As always NSB is full of Yank vs. Limey talk. Recently I find myself siding with my compatriots more often than usual, except when the fanboys are comparing Hatton to Gatti, which of course shows a complete lack of both respect and discernment. Please respond to any or all of the following questions, which are not necessarily closely related. They arose in the course of various discussions on the site. Please don't reply with tendentious comments about American prejudices, since these are of a very different nature.


1. What is the reason (e.g., fan prejudice or promotional interest) for the predominance of domestic fights on English TV? I find it extremely odd that, for example, Klitschko fights are not broadcast live for you guys, but Sprott vs. Skelton is considered an event. By contrast, we Yanks might prefer a homer, but only when we can convince ourselves it's world class. This is exactly the reason I watch EPL instead of domestic football; I can't understand why you cunts are different in this regard.

2. Do you consider nationalistic prejudice to be importantly different than racial prejudice? I'll admit I don't; backing a Yank just for being a Yank is the same as backing a white for being white. I won't claim to be above either one, but I don't try to construe one as innocent relative to the other.

i say what i belive in but if people like sin wasnt always discrediting uk fighers it wouldnt happen twice as offen

i say what i belive in but if people like sin wasnt always discrediting uk fighers it wouldnt happen twice as offen

I have no problem with you arguing with Sin, he starts it. That's not what I'm asking about here.

they are shown on uk tv but people dont very often watch them skysports shows euro fights on sky sports but most people who have sky tv dont have the sky sports pacages as it is more expensive they also show quite a few more euro fight on euro sport but why danny willams fight are big in the uk i dont have a clue he as about as good as fighting as my nan danny willams fight are shown userly after the khann fights tho that the only reason it on itv because khann brings the veiwers

1. What is the reason (e.g., fan prejudice or promotional interest) for the predominance of domestic fights on English TV? I find it extremely odd that, for example, Klitschko fights are not broadcast live for you guys, but Sprott vs. Skelton is considered an event. By contrast, we Yanks might prefer a homer, but only when we can convince ourselves it's world class. This is exactly the reason I watch EPL instead of domestic football; I can't understand why you cunts are different in this regard.

Well, ITV (a mainstream channel that anyone can get) signed an exclusive contract with Frank Warren - about two weeks before Hatton jumped ship - so they can only show his fights.

Other satellite channels like SKY could buy the Klitschko fights but never do. I can only assume this is down to £££££. ITV have ****ed up though... the only world titlist they can show is Joe Blow. Oh, unless you count Enzo M and Gavin Rees. :rolleyes:

As for Sprott vs. Skelton being an "event", then no, that's a misconception... most people wouldn't give a **** and switch off after Amir's finished. So it's not what we ask for, but what we get.

To be fair though, SKY show lots of PPVs for free over here, including Oscar vs. Floyd.


2. Do you consider nationalistic prejudice to be importantly different than racial prejudice? I'll admit I don't; backing a Yank just for being a Yank is the same as backing a white for being white. I won't claim to be above either one, but I don't try to construe one as innocent relative to the other.

Because "English" is predominately white from a specific genotype (as is Welsh, Scottish, etc....) then it's a tradition over here to call "racism" any type of "foreigner" prejudice, skin colour not relevant. It amazes me how bashing Greeks could still be not counted as racism, for example.

It's a blurred line, but explains why you get bigoted Yanks saying **** like "it's not racism, it's nationalism..." all the fking time.

To further clarify, Geronimo:


SKY - buy up all the world title bouts, (except heavyweights, presumably they're dearer) to show to boxing fans, often screened live, which means 4am)

ITV - Just buy up any **** to appeal to the "joe public" viewer who would go "who the fuk's Floyd Mayweather?" but go "Ameeer Karn? I know him from the Olympics, a it?"

To further clarify, Geronimo:


SKY - buy up all the world title bouts, (except heavyweights, presumably they're dearer) to show to boxing fans, often screened live, which means 4am)

ITV - Just buy up any **** to appeal to the "joe public" viewer who would go "who the fuk's Floyd Mayweather?" but go "Ameeer Karn? I know him from the Olympics, a it?"

yea itv has gone downhill so has the bbc they used to show good fights

Even so the BBC buying international fights was a rarity.

What about before satellite TV came in (early 90s)?

