considering getting boxnation, is it worth it?

First topic message reminder :

the title says it all really, I'm considering getting boxnation, I just wanted to know from you guys is it worth being a subscriber?

Rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Touch and go.  

Worth it for the international, but domestic coverage is rubbish.  Could get a bit more interesting if more do like Fury and do TV deals without switching promoter.

But it's essentially a crap channel.  Doesn't work with Sky remote record. Doesn't have HD. Doesn't work on Sky multi-room.You just get to watch some cracking world class international boxing.

Life's a b**tard isn't it.  

If you don't have it you don't have any of these problems.

You mean your mates suffer these problems and you just mooch of them, hassle free.

I don't mean to be flippant but if you can comfortably afford it then it's worth it, if not.. then it's not!

I guess the value you derive depends on how much of a fan you are, and how tight you are. I, personally, think it's worth it for the American shows.

I agree with the sentiment that funding an exclusive channel marginalises the sport. But I wouldn't allow that moral conundrum to stop you subscribing. If you enjoy boxing and can afford it go for it!

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowley wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Touch and go.  

Worth it for the international, but domestic coverage is rubbish.  Could get a bit more interesting if more do like Fury and do TV deals without switching promoter.

But it's essentially a crap channel.  Doesn't work with Sky remote record. Doesn't have HD. Doesn't work on Sky multi-room.You just get to watch some cracking world class international boxing.

Life's a b**tard isn't it.  

If you don't have it you don't have any of these problems.

You mean your mates suffer these problems and you just mooch of them, hassle free.

Friends do each other favours, they view it as a reciprocal thing and don't view it as mooching or any hassle. Can understand why you of all people would struggle with understanding this.

Rodney wrote:Unfortunately so Jeff, I tend I fast forward him and his little twerp of a mate.

However don't find him as nauseating as the inept Glen McCrory and Mr Bean (Adam Smith) surely sky can pump in some money and improve the team.

Cheers Rodders

Always reminded me of Mr Burns

Rowley wrote:Friends do each other favours, they view it as a reciprocal thing and don't view it as mooching or any hassle. Can understand why you of all people would struggle with understanding this

This is a bit like the Rocky v Paulie argument/fight where Paulie says 'Friends owe' and Rocky says 'Friends dont owe. They do it because they wanna do'

Clearly Jeff here is taking the Rocky stance. Personally I think friends owe but then im a bitter person (Paulie style)  

Have been a subscriber since the off, though haven't watched it much of late. I'm not convinced a subscription channel marginalises the sport when there's little in the way of alternative. I like it for international fights and repeats of anything I've missed. On the domestic front, I think I'm right in saying that in recent memory, I can only remember looking forward to about two fights, those being Walsh/Selby and Conquest/Camacho. And I managed to bloody miss those two live as well! But truth be told, I don't get to watch more than a couple of domestic cards a year on average, which is not very good going. 


I don't have a problem with the coverage or the presentation. Watching Lilis and Bunce is like watching two guys watching their boxing over a kebab and a Sol- enthusiastic, get on well, fairly light-hearted.  You can't expect Harry Carpenter on a fringe channel! I prefer Rosenthal to Richard Keys though if I'm honest. He needs a new tailor does Keys, doesn't have much of an eye for a cut. He looks like an advert for a dry cleaners. All wrong. I remember thinking Matt Hatton performed quite well as a guest presenter, they could use him more often.


I haven't been watching much lately, but for me, I like to see a lot of repeats.  I still haven't seen Conquest/Camacho on a television and that's starting to bug me. I'd like to see good fights repeated once or twice a week for months after the fight. Instead of repeating the whole card though, I think I'd prefer the repeats to be edited and condensed a touch. Still show the whole card- but with less chat.


Ways to improve- well a couple of classic fights a week would be ok, but how possible that is, I don't know. Perhaps even the odd documentary. Speaking of documentaries- anyone remember this one on Turpin from quite a few years ago???  Quite a good watch for anyone who hasn't seen it:


▶ Randy Turpin Documentary - YouTube

I dont get how a subscription channel is supposed to be marginalising boxing either. That would only fly if it was taking boxing away from mainstream tv.

hampo171 wrote:8) Do not post anything that promotes illegal activity.

Whether you believe it or not, streaming is defined as an illegal activity.

I stream 4oD, lovefilm, iPlayer and so forth. And if a website is run via a cloud based solution it becomes very muddled if the above is the case. You will have read, I hope, instances where landlords use an encoder to stream other countries broadcasts of premiership games... Have been taken to court and have won.

