NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

IrishPaddy · Post by **IrishPaddy** » 28 Dec 2007, 11:16

I think the letters page in BM should come back.

Also, i think people are missing the point about The Ring.Okay, its fight reports are months out of date. However, its classic fights revisited/old reports etc make it the best mag to flick through and read in years to come.

I like Farhoods columns. Hes similar to Buncey. Although he seems to be an eccentric, his columns can be crazy and has outtrageuous predictions at times, like Bunce, he definitely adds a little colour to the mag.
Graham Houston is very good at breaking down fights.

I believe Farhoods and Houstons styles of writing, although completely different, are both vital to my enjoyment of BM.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 29 Dec 2007, 05:31

oliverfennell wrote:That's a flawed argument, as statistics alone do not tell the tale of quality of opposition. Look at Nadeem Siddique, undefeated in 20, but has only fought ONE fighter with a winning record (and only 4-1-2, at that), but Simpkin on the other hand is always matched tough and has scored his share of upsets (Carl Baker, Fola O'Kes, drew with Reid and Francis, beat our own Billy Bessey recently). Pound for pound, Simpkin has achieved more than Siddique, despite the apparent disparity in their records.

Whilst you may well identify another flaw with the rankings (and the need for a caveat regarding the number of .500+ fighters beaten to enter, say, the top ten) I cannot agree that Simpkin is anything more than a durable opponent - if his high point upset were wins over a guy who had a total of four pro fights, a win over a guy 4-2 and a couple of quite respectable short rounds draws we're not talking genius, are we? Indeed, if we look at his ten wins we see three guys in their first fights and three in their third, plus Baker, none of whom went on long in the game. Then there are 4-23 and 2-12 opponents...

...and for this he merits a British ranking? Really?

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 29 Dec 2007, 05:33

And then we have the extraordinary case of Delroy Spencer...

Lightsoot · Post by **Lightsoot** » 30 Dec 2007, 04:59

Personally, I'd rather BM ditched the British ratings, or alternatively kept them to one page by only listing the top 10's in each division. We want more content, preferably original.

It's definitely achievable and the right personnel are on board. I also agree with Paddy about the letters page,

WelshDevil · Post by **WelshDevil** » 30 Dec 2007, 10:21

I have been buying Boxing Monthly since its debut and have always enjoyed reading it and the latest edition was perfectly fine.
I've just got a years subscription and looking forward to the issues.

Great read and long may it continue - though I wish the editor Glyn Leach would write more than just his editorial column as I used to enjoy his writing especially anything related to Lennox Lewis.

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 30 Dec 2007, 11:14

i was looking thru me old bm's a few weeks back.

i have every issue since april 99. :)

i missed the recent hatton-mayweather preview issue.

the first one i've missed since i started buying it.

i'll get the re-issue off the site in the next few days.

bm is still me favourite boxing magazine on the market.

oliverfennell · Post by **oliverfennell** » 31 Dec 2007, 06:35

Tykemania wrote:
oliverfennell wrote:That's a flawed argument, as statistics alone do not tell the tale of quality of opposition. Look at Nadeem Siddique, undefeated in 20, but has only fought ONE fighter with a winning record (and only 4-1-2, at that), but Simpkin on the other hand is always matched tough and has scored his share of upsets (Carl Baker, Fola O'Kes, drew with Reid and Francis, beat our own Billy Bessey recently). Pound for pound, Simpkin has achieved more than Siddique, despite the apparent disparity in their records.
Whilst you may well identify another flaw with the rankings (and the need for a caveat regarding the number of .500+ fighters beaten to enter, say, the top ten) I cannot agree that Simpkin is anything more than a durable opponent - if his high point upset were wins over a guy who had a total of four pro fights, a win over a guy 4-2 and a couple of quite respectable short rounds draws we're not talking genius, are we? Indeed, if we look at his ten wins we see three guys in their first fights and three in their third, plus Baker, none of whom went on long in the game. Then there are 4-23 and 2-12 opponents...

...and for this he merits a British ranking? Really?