We need JuyJuy... I'm not sure how much international stuff they showed then, because this was to the mainstream market.

I remember though that Tyson was HUGE.

!! Anorak can you get me in the vip lounge ?

As always NSB is full of Yank vs. Limey talk. Recently I find myself siding with my compatriots more often than usual, except when the fanboys are comparing Hatton to Gatti, which of course shows a complete lack of both respect and discernment. Please respond to any or all of the following questions, which are not necessarily closely related. They arose in the course of various discussions on the site. Please don't reply with tendentious comments about American prejudices, since these are of a very different nature.


1. What is the reason (e.g., fan prejudice or promotional interest) for the predominance of domestic fights on English TV? I find it extremely odd that, for example, Klitschko fights are not broadcast live for you guys, but Sprott vs. Skelton is considered an event. By contrast, we Yanks might prefer a homer, but only when we can convince ourselves it's world class. This is exactly the reason I watch EPL instead of domestic football; I can't understand why you cunts are different in this regard.

2. Do you consider nationalistic prejudice to be importantly different than racial prejudice? I'll admit I don't; backing a Yank just for being a Yank is the same as backing a white for being white. I won't claim to be above either one, but I don't try to construe one as innocent relative to the other.

1. Its always been the same, you have to remember before Bruno and more importantly Lewis we didn't have a Heavyweight Champion of the World for about 100 years!
Therefore domestic Heavy fights have always been a draw although I cant see it happening for much longer as they have been so poor, as for boxing in general again in years gone by domestic fighters or near as damn it have been a draw (McGuigan, Honeyghan, Benn, Eubank, Watson etc) all played out on ITV then nothing as Sky (Satellite) took all the big fights especially Hamed, Hatton and co.
Recently ITV have begun to take back over and play free 'big' fights on Friday and Saturday nights hence the sudden interest again. Sky still have many of the global fights but you have to pay for Sky so the numbers are down slightly.
Many of the hardcore fans have Sky KJ and watch the world class bouts therefore we are like you with the Football (goes hand in hand anyway as you need to have Sky to watch the Premier League live!)

2. National prejudice is more prevalent on here because its just Internet talk, but both the States and GB have a history not only with each other but with the World therefore both Countries have an ingrain arrogance that on here comes out as National Prejudice.
To be honest though I have been coming on here for a couple of years and at the start there was less Brits therefore the Prejudice was more one sided from the US side, also it was before the Calzaghe v Lacy fight and the Hatton rise therefore the increase in Brits and the success of our fighters and the success on the whole of European fighters have facilitated the increase from the Brit side.

As for whether I think racial prejudice and national prejudice are the same, I suppose they are but it more about the strength of a country and the success of a country rather than a 'perceived' weakness based on colour and creed therefore it may not be acceptable but unlike racism it will always exist due to the Tribal or Territorial nature of the human race whereas Racism in this expanding World eventually just wont have a place.

You will end up with every country being completely multi racial and multicultural but will offer allegiance to the country which offers itself as home, we will then end up with different types of tribes but still the same loyalty to that Country!

Oh, another point, KayJay - I gather that ALL boxing in the US is cable run, is that right? (ie. you need to subscribe to HBO and Showtime?)

As I understand it, ABC - which is free? - were going to showcase Antonio Tarver after the Rocky film. Now, Tarver's a decent enough boxer and kind of was THE light-heavy, but it would have been against a warm up opponent (before he pulled out) and was ONLY because they were selling it as "hey look, here's Mason Dixon for you noobs", right? It's a similar kind of situation over here, only the "free" stuff is a little more widely based. (Weirdly, the BBC bought the Paler-Urango fight even though they got their fingers burnt after paying Audley £1 million and he turned out to be ****).

The nationality issue is just the same as supporting a particular team or country in other sports. Boxing isn't a team sport but I'll always like to see british boxers doing well, even if I think they're crap, much like I hope in vain that England perform in the upcoming rugby world cup.

The domestic heavies are not important, they're just given good slots on tv due to Warren's contract, and some hoping for the next big Len. I'd love it if boxing got more coverage on tv, then everyone would finally realise how poor our domestic guys are. I wouldn't put Sprott in the top 50 and Skelton is probably not top 25.

