Boxnation - Good or Bad for Boxing? and how long will it last??

The bad thing is that it has taken big fights away from the majority..but then I suppose SKY has to!!........The good thing is those that moan that there isn't enough Boxing get to watch almost as much as they like.....However is the Market really there....I think we are finding out!!

However with one of their prize fighters walking in Groves what does the future hold for BOXNATION......Once a Company looks like it's in trouble those associated sometimes get cold feet whether it be advertisers or subscribers..

Is it the beginning of the end and would it be good or bad for British Boxing.........

The channel is bad for boxing and I can't see it lasting an awful lot longer. £10 a month for a dedicated boxing channel that picks up some of the good overseas cards isn't bad for current fans but the problem is it won't attract any new fans to the sport which damages it's long term future. I can't see Frank attracting any new fighters to his stable while the company looks to be in trouble which is just as bigger problem for him as the advertisers showing little interest.

Well If Azania's news that Burns hasn't signed is true It looks like there might be trouble...

If you have a struggling channel you won't want to pay your Boxers too much as it is revenue that could be better spent on reviving the channel....

He took a big punt and left the sky door open for Hearn.....He might regret it..

Because there will be no way back..

Its a good thing as there was no boxnation before boxnation. All it needs a a couple of real cracking fights some interesting rivalries and a star name to carry it through.

You think it will survive??

I heard that Vasquez's team have not agreed terms. Burns might be looking to face Broner on Mayweather card I hope thats true.

Problem is though, their star names are leaving Frank.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You think it will survive??

To be honest terrestrial tv can sell anything just look at the Olympics and paraolympics. Made household names of everyone. So no I do not think it will survive.

Absolutely Az ..........Thing is people like Groves are admired by other members in the gym and seeing him walk puts ideas in heads..

Burns won't fight Broner whilst he's still with Warren....onetwo

Warren needs his belts...more than ever!!

I am looking forward to seeing what matchroom will do for thier charges now that the balance of power is in their favor now. To look at Price after the defeat and Maloney collapsing it looks like Price will shortly join up with Matchroom.

With Brook, Groves and whats left of Froch's career I sure do hope they look to boost exposure to the public..........somehow.

Price and Fury should have been made. A huge British heavyweight fight would have attracted positive interest but these fights are just not getting made. Degale v Groves was a big fight although both were pretty much early birds in their careers. Still it attracted interest, Mitchal v Burns was the same. If they can make these big fights then boxnation would get a huge shot in the arm.

if frank was to gamble a little bit with cleverly he might become a big name, if he could start getting big fights (hopkins, dawson, cloud etc) people would become interested. also if he managed chisora a little better (ie match him carefully) he too could become a big asset for frank

Cleverly and Chisora can't fight every week..........

That doesn't matter Truss...

They can repeat the fight 3 times a week until the next fight.

Job done.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The bad thing is that it has taken big fights away from the majority..but then I suppose SKY has to!!........The good thing is those that moan that there isn't enough Boxing get to watch almost as much as they like.....However is the Market really there....I think we are finding out!!

However with one of their prize fighters walking in Groves what does the future hold for BOXNATION......Once a Company looks like it's in trouble those associated sometimes get cold feet whether it be advertisers or subscribers..

Is it the beginning of the end and would it be good or bad for British Boxing.........

Has it taken away fights from the majority? As far as I am aware Sky and terrestial tv abandoned boxing and boxnation took the opportunity to show boxing.

Looking at it's subscriber rate...I'd say yes it has...

Very true Rob..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Looking at it's subscriber rate...I'd say yes it has...

Very true Rob..

Not at all. Boxnation was only formed because the other two sources (sky and terrestial tv) abandoned boxing. If Boxnation never existed where would you watch the fights it currently shows? Channel 5? Sky 1? Would they bother showing half the fights?

Boxnation was formed because Warren thought there was a niche in the market......

Certainly a good thing. Anything that increases exposure and publicity is good for boxing.