Well, I wasn't necessarily saying Simpkin deserved to be in the top 20, more saying generally that a ban on fighters with .500 records in the rankings could be flawed. Maybe Simpkin isn't the best example, but hopefully you get my point.

Glyn Leach · Post by **Glyn Leach** » 31 Dec 2007, 08:44

Only me (again!).

Re the ratings: Oliver has pretty much answered Tyke's query as I would have. We prefer not to rank on potential alone Tyke as egg and face become overfamiliar too easily. And our aim has always been to provide a Top 20 wherever possible as it is of interest to those who do not use the internet (and believe me, there are still many, that's part of the reason our sales are on the rise I believe) to know who is who in terms of matchmaking, particularly matchmaking involving prospects. Bottom line is that the British ratings will stay as they are for the forseeable future - but thanks for your comments.

Re reintroducing a letters page: The problem I found with the letters page in the past was that the quality of the letters was, erm, variable. However, the growth of the internet has given birth to a far more informed fight fan and I have thought for a while that it may be worth giving it a go again. If you're up for it, I am. If readers with your level of knowledge and commitment were to write in on a regular basis, I would have one again like a shot. Want to start the ball rolling? Write to me at Boxing Monthly, 40 Morpeth Rd, London E9 7LD, to arrive by Friday 11th Jan and we'll have one back in the next issue - can't say fairer than that.

Happy new year chaps

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 31 Dec 2007, 08:51

To be honest, with the net, I reckon the letters page is a bit redundant...no harm if it comes back though I guess. And I agree, the quotes feature should be kept short & sweet.

It's the best boxing publication around for my money, Houston cannot be beat, plus the other writers are excellent too.

You should send your writers out to track down some of the forgoten stars/fighters of the 80's / 90's, that would be a brilliant monthly feature.

Whatever happened to Meldrick Taylor, Terry Norris....Caveman Lee?
Hundreds of characters out there, and most fans do not have a CLUE what happened to them after they retired - it's like they dropped off the face of the earth.

You're bound to unearth some riveting stories there. Barkley was a good start.

Matt W · Post by **Matt W** » 31 Dec 2007, 09:24

Like most here I read BM every month and have done for about 14 years now. I have to say I hadn't had any issues at all with it before reading this thread. As sad as I am it's still a highlight of my month to see the latest issue in the shops.

I'd never even considered the issue of fight reviews being out of date by the time I get the mag. I read the websites but to me there's something about reading a magazine that I prefer to reading the internet. I always enjoy BM's reports and often look forward to them even if I've read countless internet reports.

I agree that it would be good to catch up with more retired fighters to find out what they're up to. Interview with Nigel Benn & Glenn McCrory a few years back sticks in the mind as good examples of this. I also think the letters page would be a good addition.

Finally, I have thought for a long time that I would like to see more articles by Glyn Leach. I always enjoyed his style of writing and look forwad to his editorials. I still remember his Bowe-Gonzalez preview, although I don't think he would like to be reminded of that... He's in my good books as I sent a letter years ago asking how I could get into boxing journalism and he sent me a prompt and useful response. I decided however to get a proper job..

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 31 Dec 2007, 12:07

MightyWarrior wrote:To be honest, with the net, I reckon the letters page is a bit redundant...no harm if it comes back though I guess. And I agree, the quotes feature should be kept short & sweet.

It's the best boxing publication around for my money, Houston cannot be beat, plus the other writers are excellent too.

You should send your writers out to track down some of the forgoten stars/fighters of the 80's / 90's, that would be a brilliant monthly feature.

Whatever happened to Meldrick Taylor, Terry Norris....Caveman Lee?
Hundreds of characters out there, and most fans do not have a CLUE what happened to them after they retired - it's like they dropped off the face of the earth.

You're bound to unearth some riveting stories there. Barkley was a good start.

Good call Rob. I dont buy BM every month, just if I am in the shop and its there. I have been buying it on and off since its inception in 1989.

The where are they know suggestion would tempt me to buy it every month particularly if it covered 70s/80/90s ex fighters.