In response to Annie:

There's fights on ESPN, which is also cable but not 'pay' like HBO and Showtime. You have to subscribe to cable, but ESPN is a standard channel, whereas the 'pay' stations have individual subscriptions. So there's three levels:

Free, network or local television (ABC, CBS, Fox)
Cable (ESPN) [probably a majority have access to it]
Premium channels [probably less that 10% get HBO, even lower for Showtime]

Hmmmmmmmmmm... so obviously there's a lot more Fat Yanks, but as a % more Limeys get SKY channels. As to the % of them that bother to watch the boxing, I'm not sure.

When Wank Warren bought boxing back to ITV 8 million tuned in to see Audley Harrison get KTFO by some muscular black guy they'd maybe vaguely heard of. It was so ****, the next show scraped half that. Lately Amir Khan's hype saw ratings back up to 5 million.

In contrast, a SKY boxing show will be lucky to get 100,000.

Hmmmmmmmmmm... so obviously there's a lot more Fat Yanks, but as a % more Limeys get SKY channels. As to the % of them that bother to watch the boxing, I'm not sure.

When Wank Warren bought boxing back to ITV 8 million tuned in to see Audley Harrison get KTFO by some muscular black guy they'd maybe vaguely heard of. It was so ****, the next show scraped half that. Lately Amir Khan's hype saw ratings back up to 5 million.

In contrast, a SKY boxing show will be lucky to get 100,000.

sky have been having big problems in recent years keeping customers especial now that free view is around they have a big turnover people sign up for 12 month specials then just leave after the normal rate kicks in, i got rid of sky they had good fights but i am not paying £45 a month for it when i can watch the fight the next day from a torrent site in good quality. BBC used to try and show a fight every Friday or sat in the 80's and before so that gave a lot more exposure to British fighters.

Hmmmmmmmmmm... so obviously there's a lot more Fat Yanks, but as a % more Limeys get SKY channels. As to the % of them that bother to watch the boxing, I'm not sure.

When Wank Warren bought boxing back to ITV 8 million tuned in to see Audley Harrison get KTFO by some muscular black guy they'd maybe vaguely heard of. It was so ****, the next show scraped half that. Lately Amir Khan's hype saw ratings back up to 5 million.

In contrast, a SKY boxing show will be lucky to get 100,000.

i think sky is bad for boxing, if guys like haye hatton froch etc where shown on the old bbc format or ITV they would be much more popular. haye and froch where for the first few fights but then went to sky before they could establish them selfs.

People don't want to switch from BBC 1, ITV 1 or Channel 4 after a certain time. This is something I have noticed recently.

People don't want to switch from BBC 1, ITV 1 or Channel 4 after a certain time. This is something I have noticed recently.

how you know that ?

As always NSB is full of Yank vs. Limey talk. Recently I find myself siding with my compatriots more often than usual, except when the fanboys are comparing Hatton to Gatti, which of course shows a complete lack of both respect and discernment. Please respond to any or all of the following questions, which are not necessarily closely related. They arose in the course of various discussions on the site. Please don't reply with tendentious comments about American prejudices, since these are of a very different nature.


1. What is the reason (e.g., fan prejudice or promotional interest) for the predominance of domestic fights on English TV? I find it extremely odd that, for example, Klitschko fights are not broadcast live for you guys, but Sprott vs. Skelton is considered an event. By contrast, we Yanks might prefer a homer, but only when we can convince ourselves it's world class. This is exactly the reason I watch EPL instead of domestic football; I can't understand why you cunts are different in this regard.

2. Do you consider nationalistic prejudice to be importantly different than racial prejudice? I'll admit I don't; backing a Yank just for being a Yank is the same as backing a white for being white. I won't claim to be above either one, but I don't try to construe one as innocent relative to the other.

1) Its a pisser. Only just got to watch the forrest v baldomir fight weekend just gone, they didn't bother showing that live. The media coverage over here in general is an absolute pot of ****, the judah v cotto fight wasn't even covered in my newspaper the weekend of the fight or the saturday after (weekly boxing column).
Its a vicious circle, they've got to put their balls on the line and bring worldwide boxing coverage into the media more rather than just are homegrown talent. The casual fan over here has never heard of most of the top overseas boxers apart from your household names, so there is little or no chance of staying up til 5 in the morning to watch them.