Like all sports, I would prefer they were on terrestrial so they got more exposure but SKY killed that hayday. Now that its out of the lantern the only way boxing can become more popular and universal is for more competition. A SKY monopoly was also bad.

Personally, I've thought the terrestrial channels have been too conservative and I commend Ch5 for trying something. Boxing will always be good viewing but with more competition in the market you have to manage it better. The terrestrial channels can't compete financially, so they just need to be more clever and sign up prospects/stables on long contracts and letting satellite and cable buy them out when the fighters become popular.

Audley apparently killed Boxing on BBC..........Not his fault just a complete muppet that decided his first ten fights were worth a million contract..

Gross mistake..all new pros fight garbage at first.

I appreciate that Truss. Audley killed terestrial boxing. Or you can also say, over eager BBC execs killed it. Which ever. But, after Audley the terrestrial channels never felt brave enough to sign up prospects... shame.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Boxnation was formed because Warren thought there was a niche in the market......

because sky and terrestial tv abandoned boxing.

SKY never abandoned Boxing.............Just limited their output.....

As soon as Warren left Hearn moved in..

but I agree with you about terrestrial...........

Different age Happy now...All the titles and the politics have turned people off..

I mean when every Brit seems to be winning or fighting for a "World" title.
......People think what is the point it doesn't MEAN anything.

In general, monopolies are bad for consumers. If only one company supplies the Gas then they charge what they want... because there's no competition. However, boxing is not gas, and fragmentation sucks bum.

In the case of boxing, unlike gas, competition harms whats on offer. We need a monopoly.... a ubiquitous, omnipotent, organisation focused on long term profit only.

A company so powerful, so self interested, so concerned with the future margins that it will unrelentingly fight for boxing's perpetuity.

Personally, i hope GoldenBoy ("or some other") pervades every free [boxing] space.

Until unity is achieved by an overarching capitalist force, the fights we want will remain a luxury.

Good boxing business (and fights) bring more lads into the game.

The more participants then the larger the talent pool.

The larger the talent pool the less the desire to protect a proteges record.

Forget Box-Nation. It's a channel dedicated to a minority sport (irrespective of our love for boxing it IS a minority sport). There may be quite a few darts fans but a channel dedicated to darts is not going to last till I'm grey.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:SKY never abandoned Boxing.............Just limited their output.....

As soon as Warren left Hearn moved in..

but I agree with you about terrestrial...........

Different age Happy now...All the titles and the politics have turned people off..

I mean when every Brit seems to be winning or fighting for a "World" title.
......People think what is the point it doesn't MEAN anything.

I think a major reason why boxing is no longer on terrestial tv is because of fans like yourself. You said on a different thread;
'There is such a wow fighter about the Klits...........That they are stuck in Germany and not on PPV...........' when discussing the klitschkos and their 'wow' factor.

You can't argue that boxers should fight on terrestial tv and then attack the Klitschkos because they fight on terrestial TV. Make your mind up.

I was being sarcastic..........

Said it all along it is bad idea. For sports to flourish and grow they need to attract new fans. That is just common sense. The way most people get into sport is by watching it and enjoying it, which then converts to either trying your hand at it or attending live shows.

If the sport is stuck away on a subscription only channel that offers nothing but boxing it will not be seen by anyone other than the hardcore who are already a fan of the sport. Hence the sport will struggle to garner more fans thethe more stuff that ends up on boxnation. As I have said previously I don't mind golf, will watch the Rder Cup and Majors but if a channel called golf nation was created I would not subscribe, as such the chances of me buying a golf magazine, attending a tournament or heaven forbid trying the sport are greatly reduced.

The sooner the channel dies on its arse or every other fighter leaves Frank due to their lack of expousre the better as far as I am concerned.

TheMackemMawler wrote:
We need a monopoly.... a ubiquitous, omnipotent, organisation focused on long term profit only.