I would also rekindle the "New Faces" feature they had in the early 90's

Sammy Mendelson · Post by **Sammy Mendelson** » 31 Dec 2007, 12:08

MightyWarrior wrote:You should send your writers out to track down some of the forgoten stars/fighters of the 80's / 90's, that would be a brilliant monthly feature.

Awesome idea. As I said on the 1st page of this topic, I have not really purchased hard copy boxing journalism since I got the internet. However, that sort of feature would get my interest as it is something that is not readily available online.

There would be some great stories.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 31 Dec 2007, 14:07

Might sound crazy with the net - but I miss the results page. On boxrec you have to do a search to see if some fighters you onced followed is still active - the results page saved you that and also brought up some names that I never thought were still fighting - so I might not bother doing a search.

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 01 Jan 2008, 08:57

oliverfennell wrote:Well, I wasn't necessarily saying Simpkin deserved to be in the top 20, more saying generally that a ban on fighters with .500 records in the rankings could be flawed. Maybe Simpkin isn't the best example, but hopefully you get my point.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're trying to convey, which is the possibility that someone like say Chris Edwards would be excluded - a live competitor who happens to have had to match himself very tough because of the weight at which he fights.

However, I am really struggling to think of another example of a sub .500 fighters who is not either a no-hoper or a career opponent who is willing to sacrifice their record for a few quid to be a name on every up and comers record a la Julius Francis a couple of years back.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 01 Jan 2008, 10:05

Tykemania wrote:
oliverfennell wrote:Well, I wasn't necessarily saying Simpkin deserved to be in the top 20, more saying generally that a ban on fighters with .500 records in the rankings could be flawed. Maybe Simpkin isn't the best example, but hopefully you get my point.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're trying to convey, which is the possibility that someone like say Chris Edwards would be excluded - a live competitor who happens to have had to match himself very tough because of the weight at which he fights.

However, I am really struggling to think of another example of a sub .500 fighters who is not either a no-hoper or a career opponent who is willing to sacrifice their record for a few quid to be a name on every up and comers record a la Julius Francis a couple of years back.

It depends how you define 'no hoper' I suppose. I know lads with sub .500 pro records who arent just journeymen who turn up to pick up a cheque; they work long hours in jobs, train around their commitments and fight to earn a few extra quid and because they love the game.

They have little say in who they are matched against so are often out of town, in the wrong corner against a kid with top amateur credentials. Little wonder then to me that their losses outweigh their wins.

This doenst mean that they dont go out and do their runs in the morning and their hard rounds in the gym all the same - who are you to say they dont deserve to see themselves ranked across their divison? These lads may only aspire to box for Area and Master titles but so what?

Why do you think they dont deserve to see their names in the sport's only national monthly?

Tykemania · Post by **Tykemania** » 01 Jan 2008, 12:01

TerribleTerry wrote: It depends how you define 'no hoper' I suppose. I know lads with sub .500 pro records who arent just journeymen who turn up to pick up a cheque; they work long hours in jobs, train around their commitments and fight to earn a few extra quid and because they love the game.

They have little say in who they are matched against so are often out of town, in the wrong corner against a kid with top amateur credentials. Little wonder then to me that their losses outweigh their wins.

This doenst mean that they dont go out and do their runs in the morning and their hard rounds in the gym all the same - who are you to say they dont deserve to see themselves ranked across their divison? These lads may only aspire to box for Area and Master titles but so what?

Why do you think they dont deserve to see their names in the sport's only national monthly?

Because it remains my view that you need to establish a base level for inclusion in national rankings in order to protect the integrity of the product as a whole - if you include people whose acheivements manifestly fail to merit such an honour then it devalues the rankings as a whole; and if the insistence on ranking 20, as opposed to say 10 fighters is to remain, then steps have to be taken to ensure that everyone included is up to a certain standard. For example, at the lighters weight classes there are some fighters included who get in purely because there are not 20 British fighters at their weight, and that cheapens the whole thing.