2) I'd say there is a difference between national preference and racial preference.
All things being equal i support brit boxers (unless they're a ****-head) regardless of colour, partly because the more success our homegrown boxers have, the more it raises the profile and interest level of boxing in this country and hopefully generates more media interest. Also there is a sense of patroitism there, i generally follow my country in all the sports i enjoy.

I'd say its pretty common and socially acceptable in all sports for the public to get behind its country but almost unheard of to follow skin colour. Kayjay if you went to the olympic games wouldn't you expect to see your fellow yanks cheering on usa, but then wouldn't you also be pretty shocked to see yanks cheering the russian boxing team cos it was more white than the yanks.

I'd say the fact that more often than not i support the brits is just me being patriotic and its not cos i specifically hate other countries.
But speaking strictly for myself if i was to only support white boxers, ie i'd be supporting boxers from loads of different countries who i'v no reason to support, then the only common bond i could find with them would be an anti race thing rather than pro anything.

As always NSB is full of Yank vs. Limey talk. Recently I find myself siding with my compatriots more often than usual, except when the fanboys are comparing Hatton to Gatti, which of course shows a complete lack of both respect and discernment. Please respond to any or all of the following questions, which are not necessarily closely related. They arose in the course of various discussions on the site. Please don't reply with tendentious comments about American prejudices, since these are of a very different nature.


1. What is the reason (e.g., fan prejudice or promotional interest) for the predominance of domestic fights on English TV? I find it extremely odd that, for example, Klitschko fights are not broadcast live for you guys, but Sprott vs. Skelton is considered an event. By contrast, we Yanks might prefer a homer, but only when we can convince ourselves it's world class. This is exactly the reason I watch EPL instead of domestic football; I can't understand why you cunts are different in this regard.

2. Do you consider nationalistic prejudice to be importantly different than racial prejudice? I'll admit I don't; backing a Yank just for being a Yank is the same as backing a white for being white. I won't claim to be above either one, but I don't try to construe one as innocent relative to the other.

1. The majority of the big fights in America are shown on tv here, however viewers are expected to pay an extra £20 per month for skysports and many are not willing to do so. On top of this, none of the fights are advertised. Casual fans without cable/digital tv are therefore stuck with frank warren's bollocks on itv, leading them to conclude that amir khan is the best fighter on earth.

2.I believe nationalistic prejudice is just as bad as racism, and it's a problem that goes un-noticed over here most of the time.

The nationality issue is just the same as supporting a particular team or country in other sports. Boxing isn't a team sport but I'll always like to see british boxers doing well, even if I think they're crap, much like I hope in vain that England perform in the upcoming rugby world cup.
The domestic heavies are not important, they're just given good slots on tv due to Warren's contract, and some hoping for the next big Len. I'd love it if boxing got more coverage on tv, then everyone would finally realise how poor our domestic guys are. I wouldn't put Sprott in the top 50 and Skelton is probably not top 25.



England better do well. I'm going to be in New Zealand during the Rugby World Cup.:ugh: :puppy_dog

1. The majority of the big fights in America are shown on tv here, however viewers are expected to pay an extra £20 per month for skysports and many are not willing to do so. On top of this, none of the fights are advertised. Casual fans without cable/digital tv are therefore stuck with frank warren's bollocks on itv, leading them to conclude that amir khan is the best fighter on earth.

2.I believe nationalistic prejudice is just as bad as racism, and it's a problem that goes un-noticed over here most of the time.

Do you think nationalistic prejudice in all sports is as bad as racism or just boxing?

I'd say its pretty common and socially acceptable in all sports for the public to get behind its country but almost unheard of to follow skin colour. Kayjay if you went to the olympic games wouldn't you expect to see your fellow yanks cheering on usa, but then wouldn't you also be pretty shocked to see yanks cheering the russian boxing team cos it was more white than the yanks.
.

It's a little different being American at the moment. It's hard to unabashedly support your own country in athletic events. The Olympics are also an exception, but even then I don't always back the American athletes.

In boxing it's individuals who fight in their own name. In most pro sports it's a club whose members are ethnically, racially, and geographically diverse. It may have a home city, but a legitimately high-caliber pro franchise is usually diverse.

don't use the fr****se word on these boards KJ - we don't take that **** in limeyland.

