Board of Control suspends Stephen Smith

[Strongback]

"LIVERPOOL’S former British super-feathweight champion Stephen Smith has been suspended by the British Boxing Board of Control.

Smith, who claims to have terminated his contract with Frank Warren to sign with Eddie Hearn at Matchroom, had relinquished his belt (on October 30) after the Board informed him that he had to defend it against Gary Sykes on the December 7 bill in Liverpool, promoted by Warren.

He instead opted to fight on the November 23 show in Manchester, headlined by Carl Froch and George Groves, but the Board has suspended his licence until his dispute with Warren has been heard.

There is no date yet for a hearing.

Robert Smith, general secretary at the Board of Control, said they are dealing with a number of disputes at present, involving Hearn, Warren, Dennis Hobson, Jamie McDonnell and Smith.

Two Smith brothers, including Paul and Liam, still hold British crowns while Callum is the reigning English champion."


http://boxingnewsonline.net/latest/news/board-of-control-suspends-stephen-smith




I have to admit I did smile when I read the headline.  

[TRUSSMAN66]

Just get Luxembourg to sanction his fights..

[Strongback]

Obviously the Board saw the threat of a Hearn monopoly and have decided to make it more difficult for Matchroom to tap up/ poach all the best fighters in Britain.

[TRUSSMAN66]

"Obviously".........You don't know what they thought.........

What we do know is these morons are happy to allow Chisora and Warren straight back after humiliating them getting Luxembourg to sanction Haye-Chisora..

So forgive me If I have no time for these namby pamby a**holes

[Rowley]

I have to admit I did smile when I read the headline.  

Yeah, a bloke cann't earn a living now. I am doing cartwheels.

[Strongback]

I have to admit I did smile when I read the headline.  

Yeah, a bloke cann't earn a living now. I am doing cartwheels.

But isn't he going to make a fortune when he start fighting for Eddie.

[Strongback]

"Obviously".........You don't know what they thought.........

What we do know is these morons are happy to allow Chisora and Warren straight back after humiliating them getting Luxembourg to sanction Haye-Chisora..

So forgive me If I have no time for these namby pamby a**holes

Why was Smith banned then?

It's more obvious.

[Hammersmith harrier]

You're hatred of anything to do with Hearn is bordering on the pathetic now Strongy, lets actually consider the person most affected by this is Smith himself not Hearn.

[oxring]

You're hatred of anything to do with Hearn is bordering on the pathetic now Strongy, lets actually consider the person most affected by this is Smith himself not Hearn.

Hang on - you hate a man whose prospects fight real(ish) opponents and has kept boxing on viewable subscription TV - as opposed to a man who continues to pad records with extras from "the evil dead" and has set up his own "fantastic" channel where you can pay extra for the privilege of watching them?

Do you feel cold Strongback? You should do, you're being fleeced.

Supporting Warren in the Warren-Hearn battle is, sad to say, supporting being fleeced. I do not believe that boxing is viable as a sport if it appears on its own designated subscription channel. I do not subscribe to the boxnation model of success. I do not believe boxing will thrive on ppv subscription - ideally, I believe it should be on terrestrial TV but given this is unlikely, sky sports is the best that can be offered.

Over the past month, I have seen and enjoyed the development of Joshua's career, Lomachenko's debut, Cruz-Salido, Bradley-Marquez, Perez-Mago and the continuation of the spectacle that is GGG. A fantastic range of real fights. All of which I would be deprived of if boxnation succeeds in its goal to monopolise the coverage of boxing television.

Furthermore, the development of the Smith brothers, one of whom's career has now been sadly curtailed by trite politics, Joshua, Brook - Hearn has offered up a good range of fights and tests over the past month.

[Strongback]

You're hatred of anything to do with Hearn is bordering on the pathetic now Strongy, lets actually consider the person most affected by this is Smith himself not Hearn.

Hang on - you hate a man whose prospects fight real(ish) opponents and has kept boxing on viewable subscription TV - as opposed to a man who continues to pad records with extras from "the evil dead" and has set up his own "fantastic" channel where you can pay extra for the privilege of watching them?

Do you feel cold Strongback? You should do, you're being fleeced.

