn and the SKY deal faster than you can say bye bye goggle eyes.

SKY wins. It's as big exposure as boxers gets, and exposure on that channel makes a fighter as good as a household name.


In truth, even Groves profile has suffered since going on BoxNation, and he was known far and wide after Degale win.

Obviously Sky is the place to go (excluding terrestrial channels) as tey are the premium TV company in England and alot of households have Sky Sports

However you can't fault Warren, well you can but its a little harsh. If the company you arrange card to be shown on pull out what do you do?

Getting onto a terrestrial TV channel is difficult and if Hennessy had a bigger stable he's struggle to get enough cards for all of them to get exposure

Warren had to make a channel and due to no funding it had to be a pay to watch channel. How is Hatton promotions doing? He had the same problem as Warren but didnt do anything and is pretty much letting other promoters use his fighters

Froch's profile has improved drastically through sky but still doesn't warrant BoxOffice

What do you mean by no funding?????.....

Boxnation is great if the British fans want to see the bigger fights that happen over the pond. As for British prospects, its probably not the best platform.....

I think that it mainly proves how obscenely popular people are of good, honest fights. Like a piece of pure snatch, you can taste the goodness.

davidemore wrote:I think that it mainly proves how obscenely popular people are of good, honest fights. Like a piece of pure snatch, you can taste the goodness.

STOP!

Let the truth set you free bromancers Seanus and Il G.

davidemore wrote:I think that it mainly proves how obscenely popular people are of good, honest fights. Like a piece of man sausage, you can taste the goodness.

Corrected for emore

"Like a piece of pure snatch....."

with some father beans and a nice chianti...ssssssss"

Not if its shown on ppv

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Like a piece of pure snatch....."

with some father beans and a nice chianti...ssssssss"

Truss you do know that there is an entertainments section where you can discuss film on 606?-An Anthony Hopkins impression always goes down well with me though.Here's mine ;" I used to drink a lot in the 1970s, don't talk about that now, very boring,very boring".

Anyway, getting on-topic, how exciting is the Kessler fight?Captured my imagination for sure.As the old Python line goes, this is the shot in the arm for boxing that I so badly need.

Let's see...

A boxing fan has to pay £10 a month for BoxNation and they get some UK fights with up comers, Bunceys boxing hour and amateur shows. At LEAST once a month there's a big US fight on... all for £10 a month.

A boxing fan buys Sky Sports, pays £35 a month for a Prizefighter every quarter and 3 or 4 UK shows a year along with MAYBE 2 or 3 big US fights. You then have to purchase PPV every so often...

If anyone has damaged the sport of Boxing it would be Sky Sports. For a PREMIER sporting channel, their boxing fund is simply unnacceptable, especially given the massive interest in the sport following a successful Olympics and a massive raise in funding for the sport.

I am looking to cancel my Sky Sports fee due to the cost as I don't follow Football, or billiards or fat men throwing pins at a board. If I wanted to watch F1 I would watch it on BBC where there's a free HD option but Sky wanted to flex it's muscles and essentially WASTE money on it.

If anything BoxNation has done nothing but help the fans by having a central dedicated channel for the sport and I cannot fault them for the service.

If you only follow boxing then boxnation would be better value than Sky. But I cant imagine there are many people out there that subscribe to Sky exclusively for their boxing.

I alsos think part of the benefit being identified with Sky is the fact it does open boxing to a much wider audience rather than having it niched away to a small fanbase and doing very little to grow the sports or broaden its appeal to a wider audience.

If you only follow boxing then boxnation would be better value than Sky. But I cant imagine there are many people out there that subscribe to Sky exclusively for their boxing.

I alsos think part of the benefit being identified with Sky is the fact it does open boxing to a much wider audience rather than having it niched away to a small fanbase and doing very little to grow the sports or broaden its appeal to a wider audience.

You dont have to tell me twice manos.

Ah! I wondered what was going on with my computer there!