It's certainly nationalistic to think that your own boxers are all better than others - witness some of the insane comments about hatton, or the regular euro-bum comments. I don't think it's nationalistic to support people from your local area, that you can identify with in some way. It's tribe mentality for sure but as long as you're self-aware i don't see a problem.

It's a little different being American at the moment. It's hard to unabashedly support your own country in athletic events. The Olympics are also an exception, but even then I don't always back the American athletes.

In boxing it's individuals who fight in their own name. In most pro sports it's a club who's members are ethnically, racially, and geographically diverse. It may have a home city, but a legitimately high-caliber pro franchise is usually diverse.

yeah i do see what you mean about boxers fighting as individuals and for themselves rather than in a team sport, but i still think it has an element of that boxer representing his country kinda like how most uf us limeys root for brit tennis players at wimbledon until after the 1st round when they're all gone.
Also i have a completey different opinion on national preference when it comes to sport in club format. Take football, when England play i obviously support them passionately but when i watch football in the english premier league i support my club Blackburn and support the foriegn players at my club over the english players from opposing clubs. It might seem contradictory but in the context of both competitons i am in both cases displaying regional preference.
So in boxing i am just displaying my regional preferance on a national level which i obviously wouldn't be doing if i was supporting white guys cos we come from all over the shop and rather than displaying a pro region pref i would be displaying an anti black one, in my opinion.

By the way mate, how come it is hard to support your own country in athletic events at the min? I admit i'm not too crash hot on world politics, i'm in ignorant bliss on this little island.

Unless of extreme events or occasions i really don't think anyone should be ashamed of supporting their country in any sporting event.
It has always been a tradition of sport to have friendly rivalry between supporters, even sports governing bodies must support a bit of national rivalry in the right spirit or why would have they decided to hold international tournaments like the World Cup where the best players of one nationality from clubs all over the world are brought together to form a squad to compete with other nations.

I understand the distinction between team sports and individual athletes but why would these national teams have been founded in the 1st place if there was anything wrong with a bit of national competition.

By the way mate, how come it is hard to support your own country in athletic events at the min? I admit i'm not too crash hot on world politics, i'm in ignorant bliss on this little island.
.

The question is about the political thing you suspect. When your country is bombing people all over the third world, it's hard to watch an event and think "and we kicked their asses at swimming too." Also, there's too much anti-Americanism in the world and any kind of dominance, even in sport, can contribute to the general sense of resentment people have about us.

I understand the regional prejudice. Frazier is in my sig, and I support other Philadelphia athletes. Reyna was only ever my favorite footballer because I played against his school and followed him as a kid. I support Hopkins, etc.

But there's a certain point at which you admit to yourself that your boys are not the best and therefore not as fun to watch. So I prefer English footballers to American ones (have I ever overrated a Yank footballer in here?), the Eastern Heavyweights to the American one, etc.

At Olympic and World Cup times I do sometimes think the whole thing should somehow be freed from its nationalistic basis.

The question is about the political thing you suspect. When your country is bombing people all over the third world, it's hard to watch an event and think "and we kicked their asses at swimming too." Also, there's too much anti-Americanism in the world and any kind of dominance, even in sport, can contribute to the general sense of resentment people have about us.

I understand the regional prejudice. Frazier is in my sig, and I support other Philadelphia athletes. Reyna was only ever my favorite footballer because I played against his school and followed him as a kid. I support Hopkins, etc.

But there's a certain point at which you admit to yourself that your boys are not the best and therefore not as fun to watch. So I prefer English footballers to American ones (have I ever overrated a Yank footballer in here?), the Eastern Heavyweights to the American one, etc.


I can understand that, i respect your social conscience but its kinda of sad story when a goverments very selective ending of attrocities and tyranny takes some support away from the athletes in your country who are blameless in all this.

Definitely in agreement with the last paragraph, i don't follow brits blindly. There is a lot i don't watch and my favourite fighter is art gatti. I thought the skelton v sprott fight was a ****ing emberassment and i loved watching that prick herbie hide get a good hiding.
Hopefully i do post objectively about brits, i think hatton will prob pick up his 1st L against mayweather, though not in the one sided fashion some people have posted, but i'll def be cheering him on.

Limeys have no pride.