Supporting Warren in the Warren-Hearn battle is, sad to say, supporting being fleeced. I do not believe that boxing is viable as a sport if it appears on its own designated subscription channel. I do not subscribe to the boxnation model of success. I do not believe boxing will thrive on ppv subscription - ideally, I believe it should be on terrestrial TV but given this is unlikely, sky sports is the best that can be offered.

Over the past month, I have seen and enjoyed the development of Joshua's career, Lomachenko's debut, Cruz-Salido, Bradley-Marquez, Perez-Mago and the continuation of the spectacle that is GGG. A fantastic range of real fights. All of which I would be deprived of if boxnation succeeds in its goal to monopolise the coverage of boxing television.

Furthermore, the development of the Smith brothers, one of whom's career has now been sadly curtailed by trite politics, Joshua, Brook - Hearn has offered up a good range of fights and tests over the past month.

Believe me I have no love for Warren. The only comparison I have made between Warren and Hearn is that they are one in the same thing. They grew up within a stones throw from each other and have the same mentality. Both men are fond of suing people. They are barrow boys done good in my view. Harry Rednapp isn't much different.

My issue is with the Hearns trying to buy up British boxing in the same way they have done with darts and snooker. Barry is the Chairman of World Snooker and the promoter of the sport, Sulaiman could only dream of that level of control.

Too much control in the hands of one company is bad for boxing or any sport.

As far as Smith goes he got a bit greedy and took a chance he would get away with short changing Warren and it has backed fired on him. Jamie McDonnell made exactly the same mistake and lost his world belt. Eddie Hearn isn't looking too clever in this and he might be best advised to keep his hands off contracted fighters. The BBCofC have said as much by their ruling today. Eddie does seem to be learning on the job.

[oxring]

Too much control in the hands of one company is bad for boxing or any sport.  

Eddie Hearn isn't looking too clever in this and he might be best advised to keep his hands off contracted fighters. The BBCofC have said as much by their ruling today.  Eddie does seem to be learning on the job.

There are a few issues here.

Your first point is generally true - monopolies are to be avoided if competition is to improve service and decrease prices. Over the past 20 years we have had 5 major promotional outfits plying their trade in the UK - Warren, Hennessy, Hearn I & II and Maloney. Over that time, boxing has ceased to be found on terrestrial TV channels and the public awareness of the sport has declined. I do not believe that the competition between those 5 men has led to any improvement in the sport in the UK, quite the reverse. Whilst I accept Warren's ongoing existence, I would prefer for Hearn to continue the sport in the manner he runs it now.

Second point - it is no skin of Hearn's nose if the BBBoC wish to strip or ban or revoke the license of Warren's ex-fighters. Warren himself, as Trussman so excellently observes, has provided the blueprint for correct behaviour. Perhaps the Icelandic boxing board of control would like to provide a licence to Steven Smith? For sure, McDonnell losing his title will be a tad irritating - however - the fighter has chosen to sign with Hearn willingly, knowing the risks.

Even if Eddie is learning on the job - I will take his current offering over the dross and bile Warren has fed us over the past 20 years. Think of Tackie, Pedersen, Salem, Manfredo. Think Chisora-Haye.

[catchweight]

Hearn is the one more likely to monopolise. He is Sky Sports boxing now from a British perspective. Hes had a had a hand now in derailing the careers of McDonnell and Smith. Practically speaking a monopoly for boxnation might actual work better for the boxing fan than a monopoly for Sky. Boxnation is 24/7 pure boxing where as Sky will always view boxing as way down its list of priorities.

[oxring]

Hearn is the one more likely to monopolise. He is Sky Sports boxing now from a British perspective. Hes had a had a hand now in derailing the careers of McDonnell and Smith. Practically speaking a monopoly for boxnation might actual work better for the boxing fan than a monopoly for Sky. Boxnation is 24/7 pure boxing where as Sky will always view boxing as way down its list of priorities.

Disagree. A monopoly on a channel you have to pay for on top of the extra you already have to pay is not good news for British boxing.

Even if Sky see boxing down the list of priorities, there's a weekly boxing show and regular cards this past 2-3 months. Not sure how boxing is supposed to attract fans if there's no regular boxing available to watch - and if there are no fans, there's no money. If there's no money there's fewer participants. Fewer participants, lesser quality. Lesser quality, lesser sport.