Regarding specifically the sub .500 rule which I propose, I'm afraid I don't agree with you basic argument above that the people currently included who would be removed are as you suggest. Instead, they seem to be unanimously in the "opponent" camp, guys favoured for their willingness to take the defeat and relative durability whilst doing so - indeed, removing these guys would create space for the "love of the game" types, who usually do better than .500 anyway, that you favour!

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 01 Jan 2008, 15:53

Tykemania wrote:
TerribleTerry wrote: It depends how you define 'no hoper' I suppose. I know lads with sub .500 pro records who arent just journeymen who turn up to pick up a cheque; they work long hours in jobs, train around their commitments and fight to earn a few extra quid and because they love the game.

They have little say in who they are matched against so are often out of town, in the wrong corner against a kid with top amateur credentials. Little wonder then to me that their losses outweigh their wins.

This doenst mean that they dont go out and do their runs in the morning and their hard rounds in the gym all the same - who are you to say they dont deserve to see themselves ranked across their divison? These lads may only aspire to box for Area and Master titles but so what?

Why do you think they dont deserve to see their names in the sport's only national monthly?
Because it remains my view that you need to establish a base level for inclusion in national rankings in order to protect the integrity of the product as a whole - if you include people whose acheivements manifestly fail to merit such an honour then it devalues the rankings as a whole; and if the insistence on ranking 20, as opposed to say 10 fighters is to remain, then steps have to be taken to ensure that everyone included is up to a certain standard. For example, at the lighters weight classes there are some fighters included who get in purely because there are not 20 British fighters at their weight, and that cheapens the whole thing.

Regarding specifically the sub .500 rule which I propose, I'm afraid I don't agree with you basic argument above that the people currently included who would be removed are as you suggest. Instead, they seem to be unanimously in the "opponent" camp, guys favoured for their willingness to take the defeat and relative durability whilst doing so - indeed, removing these guys would create space for the "love of the game" types, who usually do better than .500 anyway, that you favour!

I disagree entirely - if you are the 20th best lightweight in the country you are deserving of inclusion in the rating lists at that position, no matter the arbitrary views of someone such as yourself who deems them somehow 'unworthy' based purely on an uneven or spotty record.

Boxing is a hard enough sport without people denigrating the efforts put forth!

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Jan 2008, 17:03

TerribleTerry wrote:
Tykemania wrote:
oliverfennell wrote:Well, I wasn't necessarily saying Simpkin deserved to be in the top 20, more saying generally that a ban on fighters with .500 records in the rankings could be flawed. Maybe Simpkin isn't the best example, but hopefully you get my point.
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're trying to convey, which is the possibility that someone like say Chris Edwards would be excluded - a live competitor who happens to have had to match himself very tough because of the weight at which he fights.

However, I am really struggling to think of another example of a sub .500 fighters who is not either a no-hoper or a career opponent who is willing to sacrifice their record for a few quid to be a name on every up and comers record a la Julius Francis a couple of years back.
It depends how you define 'no hoper' I suppose. I know lads with sub .500 pro records who arent just journeymen who turn up to pick up a cheque; they work long hours in jobs, train around their commitments and fight to earn a few extra quid and because they love the game.

They have little say in who they are matched against so are often out of town, in the wrong corner against a kid with top amateur credentials. Little wonder then to me that their losses outweigh their wins.

This doenst mean that they dont go out and do their runs in the morning and their hard rounds in the gym all the same - who are you to say they dont deserve to see themselves ranked across their divison? These lads may only aspire to box for Area and Master titles but so what?

Why do you think they dont deserve to see their names in the sport's only national monthly?

I agree 100%, Terry.

I can't see any reason why ANY pro should be excluded from the rankings.

If he is the 15th best, then that is where he should be ranked, regardless of his record or how many pros there are at that weight.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Jan 2008, 17:11

Tykemania wrote:
TerribleTerry wrote: It depends how you define 'no hoper' I suppose. I know lads with sub .500 pro records who arent just journeymen who turn up to pick up a cheque; they work long hours in jobs, train around their commitments and fight to earn a few extra quid and because they love the game.

