Mayweather v Cotto on BoxNation

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2012/02/boxnation-to-show-mayweather-v-cotto.html?m=1

Interesting one this, I thought this might have gone to Sky.
Sky announced their Golden boy deal last week and Golden boy are involved in this one.

Makes no difference to me as I subscribe to BoxNation but I expect this will upset some people.

I guess BoxNation are keeping to their word about showing big fights though.

rob-glos wrote:

Makes no difference to me as I subscribe to BoxNation but I expect this will upset some people.

I'm one of them.

Pub it is then...

rowley wrote:

rob-glos wrote:

Makes no difference to me as I subscribe to BoxNation but I expect this will upset some people.

I'm one of them.

I'm another one.

This is total crap!

I don't want to be tied down to a deal and can't understand that if there monthly fee is say £10, why not just charge a one-off fee of £10 for just the one fight then surely everyone is fine?

Guess i'll have to watch it by less honest means.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

rob-glos wrote:

Makes no difference to me as I subscribe to BoxNation but I expect this will upset some people.

I'm one of them.

I'm another one.

Would rather stream it and give big Frank the finger.

"I guess Boxnation are keeping their word then"...

Absolutely Rob and when you next see Frank Warren tell him thankyou from all of us on here..

Hello Everyone,

hate to start off on something so controversial but i don't see the difference in this being on boxnation, or sky or primetime? surely as long as its televised who cares!

Not controversial......just a little bit stupid....

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:
who cares!

Just a few people who are concerned about damaging the long term health of the sport.

well you say stupid; but you are the one with misguided morals... are you a boxing fan or not?? surely if you were you would not want to miss this fight?? so what are you moaning about boxnation is showing stuff no other channel does so what is everyones problem with it

Hi Pro and welcome to the board, the difference between this and primetime is on reality negligable, however there is a difference with sky because fans of other sports or sports in general will have sky and as such the opportunity to see the fight. However my issue with the channel in general is it marginalises a sport that can ill afford to be marginalised any further. The channell is called boxnation and shows nothing but boxing, as such the only people who will subscribe to it are hardcore boxing fans, given this how the sport is hoping to grow, attract new fans or convert casual fans into hardcore fans on this model is beyond me.

The way I always view it is I quite like golf but only to the extent I will watch the majors or the ryder cup, but were the sport to introduce a channel called golf nation on a subscription basis I would not subscribe, therefore the chances of me attending an event in person, buying a gold magazine or book or perish the thought trying my hand at it are pretty much gone forever.

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:Hello Everyone,

hate to start off on something so controversial but i don't see the difference in this being on boxnation, or sky or primetime? surely as long as its televised who cares!

Have you watched Boxnation? I think it's shot on webcam and has the promotional level of a guy walking round Skegness with a sandwhich board. That's the difference between it and Sky.

If they keep getting these world title shots before sky more and more people are going to subscribe, or stop watching boxing all together.

Not sure what the complaints are about paying £10 a month, between now and the 5th of May they've got 9 title fights on. Doubt Sky would show half of them. 5 of those are world title fights.

Have just noticed looking at the schedule that Enzo Mac has gone back to Cruserweight, why bother with the last fight if he was just going to go back up a weight.

"Are you a Boxingfan or not?? Surely you wouldn't want to miss this fight!!!"

You're so obvious Mate...

Hampo, just for sake of argument if this channel does succeed and becomes profitable and Hearn, HBO, Maloney, Hatton, Showtime all think thats an interesting business model, we'll do the same, still OK, after all they'd all only be a tenner a month (on top of your licence fee and Sky subscription I should add. )

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:are you a boxing fan or not?? surely if you were you would not want to miss this fight??

For all his bluff and bluster, Truss is a knowledgeable poster and most certainly a 'fan'. Do those of us who object to Boxnation on the grounds of compassion for the health of the sport automatically get demoted to 'non-fans', then?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"I guess Boxnation are keeping their word then"...

Absolutely Rob and when you next see Frank Warren tell him thankyou from all of us on here..

I'll do that Trus!!
I once saw him from the other side of wembley arena, probably need to get nearer.

I was just saying that they said on launch they intended to go for big fights and they have...

rowley that is a great analogy with the golf and i do understand i am much like you and accept that if there was i golfnation i would not subscribe either!! however boxing and golf are different spectacles in that their are only 4 majors a year and it is pretty one dimensial as a sport (not a critisism) wheras boxing has numerous events which differ and i would say a bigger problem for boxing was sky only showing warren matchroom and maloney shows and barely any international stuff meaning it was impossible to see foreign cards legally. atleast boxnation is great for hardcore fans and surely you need to gain their support before trying to appeal to casuals??

rowley wrote:Hampo, just for sake of argument if this channel does succeed and becomes profitable and Hearn, HBO, Maloney, Hatton, Showtime all think thats an interesting business model, we'll do the same, still OK, after all they'd all only be a tenner a month (on top of your licence fee and Sky subscription I should add. )

I agree with what you're saying Rowley, from my point of view I've bought more than one PPV event a month before now so for the amount of boxing I get for a £10 compared the £30 for box office I'm happy at the moment. But like you say if they all start doing it I'd get rid.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:are you a boxing fan or not?? surely if you were you would not want to miss this fight??