[catchweight]

Theres limited room for boxing to expand on Sky and its a subscription channel itself. The added benefit of Sky is that it has a broad range of sports on offer. But from a purely boxing perspective its unlikely to ever amount to more than Hearns house fighters and a handful of overseas cards every year. On top of that as soon as a Hearn can he will be charging ppv on top as he has with Froch against Groves so its not going to be great value. Its going to depend on what perspective you take but if you were a dedicated boxing fan that didnt have much interest in most other sports a subscription boxing channel like boxnation will represent better value overall. If you have the money and can pay for both then having both is better than one or the other. A large part of boxing is driven by subscription nowadays anyway in the form of ppv. Mayweather is 60 or 70 dollars a pop but was free to existing boxnation subscribers. An affordable, dedicated subscription boxing channel that showed all the big fights wouldnt be too bad. Better than limited coverage on Sky Sports with additional ppv costs which is what will happen if Hearn monopolises things.

[mobilemaster8]

Well my car window was smashed in overnight. Great.

[Rowley]

Well my car window was smashed in overnight. Great.

Are you posting on this thread to see if there is a way Strongy can blame Hearn for it? (Sorry by the way, did they nick much?)

[oxring]

An affordable, dedicated subscription boxing channel that showed all the big fights wouldnt be too bad.

This would be a fair point - but boxnation is not an affordable subscription boxing channel for the quality it offers.

Furthermore, I do not see how a casual fan is going to become interested in a fighter if he isn't shown on television?  Fury's public awareness has improved massively following the screening of his fights on channel 5.  Same with Brook and Hearn etc.

At some point, catchweight, you and I will grow old, older than Rowley.  Where will the young fans be then - if boxing is on subscription only channels, at the bottom of the sky sports menu next to carp-fishermen's world?

If we want our sport to be live and relevant, it must be watched

[mobilemaster8]

Haha cheers Rowley! No mate, nothing was in there,stereo is standard fit, no wallet or anything. I can only presume some chavs thought it would be big and clever.

By chavs i mean Hearn.

[Rowley]

As long as they have not cleared out your Westlife CD's I guess not too much harm has been done. Still annoying though.

[hazharrison]

Gary Sykes is left in the lurch once again. Steve Wood (his manager) explained that they're hoping to sort a vacant title fight out for Sykes by the end of the week (Gary's been left training for a date that was never likely to come off -- he, too, has been left unable to work in all of this promotional jumble).

Could be Sykes vs Walsh.

Why wouldn't Smith just swallow his pride and take the Sykes fight in Liverpool on Dec 7th (under Warren) and THEN look at his contract?

[mobilemaster8]

Keep me CD's in the boot with a multichanger.......didnt think to rob that.....thankfully.
Yeh is very annoying. £60 out of pocket for excess at AutoGlass. Cheers chavs.

[Strongback]

An affordable, dedicated subscription boxing channel that showed all the big fights wouldnt be too bad.

This would be a fair point - but boxnation is not an affordable subscription boxing channel for the quality it offers.

Furthermore, I do not see how a casual fan is going to become interested in a fighter if he isn't shown on television?  Fury's public awareness has improved massively following the screening of his fights on channel 5.  Same with Brook and Hearn etc.

At some point, catchweight, you and I will grow old, older than Rowley.  Where will the young fans be then - if boxing is on subscription only channels, at the bottom of the sky sports menu next to carp-fishermen's world?

If we want our sport to be live and relevant, it must be watched.

BoxNation is sold on international fights. It has shown a lot of big fights this year, more than Sky.  The November/December program looks quite good including Pacquiao v Rios and a few other excellent international cards.  Warrens British shows have been hit and miss but in fairness the quality of Hearn's domestic cards is nothing to write home about either.

I don't know how BoxNation is purchased.  Can it be purchased without taking out a subscription to sky or virgin etc??  At £10 a month or £2.50 a week it is appreciated by many boxing fans. Personally I don't have an option to buy BoxNation as I don't subscribe to a TV provider that carries it.  

Can people get Sky free in the UK without having to subscribe and pay?

Can BoxNation be bought without first paying for a subscription TV broadcaster?

[jimdig]

I think we have it pretty good right now for boxing. With sky, box nation and channel 5. Hearn seems to be trying to build a premier league model on sky. A bit of fight back against a monopoly is also good.