They have little say in who they are matched against so are often out of town, in the wrong corner against a kid with top amateur credentials. Little wonder then to me that their losses outweigh their wins.

This doenst mean that they dont go out and do their runs in the morning and their hard rounds in the gym all the same - who are you to say they dont deserve to see themselves ranked across their divison? These lads may only aspire to box for Area and Master titles but so what?

Why do you think they dont deserve to see their names in the sport's only national monthly?
Because it remains my view that you need to establish a base level for inclusion in national rankings in order to protect the integrity of the product as a whole - if you include people whose acheivements manifestly fail to merit such an honour then it devalues the rankings as a whole; and if the insistence on ranking 20, as opposed to say 10 fighters is to remain, then steps have to be taken to ensure that everyone included is up to a certain standard. For example, at the lighters weight classes there are some fighters included who get in purely because there are not 20 British fighters at their weight, and that cheapens the whole thing.

Regarding specifically the sub .500 rule which I propose, I'm afraid I don't agree with you basic argument above that the people currently included who would be removed are as you suggest. Instead, they seem to be unanimously in the "opponent" camp, guys favoured for their willingness to take the defeat and relative durability whilst doing so - indeed, removing these guys would create space for the "love of the game" types, who usually do better than .500 anyway, that you favour!

I disagree with everything you have said, particularly the last comment.

Are you really suggesting that guys be ranked / not ranked based solely on how many losses they have on their record?

Richard Fletcher · Post by **Richard Fletcher** » 01 Jan 2008, 17:29

Interesting views here. The credibility of print journalism will always, in my view, outstrip most of what's on the web, and that's particularly true in our industry. Although the net offers immediacy, boxing also demands thought and reflection and this is where BM serves its purpose. A magazine should offer a treatment of stories and events that goes beyond their core news value, and I think we do it well in a consistently varied and entertaining way. From the people I've spoken to, including in the US, the message is that BM is a great product. It is one I aspired to as a writer long before I joined the team, replacing the great Harry Mullan as the Action UK reporter before switching to British Beat. Proper journalism is hard. Any writer worth his salt will tell you it's not just the writing that's important but the research, the checking, the reading and the re-reading. I'm afraid there are many poorly-qualified web writers who do themselves and the industry a disservice by neglecting these basic principles. All our writers adhere to them. As for BN, I contributed regularly under Harry's leadership but stopped buying it because I fell out of love with the product. But most people I talk to in the sport still read both, and I think it will continue to be the case.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 01 Jan 2008, 18:17

I think you make an interesting point Richard about reflection as sometimes sitting back and taking stock of a fight after the dust has settled can offer much needed perspective. When it comes to hard facts and immediacy of bare results then the internet is tops and it also offers a variety of aspiring writers an outlet for getting their work into the spotlight that they may not otherwise be afforded.

But most of the quality does come in hard copy and the Boxing magazines as you state. I think the two can work together and it is a shame when people dismiss internet writers as inferior when that is often not the case.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 01 Jan 2008, 18:18

Richard Fletcher wrote:Interesting views here. The credibility of print journalism will always, in my view, outstrip most of what's on the web, and that's particularly true in our industry. Although the net offers immediacy, boxing also demands thought and reflection and this is where BM serves its purpose. A magazine should offer a treatment of stories and events that goes beyond their core news value, and I think we do it well in a consistently varied and entertaining way.