So no, I don't view it as illegal when these sites have been around for a fair while and haven't been shut down by the courts as they're clever and expose loopholes.

And no as it upsets you so much I won't mention how I streamed highlights of a fight on YouTube the morning after. I've also seen links on here to YouTube when the ppv host won't have released the footage away from their ppv platform. So, pot kettle et all.

Find this all rather amusing and somewhat over zealous, so apologies for chuckling at your comment

Izzi wrote:

hampo171 wrote:8) Do not post anything that promotes illegal activity.

Whether you believe it or not, streaming is defined as an illegal activity.

I stream 4oD, lovefilm, iPlayer and so forth. And if a website is run via a cloud based solution it becomes very muddled if the above is the case. You will have read, I hope, instances where landlords use an encoder to stream other countries broadcasts of premiership games... Have been taken to court and have won.

So no, I don't view it as illegal when these sites have been around for a fair while and haven't been shut down by the courts as they're clever and expose loopholes.

And no as it upsets you so much I won't mention how I streamed highlights of a fight on YouTube the morning after. I've also seen links on here to YouTube when the ppv host won't have released the footage away from their ppv platform. So, pot kettle et all.

Find this all rather amusing and somewhat over zealous, so apologies for chuckling at your comment

Difference between illegal streaming and legal streaming. It's like the difference between paying for something in a shop or just walking out with it tucked nicely in your undercrackers. Robbing's been around for years - doesn't make it right.

Not a difficult concept to grasp.

P.S. posting links from Youtube is a bit of minefield but the onus is on Youtube to remove offending videos and anyone accessing videos on that site is doing so in good faith.

Izzi wrote:

hampo171 wrote:8) Do not post anything that promotes illegal activity.

Whether you believe it or not, streaming is defined as an illegal activity.

I stream 4oD, lovefilm, iPlayer and so forth. And if a website is run via a cloud based solution it becomes very muddled if the above is the case. You will have read, I hope, instances where landlords use an encoder to stream other countries broadcasts of premiership games... Have been taken to court and have won.

So no, I don't view it as illegal when these sites have been around for a fair while and haven't been shut down by the courts as they're clever and expose loopholes.

And no as it upsets you so much I won't mention how I streamed highlights of a fight on YouTube the morning after. I've also seen links on here to YouTube when the ppv host won't have released the footage away from their ppv platform. So, pot kettle et all.

Find this all rather amusing and somewhat over zealous, so apologies for chuckling at your comment

They are site rules, and they where inplace long before I became an admin. Everyone else understands the difference on here except you apparently, 4od, lovefilm, iplayer, netflix are not illegal because either you pay for them or they ran by the broadcaster.

All we ask is that you do what the rules ask you to do, if you don't that's fine but if one of the staff team are then forced to delete your threads or remove your posts don't start complaining.

Izzi wrote:
So no, I don't view it as illegal when these sites have been around for a fair while and haven't been shut down by the courts as they're clever and expose loopholes.

And for what seems like the 4000th time what you or indeed me, tina, truss or any other member you would care to name thinks matters not a jot. What is and isn't legal matters just as little. What does matter though is that the people who own this forum and ultimately allow us to be on here do care about streaming and do not want it on here. Nothing else is relevant on here.

The way I look at it is if you rent a flat and your landlord says he does not want you putting posters or pictures on the walls will the act of putting posters on a wall have become illegal, of course it hasn't. However if you want to keep staying in the flat it is in your best interest not to put posters or pictures on the wall. No difference here re streaming.

On all the boxing forums mentioning streams automatically brings out the lubed up ban stick.  With many sites it's an offence that automatically carries a life time ban.

The likes of Arum go directly after sites that illegally stream his fights, for instance there is a site that shows reruns of fights on a Sunday morning but Arum has threatened that site sufficiently to stop them showing his fights. I'm surprised there isn't more noise from the British broadcasters.


Here's a warning from a popular boxing forum:

DO NOT ASK FOR LINKS! Do not hint for them. Do not ask "what channel?". Do not make any post that could be interpreted as insinuating a link request, even if it sounds innocent (ie stuff like "Gee, I don't have a way to watch this" or "if only this was televised where I live...")

The folks at ____________ do not want to get sued and therefore have adopted a VERY strict policy of zero-tolerance on stream requests to cover their butts.

Thank you.


Sending links to streams by pm is also banned.