[Rowley]

Believe it can be bought online Strongy and then if you have a half decent TV you can watch it on TV through your laptop I would guess. However for what seems like the 3000th time the objection the likes of me and Oxy have voiced over boxnation has never really been about the fees, it is about the long term impact on the sport.

Most everyone gets into a sport by watching it and enjoying it, common sense that. If the bulk of boxing is stuck away on a channel showing nothing else you will not subscribe unless you are a hardcore fan, as such the drip feed of new fans essential to the sport, or indeed any sport will diminish. The argument Sky is also subscription does not really stack up because fans of golf, cricket, football and myriad other sports will all subscribe to Sky Sports and so be exposed to boxing.

[Strongback]

Gary Sykes is left in the lurch once again. Steve Wood (his manager) explained that they're hoping to sort a vacant title fight out for Sykes by the end of the week (Gary's been left training for a date that was never likely to come off -- he, too, has been left unable to work in all of this promotional jumble).

Could be Sykes vs Walsh.

Why wouldn't Smith just swallow his pride and take the Sykes fight in Liverpool on Dec 7th (under Warren) and THEN look at his contract?

You do wonder if some of these boxers have any brains at all.

I have a feeling Matchroom may have been telling the defecting fighters that their existing Warren contracts are not enforceable possibly due to some EU freedom to work act along the lines of Bosman.

It must be difficult for a fighter, all the same, to be caught in the middle of Warren and the Hearns. Talk about a snake pit.

It seems to me it would be a good idea for a fighter to have a manager that is independent to the promoter. One company combining the roles leaves the fighter with very little unbiased advice. I suppose that's how monopolies work.

[oxring]

Eloquently put Rowley, I am lost for words.

If you are a sports fan, you will likely get sky sports at some point - to watch the international rugby/squash/cricket/motorsport etc etc. Boxing is thus exposed to your casual sports fan - the very market fighters and the sport need.

Boxers don't make money from the faithful. It is not the faithful who frequent online forums, discuss whether Greb would have beaten Sugar Ray (he would IMO) and whether Tancy Lee should be counted as a world champion after beating Percy Jones. There aren't many of us and your average plebeian wouldn't know if Tancy Lee was a boxer or a contestant on big brother, or whatever it is children watch these days. Frequently, we don't travel either. Of the hardcore following on the old 606 I remember barely a handful who bought tickets to see Hatton or travelled around the world.

Hatton, however, persuaded a collection of sports fans to travel around the world to follow his fights and watch him. This makes money and keeps the sport alive.

They would be much less likely to follow a man around the world if his fights were only visible on a subscription channel - how would they know who they were watching?

[Strongback]

Believe it can be bought online Strongy and then if you have a half decent TV you can watch it on TV through your laptop I would guess. However for what seems like the 3000th time the objection the likes of me and Oxy have voiced over boxnation has never really been about the fees, it is about the long term impact on the sport.

Most everyone gets into a sport by watching it and enjoying it, common sense that. If the bulk of boxing is stuck away on a channel showing nothing else you will not subscribe unless you are a hardcore fan, as such the drip feed of new fans essential to the sport, or indeed any sport will diminish. The argument Sky is also subscription does not really stack up because fans of golf, cricket, football and myriad other sports will all subscribe to Sky Sports and so be exposed to boxing.

Much an all as I like to have a rant on here at different times, many times to stir debate, I have to single out Murdock as I genuinely despise what he stands for. I would never give Murdock a penny of my money. We all draw a line somewhere. For you that's BoxNation for me it's Sky, for different reasons obviously.

[TRUSSMAN66]

The only debate you seem to stir is negative.......

Isn't Boxnation on SKY channel 437.......??

I imagine boxnation have to pay SKY for the privilege........So are you not giving money to Murdoch ??

[rIck_dAgless]

Isn't Boxnation on SKY channel 437.......??

I imagine boxnation have to pay SKY for the privilege........So are you not giving money to Murdoch ??

personally i stream through the website via a Smart T.V so not necessarily

[TRUSSMAN66]

No but by paying Boxnation you are helping them to rent the SKY channel ??