For all his bluff and bluster, Truss is a knowledgeable poster and most certainly a 'fan'. Do those of us who object to Boxnation on the grounds of compassion for the health of the sport automatically get demoted to 'non-fans', then?

No just pathetic if they think them not subscribing makes them the saviour of boxing and a better boxing fan than someone who actually watches it (god forbid!)

Nobody is saying that, think Truss has hit a nerve here.

hampo171 wrote:Nobody is saying that, think Truss has hit a nerve here.

haha not atall i just think people who just moan about the state of boxing are only detrimental to it

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:boxnation is great for hardcore fans and surely you need to gain their support before trying to appeal to casuals??

How do you propose to do that then? How are you going to get the guy that might fork out £15 for Haye v Klitschko or Mayweather v Hatton to start subscribing to a single sport channel?

By the very nature of the term 'hardcore' fan, these are not the type of people that the sport needs to be attracting. They need to be attracting a new generation of fans who have other distractions now. Sticking boxing on a single sport subscription channel is not the way to go.

it is a complex issue trying to appeal to the casual fan but with sky showing some stuff it can get a casual interested and more involved to the extent they will be willing to pay for a boxing only channel (hopefully).

But for the hardcore fan, a channel finally showing international cards is just what was needed

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote: atleast boxnation is great for hardcore fans and surely you need to gain their support before trying to appeal to casuals??

Yeah but by their very definition hardcore fans are hooked anyway, hells teeth in the last few years we have had the dullest heavyweight division in memory, the two best fighters in the world behaving like school children and more world champions per division than there are fighters, if all of that has not sent us running to the hills pretty safe to assume we are not going anywhere. Genuinely my belief that sports need to attract new fans to flourish and this channel and model runs polar opposite to that objective.

Also from a purely practical point of view there must surely come a point where us fans have to say no and stop getting such a rough deal, I quite like football, for the price of my sky subscription and licence fee I can see all the premier league, a good chunk of the FA cup, La liga, the world cup, the European championships and the champions league and at no point have I had to buy a PPV game or subscribe to an additional channel called footnation. However if I want to see Nathan Cleverly vs Tommy Karpency I have to pay another tenner a month! There is something seriously wrong with that picture.

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:it is a complex issue trying to appeal to the casual fan but with sky showing some stuff it can get a casual interested and more involved to the extent they will be willing to pay for a boxing only channel (hopefully).

Sounds like you have it all worked out then. Don't know what I am worried about.

rowley you are talking huge sense i hear everything youre saying.

if this is the end to PPV then that is great because surely £15 for one dissapointing fight with no undercard is worse for boxing than a channel charging a tenner for 6 shows a month with full undercard??

I also used to be an avid streamer of international shows and in the chatrooms of roughly 300-400 people nearly every person said they would pay for a purely boxing channel as long as it showed alot of stuff. and i know this does not help the casuals but surely people actually paying to watch is better for the sport that illegal streaming??

My cousin is an ultimate casual and he would watch maybe 3-4 fights a year (mayweather & pacquiao) with maybe khan etc... i imagine boxnation will have pac vs bradley as they have alot of top rank stuff and this will mean he has to choose whether or not to watch the fight. I know this is not the best way to attract casuals by having them pay a tenner a month for 6 months to watch the 2 best p4p fighters but i'm sure if he does choose to subscribe he will watch (sky+) other shows and this will increase his knowledge and support of the sport.

either way boxnation have done one hell of a coup getting floyds fight

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:it is a complex issue trying to appeal to the casual fan but with sky showing some stuff it can get a casual interested and more involved to the extent they will be willing to pay for a boxing only channel (hopefully).

Sounds like you have it all worked out then. Don't know what I am worried about.

sorry oh mightly saviour. tell me what to do and i will follow. mug

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:it is a complex issue trying to appeal to the casual fan but with sky showing some stuff it can get a casual interested and more involved to the extent they will be willing to pay for a boxing only channel (hopefully).

Sounds like you have it all worked out then. Don't know what I am worried about.

tell me what to do and i will follow. mug

I have a few suggestions, flower.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:it is a complex issue trying to appeal to the casual fan but with sky showing some stuff it can get a casual interested and more involved to the extent they will be willing to pay for a boxing only channel (hopefully).