A company so powerful, so self interested, so concerned with the future margins that it will unrelentingly fight for boxing's perpetuity.

Personally, i hope GoldenBoy ("or some other") pervades every free [boxing] space.

Until unity is achieved by an overarching capitalist force, the fights we want will remain a luxury.

“We need to sign all the talent and get all the TV dates. Then you can have your own agenda and have a schedule for the fans and the sport. You can do a monthly pay-per-view, a bi-weekly HBO fight. You can have the best fighters fight each other. When you have five or six promoters, it’s very difficult.” (Oscar De La Hoya, September 2010).

It seems the GoldenBoy himself agrees with you, Mackem......

He put it a lot simpler than i ever could too, no mention of Gas companies or anything.

victorgarco wrote:
As far as I am aware Sky and terrestial tv abandoned boxing

Here is a list of the Ring Magazines Fight of the Year for last 20 years.

1992 - Riddick Bowe W 12 Evander Holyfield I
1993 - Michael Carbajal KO 7 Humberto González I
1994 - Jorge Castro KO 9 John David Jackson I
1995 - Saman Sorjaturong KO 7 Humberto González
1996 - Evander Holyfield KO 11 Mike Tyson I
1997 - Arturo Gatti KO 5 Gabriel Ruelas
1998 - Ivan Robinson W 10 Arturo Gatti I
1999 - Paulie Ayala W 12 Johnny Tapia I
2000 - Erik Morales W 12 Marco Antonio Barrera I
2001 - Micky Ward W 10 Emanuel Augustus
2002 - Micky Ward W 10 Arturo Gatti I
2003 - Arturo Gatti W 10 Micky Ward III
2004 - Marco Antonio Barrera W 12 Erik Morales III
2005 - Diego Corrales KO 10 José Luis Castillo I
2006 - Somsak Sithchatchawal KO 10 Mahyar Monshipour
2007 - Israel Vázquez KO 6 Rafael Márquez II
2008 - Israel Vázquez W 12 Rafael Márquez III
2009 - Juan Manuel Marquez KO 9 Juan Diaz I
2010 - Giovani Segura KO 8 Ivan Calderon I
2011 - Victor Ortiz W 12 Andre Berto
2012 - Juan Manuel Marquez KO 6 Manny Pacquiao IV

With a couple of exceptions, all these fights will have been picked up by Sky Sports. I estimate that I watched about 15 of them 'live', and all of them on Sky Sports. If Sky didn't exist, how many of them do you think terrestrial TV would have picked up? I am going to guess at almost zero. These are just one fight per year from a US magazine, and doesn't even highlight the British Fights of the Year which I am guessing have almost all been shown on Sky. Then add in all the thousands and thousands of other fights that, although don't make this list, have been brilliant. You can even include the boring ones if you wish.

Where is the evidence that BBC or ITV would have picked any of these up? For a long time, terrestrial were only interested in fights of the magnitude of Benn v Eubank or fights that had a 'British' angle such as big Frank, Naseem Hamed and latterly, big Audley's attempts at a pro career, and look how that turned out for the BBC.

People look back with misty eyed longing for a time when boxing was a big player in terrestrial TV's planning, and it is an utter fallacy. The reality is, terrestrial TV haven't been interested in the wider boxing spectrum for decades. Without Sky's programming for the last 20 years, you would have been absolutely starved of good boxing action from around the world. Sky didn't abandon it, they filled a void left when terrestrial TV lost interest in anything other than superstar British names.

Sky have cut their programming now but who can blame them? Why would anyone blame them if they walked away completely? They can earn far more money from wendyball, rugby, F1 etc etc. Sports that offer them guaranteed revenue streams over a guaranteed period of time, something boxing just can't offer.

I wonder how many British, European and Commonwealth Champions would have made considerably less money in the last 20 years without Sky? Almost all of them I would assume. Sky didn't abandon boxing, they kept its pulse going for the last 2 decades.