[rIck_dAgless]

Vicariously you could link anything back to anything in Multimedia so not a strong argument

[TRUSSMAN66]

He said he isn't paying murdoch a penny so it is a strong argument.

[rIck_dAgless]

he probably is not paying Murdoch a penny due to the distribution of the amount of money paid/people/SKY ratio

i would imagine it is a fraction of a penny

so not a strong argument

[rIck_dAgless]

Anyhoo, as much as I enjoy getting embroiled in pedantry, my initial comment was just to highlight that there are other ways than Sky to access box nation.

[Rowley]

As Strongy says we all draw our line somewhere, mine is not paying for Boxnation, his is not paying Murdoch. However whilst I admire the stance is an extremely difficult one to maintain and entails a lot more than not buying the Sun or subscribing to Sky. Whilst I am by no means an expert on Murdoch’s business empire I know he owns or at least has shares in at least one film studio. Would also guess his empire stretches to publishing houses and magazines as well. Would personally guess we all purchase things on a daily basis that put money in his pocket without even knowing it.

[TRUSSMAN66]

He's helping Boxnation stay afloat which is helping them pay SKY the rent money........

Get it !!!!!!!!!!!!.........

If my Mate needs a loan to pay Wonga.......If I give him the money I'm giving money to Wonga..

However inadvertently...........

Look let's just leave it..

[Strongback]

The only debate you seem to stir is negative.......

Isn't Boxnation on SKY channel 437.......??

I imagine boxnation have to pay SKY for the privilege........So are you not giving money to Murdoch ??

Never done to be negative, more like question everything and see what falls out. Ironic too that you are making a negative comment about me being negative.

As I said further up the thread I do not subscribe to BoxNation as my TV provider does not carry it. I just get the UK and Irish terrestrial channels and free to air channels.

[catchweight]

An affordable, dedicated subscription boxing channel that showed all the big fights wouldnt be too bad.

This would be a fair point - but boxnation is not an affordable subscription boxing channel for the quality it offers.

Furthermore, I do not see how a casual fan is going to become interested in a fighter if he isn't shown on television?  Fury's public awareness has improved massively following the screening of his fights on channel 5.  Same with Brook and Hearn etc.

At some point, catchweight, you and I will grow old, older than Rowley.  Where will the young fans be then - if boxing is on subscription only channels, at the bottom of the sky sports menu next to carp-fishermen's world?

If we want our sport to be live and relevant, it must be watched

Affordable is going to be a subjective thing. Their annual subscription is only two or three times the average ppv fight in the U.S. For the coverage it offers I would personally consider it very affordable.

It depends what you want as a boxing fan. Having a boxing subscription channel is really the only way a dedicated boxing fan can get extensive coverage of the sport. Even at best case scenario boxing ill always be the runt of the litter of terrestial tv or Sky with limited coverage. The fights may be broadcast to a wider audience but coverage will always be limited to a small percentage of fights. Would you rather terrestial tv showed 10 big fights a year beamed out to millions but left it at that or the availability of a boxing subscription channel which was viewed by less people but catered for the actual dedicated boxing fan with extensive coverage? I imagine it will depend on how much boxing you want to watch. But the reality is without a subscription channel then you will be left with Sky who will offer limited coverage and there will be less boxing on tv, not more. Sky and Terrestial tv never have or never will offer the kind of coverage a subscription channel will. Boxing will always be at best a low priority part of a much bigger portfolio which will constantly be in danger of being axed as soon as a new reality tv programme or more extensive coverage of other sports is offered. A subscription channel is really the only practical way dedicated boxing fans can get extensive coverage to the sport.

[catchweight]

Believe it can be bought online Strongy and then if you have a half decent TV you can watch it on TV through your laptop I would guess. However for what seems like the 3000th time the objection the likes of me and Oxy have voiced over boxnation has never really been about the fees, it is about the long term impact on the sport.

Most everyone gets into a sport by watching it and enjoying it, common sense that. If the bulk of boxing is stuck away on a channel showing nothing else you will not subscribe unless you are a hardcore fan, as such the drip feed of new fans essential to the sport, or indeed any sport will diminish. The argument Sky is also subscription does not really stack up because fans of golf, cricket, football and myriad other sports will all subscribe to Sky Sports and so be exposed to boxing.