Sounds like you have it all worked out then. Don't know what I am worried about.

tell me what to do and i will follow. mug

I have a few suggestions, flower.

no i don't think you patronising people will solve anything

Tina, Pro any chance we can stop this before it gets out of hand?

i'm beginning to regret not subscribing to be honest though i'll stay steadfast

i was happy to be civilised but being patronised by someone who see's themselves as of a higher stand because they have posted 2000 odd times is not helpful

ShahenshahG wrote:i'm beginning to regret not subscribing to be honest though i'll stay steadfast

Dunkirk Spirit Shah.

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:i was happy to be civilised but being patronised by someone who see's themselves as of a higher stand because they have posted 2000 odd times is not helpful

I think you are being a bit paranoid there mate.

rowley wrote:Tina, Pro any chance we can stop this before it gets out of hand?

I'm done here. It is hard to debate with such strange logic, peppered with random bouts of aggression.

Out of respect for you and the OP, jeffster, I am now

PROSKAGOLOVKIN wrote:i was happy to be civilised but being patronised by someone who see's themselves as of a higher stand because they have posted 2000 odd times is not helpful

One last thing;

"not at all i just think people who just moan about the state of boxing are only detrimental to it"
"No just pathetic if they think them not subscribing makes them the saviour of boxing and a better boxing fan than someone who actually watches it (god forbid!)"
"but you are the one with misguided morals... are you a boxing fan or not?? surely if you were you would not want to miss this fight??"

Your words, not mine.

And you have the nerve to call me patronising!

Sorry jeff, gone now!

Tino I wouldn't worry about it Mate...Not a surprise to find that Boxnation are advertising on here and rob-glos and Provo turn up all of a sudden...

I don't mind abuse..it's all fun.. but I do wish they'd declare their interest...

I think i'll wait and download the HBO version, i can't stand John Rawlings either, i used to think he was poor on BBC, made mistakes all the time.

Boxnation have taken what I had and want to charge me agin for watching. No interest.

In fact I'm not sure I could put it much better than what Dee says. The boxnation coverage is naff at best, I'll probably watch it with the sound down.

7) Do not post anything that promotes illegal activity.

From the site rules, if we could all read and understand this may save me and the other mods a few month of deleting references to streaming fights. Cheers

Also, I think people are getting carried away with fights like Donaire, Chavez Jr. I wouldn't be caught dead staying up to all hours watching a fight unless it involved Cotto, Floyd, Manny, or Khan (depending who it was against).

All well and good for people to get excited that certain fights are being televised, but they were always available online and I can guarantee about 5% of subscribers actually would have watched fights of that nature (b-level US fights) at those late hours.

As it was mentioned above, Boxnation are showing the fights that are available online for free but charging for them and employing Steve Bunce who gets on my nerves as well as other dire pundits.

The good thing about Sky pundits is you have Jamie Moore, McGuigan, Spencer Oliver who all have sound opinions and aren't too bad on the ear

Never streamed a fight online personally, more because of where I live and the poor broadband speeds means constant buffering and it annoys the hell out of me. I'm actually 1/4 of a mile away from a BT Infinity area

I've rowed my boat down a stream.....merrily...

I can't believe the mentality of some people.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Also, I think people are getting carried away with fights like Donaire, Chavez Jr. I wouldn't be caught dead staying up to all hours watching a fight unless it involved Cotto, Floyd, Manny, or Khan (depending who it was against).

All well and good for people to get excited that certain fights are being televised, but they were always available online and I can guarantee about 5% of subscribers actually would have watched fights of that nature (b-level US fights) at those late hours.

As it was mentioned above, Boxnation are showing the fights that are available online for free but charging for them and employing Steve Bunce who gets on my nerves as well as other dire pundits.

The good thing about Sky pundits is you have Jamie Moore, McGuigan, Spencer Oliver who all have sound opinions and aren't too bad on the ear

So in theory you just like the glamour boys, I'm absolutely delighted Boxnation show the likes of Donaire as boxing does t stop at bloody Floyd and Manny.

Forget the morals Boxnation are doing what Sky should be doing, Instead we have F1 and Prizefighter, excellent !

Is excellent if you're an F1 fan... plenty of those about really.

tcribb wrote:
Forget the morals Boxnation are doing what Sky should be doing, Instead we have F1 and Prizefighter, excellent !

And football, rugby league, rugby union, cricket, golf, racing, WWE ( but you get the point), and a multitude of other niche sports.

Prizefighter is a superb promotional tool......Hearn is such a smart guy!!!!

If a fight is dull there are only three rounds of it and it gives 8 fighters name recognition.....

Wonderful invention..and I'll be honest I like it.....

But I agree that I like more substantial Boxing too and that the British title stuff can be interesting ....Room for all kinds of gimmicks..