With the greatest respect Richard that's a very short-termist perspective that's already looking outdated and overtaken by events. In virtually every sphere of publishing, it's been recognised that content is king, and you need to utilise every medium for delivery to the end user, whether that's print, web or even, increasingly, mobile. Consequently companies are restructuring to ensure their journos can work across print and the web, whether that's a huge operation like the Daily Telegraph or New York Times, or a niche specialist magazine. Of course web journalism is in its infancy so there will inevitably be an element of amateurism, but the level of sophistication has come on leaps and bounds in just a few years - look at a site like maxboxing.com, no-one could surely argue that their line-up of columnists, writers and contributors is weaker than all their print counterparts?
As for your comments regarding what a magazine should offer, you're completely right, but while BM still has a lot of positives, I still strongly feel that it's 'dropping the ball' on occasion. I'll refer you to my previous example of the Mayorga Vs Vargas fight - despite being published weeks after all other fight reports I defy you to name one thing in that report that hadn't already been covered by rival offerings, whether that be print or online. If you can't compete in terms of news value due to time sensitivity issues then it's vital that you offer greater analysis, exclusive content through follow-ups with the key individuals concerned etc. Too often this isn't done and a standard, dated fight report is wheeled out.
You've got the writers, you've got the contacts, so I'd argue that this simply isn't good enough.

Richard Fletcher · Post by **Richard Fletcher** » 01 Jan 2008, 19:18

Graham Houston, the author of the Vargas report, gets through a phenomenanal amount of work for BM, his own website and other outlets. Because of time constraints/unreturned calls etc, it is not always possible to contact camp members. I have encountered the same problem myself. In any case, Graham is among the most knowledgeable and experienced boxing writers in the world, and there are few journalists who are able to relay the mood and significance of a fight the way he does. His perception alone, then, carries merit. On the web issue, I'm aware of the need for journalistic versatility and the fact the "biggies" have a strong internet presence. But not all of them report with total accuracy. Some of the sport's dedicated websites are the biggest culprits, despite the presence of reputable writers. I've worked across both mediums and I know which I prefer.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 01 Jan 2008, 21:46

Richard Fletcher wrote:Graham Houston, the author of the Vargas report, gets through a phenomenanal amount of work for BM, his own website and other outlets. Because of time constraints/unreturned calls etc, it is not always possible to contact camp members. I have encountered the same problem myself. In any case, Graham is among the most knowledgeable and experienced boxing writers in the world, and there are few journalists who are able to relay the mood and significance of a fight the way he does. His perception alone, then, carries merit. On the web issue, I'm aware of the need for journalistic versatility and the fact the "biggies" have a strong internet presence. But not all of them report with total accuracy. Some of the sport's dedicated websites are the biggest culprits, despite the presence of reputable writers. I've worked across both mediums and I know which I prefer.

Graham Houston is a great writer, but that's no defence as that report was hardly a colour piece that relayed the "mood and significance" of the fight. Surely his time would have been better spent on assessing the consequences of the fight - where does it leave Mayorga in the welter shake-up, did Vargas' lifestyle cost him and did he actually under-achieve in career terms etc?
I don't want to get too hung up on one specific example, as it's the general point that's important - analysis is the key (as you yourself mentioned in the point about reflecting in print), and it's this that is missing on occasion. Bog-standard fight reports that are weeks out of date are 'dead' content in the eyes of most people regardless of the calibre of writer, unless there's something genuinely insightful that hasn't been touched on elsewhere already... which happens to be a rarity.

Richard Fletcher · Post by **Richard Fletcher** » 02 Jan 2008, 07:46

Like the rest of us, Graham follows a brief. Editorial treatment is the editor's call. If Glyn had asked for deeper analysis, Graham would have delivered it. I would dispute your "dead content" claim. A fight can still be in the public consciousness weeks, even months, after it has happened so there can never be too much reflection. As long as a report is published in the next available issue, there is no problem. I think Graham pretty much covered his bases, as he always does. Reporting fights is also a matter of record. Although we don't do them all, we cover the ones that matter pretty comprehensively. Analysis is reserved for features and Graham in particular does a lot of those, including many with a significant historical perspective. When I did Action UK, I always endeavoured to look for another angle and invariably made sure I spoke to the camps. I don't know if BN does that now, but they certainly didn't used to. With previews, we're often doing them weeks in advance and it requires imagination and self-motivation, which many journalists don't have. Then there is the ever-present risk of a fight being cancelled, which we can do nothing about if it happens after the mag has gone to print.

NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

Boxing Monthly

Re: Boxing Monthly