Its not really the pratical reality of whats happening though. The very reason boxnation came into existence was in recognition that there was inadaquate boxing coverage for dedicated fans and an attempt to tap into this by offering a fully dedicated channel. In terms of the future of the sport, its pretty obvious terrestial tv or Sky are not really interested in boxing. As soon as there is a drought of British world champion Sky will probably reduce their coverage and terestial tv just doesnt want boxing. Take away a subscription channel and what you are left with is extremely limited and minor coverage of an entire sport. Sky might broadcast to more people and might pick up a few extra fans who stumble across it but it will only ever offer a fraction of coverage. Is this better as a boxing fan than the availability of a channel that looks to provide them with an extensive coverage of their sport. Even if terrestial tv did choose to cover boxing again it would be a very small number of fights a year of only a handful of names. Limited coverage to a wider audience vs dedicated coverage to a smaller audience.

[Rowley]

My issue is with the basic premise that boxing will always be a minority sport and as such a low priority to TV networks. It certainly never used to be and so given this there is absolutely no reason it should be forever more so. Boxing is a minority sport now as a consequence of years of neglect, mismanagement and shameful self interest by the powers that be. The reason folk have turned away from the sport because the fights folk want to see do not get made and following who is a world champion requires the patience of a saint and the intellectual capacity of Stephen Hawkins on a good day.

All TV companies will show what they think will secure viewers and or advertising revenue, if boxing is proven to be able to do this the interest and level of priority it is afforded by the TV networks will increase in proportion to this. However for as long as there are four governing bodies who seemingly devise rankings and award belts on a whim and promoters refuse to make the fights fans want to see because they happen not to get on with who promotes their charges rivals the TV companies will inevitably stay away and devote their time and energies to sports where such problems and hassles are not issues. The TV companies are not the issue IMO, the governing bodies and promoters very much are the problem.

[TRUSSMAN66]

My issue is with the basic premise that boxing will always be a minority sport and as such a low priority to TV networks. It certainly never used to be and so given this there is absolutely no reason it should be forever more so. Boxing is a minority sport now as a consequence of years of neglect, mismanagement and shameful self interest by the powers that be. The reason folk have turned away from the sport because the fights folk want to see do not get made and following who is a world champion requires the patience of a saint and the intellectual capacity of Stephen Hawkins on a good day.

All TV companies will show what they think will secure viewers and or advertising revenue, if boxing is proven to be able to do this the interest and level of priority it is afforded by the TV networks will increase in proportion to this. However for as long as there are four governing bodies who seemingly devise rankings and award belts on a whim and promoters refuse to make the fights fans want to see because they happen not to get on with who promotes their charges rivals the TV companies will inevitably stay away and devote their time and energies to sports where such problems and hassles are not issues. The TV companies are not the issue IMO, the governing bodies and promoters very much are the problem.

My sentiments exactly.

[catchweight]

My issue is with the basic premise that boxing will always be a minority sport and as such a low priority to TV networks. It certainly never used to be and so given this there is absolutely no reason it should be forever more so. Boxing is a minority sport now as a consequence of years of neglect, mismanagement and shameful self interest by the powers that be. The reason folk have turned away from the sport because the fights folk want to see do not get made and following who is a world champion requires the patience of a saint and the intellectual capacity of Stephen Hawkins on a good day.

All TV companies will show what they think will secure viewers and or advertising revenue, if boxing is proven to be able to do this the interest and level of priority it is afforded by the TV networks will increase in proportion to this. However for as long as there are four governing bodies who seemingly devise rankings and award belts on a whim and promoters refuse to make the fights fans want to see because they happen not to get on with who promotes their charges rivals the TV companies will inevitably stay away and devote their time and energies to sports where such problems and hassles are not issues. The TV companies are not the issue IMO, the governing bodies and promoters very much are the problem.

Thats well and good but its not offering any solution to what is the modern reality. Boxing is a minority sport that terrestial tv has no interest in showing and is unlikely to do so ever again in the era of x factor etc A subscription channel is offering boxing to fans where the alternative is not showing boxing or worse, ppv. Waiting around for terrestial tv to pick up boxing in a big way or Sky to start offering a dedicated boxing service wont go anywhere. A dedicated boxing fan should be happy to have the option of a subscription channel available. Without a subscription channel the reality is limited coverage on Sky which could be reduced at any moment. They were ready to throw in the towel on boxing after Hayes stinking heavyweight career.

[Rowley]

My point was though why is it a minority sport, certainly wasn't fifty or sixty years ago, which means something has fundamentally changed between then and now.

I genuinely believe a dedicated subscription channel simply exacerbates the problem in the sport. Is another nail in the coffin for the sport and as someone who cares about the sports future I cannot support it because of this. To me supporting it is akin to saying the sport is dying, cannot be saved so I may as well have the best of it before it is finally put out of its misery. Way too defeatist for me. Whilst it would be a tough medicine to take for us fans perhaps a few TV companies washing their hands of the sport could be just what the sport needs. Without their revenues promoters would not be able to earn a crust and pay the governing bodies their ridiculous sanctioning fees. May be just the medicine they need to realise the situation as it stands cannot continue and maybe get their houses in order.

[Rowley]

However if you want solutions to the sports ills, 9 divisions, one governing body and no super, emeritus or special champions is as good a place as any to start.

[Seanusarrilius]

Hearn is going to bring British boxing back to the masses!
 
Re. Smith. Feel bad for him, but this may be a breach of contrat issue tbh. Looks to me like they ruled for Frank because Frank has contracts and e-mails and offers he can wave about to prove he had Smith's career in hand

[catchweight]

Boxing has shot itself in the foot without a doubt but its not the only reason. There is far more competition now on television than fifty or sixty years ago where television was relatively new. Even back in those days I doubt there was extensive television boxing coverage. Nowadays there are thousands of channels showing anything and everything. I dont agree with the argument that a subscription channel is a nail in the coffin at all. The whole reason the subscription channel started was because there wasnt enough boxing being shown and tv had been moving away from boxing rather than towards it. Its more likely that boxing just disappears off tv completely or remains in a very limited capacity without a subscription channel. Unless you see boxing coming back in a big way on terrestial tv then I cant really see how a subscription channel is a bad thing. Its showing boxing that the other channels are interested in showing and thus providing a fan with more choice and coverage albeit via subscription. The alternative of limited coverage is not going to be of any benefit to the future of the sport. And lets be honest if you adopt a strict policy of not supporting something as its detrimental to the future of boxing then you would never buy ppv and boycott watching all the numerous pointless world titles which are much more damaging. Essentially you wind up not watching boxing at all. I dont view it as defeatist I think its just the reality.

[joeyjojo618]

I agree with what catchweight is saying. I think a subscription channel might even bring in more people to boxing, if its a good product and marketed correctly. And it gives fighters who we otherwise might not see a platform to build a fan base.

If the argument is that boxing has to go to the wall and the money must dry up in order for boxing to put its house in order then I do not agree. I think all of the nonsense associated with the sport (idiot promoters, multiple belts etc) is here to stay. The day boxing no longer becomes profitable is the day it dies. Also, Im not sure that the general public care about the proliferation of belts. When Haye fought Wlad, joe public had no idea who had which belt. They just knew that it was a big fight and went out on masse to see it. Same with any big fight.

You always talk a lot of sense Rowley (almost always), but I just dont see your argument with boxnation.

[Rowley]

Wlad and Haye sold though Joey because Haye had previously had exposure on both the normal Sky platform and even the BBC early in his career. Does anyone genuinely think it would have sold to similar levels had his sum exposure up to that point been on a subscription only channel showing boxing exclusively? Does also pose the question if a fight can sell like that with the current confusion just how well would it have sold without such nonsense.

Look at some of guys on Boxnation now, look at a guy like Frank Buglioni. Big puncher, great to watch and a good looking kid and I would posit nobody outside of the absolute hardcore have the first idea who he is.

[TRUSSMAN66]

Boxnation is only going to attract boxing fans to it's channel.......It's not going to "Make" more Boxing fans.........

Kids fall in love with the sport like I did watching it on sports channels.......

[joeyjojo618]

But would Buglioni be picked up at all without boxnation? The guy has only just started and he is lucky to be getting any kind of tv coverage at all. I think it gives him a chance to build up a larger fanbase than he would otherwise get.

Channel 5 are getting back into boxing which is pretty significant. But I think that competition between tv channels can only be a good thing and one more in the mix wont hurt.

[Sponsored content]