BOXING NEWS IS A DISGRACE...

[REAL_DEAL]

Tyson - Francis was weaker IMO. I have a few fights of khan opponent he is okay but nothing special. Khan should wear him down.

[lowersmiths]

I'm trying to think of a PPV with a weaker headliner here in the UK?

Cassius Baloyi KO1 Baudilio Hernandez for the WBU super-featherweight title
September 1, 2000
it wasnt held in the UK but it was available in the UK and the undercard featured UK fighters - not sure if that means i get a chocolate watch or not? mr payne?

[Deserter]

Danny, while I appreciate you coming on to defend your collective position I stand by my comments. At a time when we're facing a 'credit crunch' and looming recession, the last thing many of your loyal readers will need is to be faced with a PPV for a fight at this level. You'll surely know from your own reader research that your core readership hardly constitutes ABC1 males, so asking them to fork out at a time like this for a fight of this stature is outrageous. All the best publications, regardless of their subject matter, passionately care about their readers and campaign on their behalf. But BN doesn't even have the bottle to pass comment on it - to my mind, therefore, there is no other word for it but disgrace. Claude has failed in his no. 1 obligation - to look after BN's readers and represent their interests.
Why did you quiz Bruno on the drugs use? Public interest is the answer. Are you seriously saying, therefore, that this PPV fiasco is not a matter of public interest and so wasn't worthy of comment?
As for the Warren interview, there was no balance.. his PR couldn't have penned it any better. I'm all for hearing his point of view and even lauding the positives of his contribution to the sport, but to gloss over those areas where he's been subject to criticism is indefensible. Again, can you honestly say that the questions asked were those your readers would have wanted? If not, you've failed them again.
And finally, with regards to integrity, I'm aiming that squarely at the editor rather than the rest of you as it's ultimately his responsibility. He's rolled over on these issues, and it's not the first time, so again, unfortunately I feel justified in regarding him as lacking in integrity.

[Deserter]

And just to add evidence to my final point (as well as substantiating the fact it's not an anti-Warren rant), I posted this earlier this year:

jim wright wrote:
I reckon he produces a consistent must read column everyweek.

Couldn't disagree more, this week being a perfect example. Claude could have taken Hatton to task for the hypocrisy in his claim that he's doing the Lazcano fight "for the fans" but going along with Sky in making it a pay-per-view, instead he devotes it to Spain's former European bantamweight champion who boxed from 1943 to 1958

The best editors in the business are those who make a stand or shed light on issues that give the readers insight they wouldn't otherwise have got.
By contrast, Claude clearly deliberately avoids controversy and plays it 'safe'. As a result, despite being a reader of BN for a number of years, I still have no idea who Claude is in terms of his genuine thoughts, opinions etc, which surely is the point of a column? Contrast that with Glyn Leach, who wears his heart on his sleeve, tells it as it is and as a result, for my money, connects far better with readers.

[dbflex]

I maintain that our omission of these issues does not constitute a lack of bottle, as you put it. We do not really have an opinion section. This would have had to go in the news section – the Warren feature, no matter whether you liked or hated it was a recap of his career based on his HOF induction – and we were hard pushed to fit all the week's news in anyway. Working on a weekly, you have to make crunch decisions rather quickly and if it's a case of holding back important info or opinion, sometimes opinion gets the bad end of the balancing act. That is why we have blogs on the website, as they are a forum specifically for opinion and you will find plenty of criticism there, not just of SN but of plenty of things. I know you will respond that a high percentage of the readership do not read the blogs but Boxing News, the Editor's column aside, is not a convenient vehicle for opinion. As for that column, the Olympics have rather dominated everything recently but perhap now they are over, more on the pro game will make it through. I may never be able to convince you but, for me, it's not a question of bottle but of propriety and time-management more than anything else. But by all means, write us a letter and we will publish your views, no problem.
And £14.95 for a PPV, if you consider it to be sub-standard, would be unfair regardless of the credit crunch. Just because people have less money, does not make it more or less of a liberty.

[Deserter]

I maintain that our omission of these issues does not constitute a lack of bottle, as you put it. We do not really have an opinion section.
And £14.95 for a PPV, if you consider it to be sub-standard, would be unfair regardless of the credit crunch. Just because people have less money, does not make it more or less of a liberty.

Danny, I have to admit to being slightly bemused by your response. You've previously cited that the anti Kevin McIntyre being stripped piece proved you did have opinions, but you're now saying that you "do not really have an opinion section". I'm afraid you can't play it both ways.
As for the PPV, with the greatest of respect I think you're missing the point. Of course it's unfair in any context, but it takes on a heightened topicality given the economic backdrop. In very simple terms, it becomes even more newsworthy - in that respect it's no different to the price rises being set by the various energy companies. If the economy was in fine fettle and everyone had plenty of disposable income, these price rises would still be condemned, but they'd hardly be making the front page of the Daily Mail.
The timing of this PPV is incredibly insensitive to the average fan and if BN can't grasp that it's an incredibly newsworthy item in that regard it's clearly cause for concern.
Oh, and just out of curiousity, I'd be interested to know how Claude's decision to focus on Spain's former European bantamweight champion who boxed from 1943 to 1958 in his column in the same week that he could have taken Hatton to task for the hypocrisy in his claim that he was doing the Lazcano fight "for the fans" but went down the PPV route could be attributed to a time management issue

[Poncey]

Do you think BN including letters from the public about this would be something (based on the assumptions that they have some and also that they haven't already)?

[whatashambles]

I maintain that our omission of these issues does not constitute a lack of bottle, as you put it. We do not really have an opinion section. This would have had to go in the news section – the Warren feature, no matter whether you liked or hated it was a recap of his career based on his HOF induction – and we were hard pushed to fit all the week's news in anyway. Working on a weekly, you have to make crunch decisions rather quickly and if it's a case of holding back important info or opinion, sometimes opinion gets the bad end of the balancing act. That is why we have blogs on the website, as they are a forum specifically for opinion and you will find plenty of criticism there, not just of SN but of plenty of things. I know you will respond that a high percentage of the readership do not read the blogs but Boxing News, the Editor's column aside, is not a convenient vehicle for opinion. As for that column, the Olympics have rather dominated everything recently but perhap now they are over, more on the pro game will make it through. I may never be able to convince you but, for me, it's not a question of bottle but of propriety and time-management more than anything else. But by all means, write us a letter and we will publish your views, no problem.
And £14.95 for a PPV, if you consider it to be sub-standard, would be unfair regardless of the credit crunch. Just because people have less money, does not make it more or less of a liberty.

What annoys me is that it has been taken away from free tv and now on Sky Box Office, which will cost fans over £200 a year for Sky alone and an extra £15 for the PPV.
It is not just bad for the average fan but for boxing in general. Khan is known throughout the country and is someone that could bring back interest in boxing to the masses but it is being stopped by putting him on Sky. You won't even be able to see him on BBC the week after as has happened with Calzaghe fights recently.
Soon we'll end up with the same system in the US where HBO have more and more PPVs seemingly now every month charging $50. No wonder boxing is becoming marginalised when young people who would like to watch it, can't afford it or because they don't have Sky in the first place.

[chesh]

As I wrote earlier, those of us who subscribe to Sky Sports are already paying about £500 a year (not £200, as quoted by the previous poster). I reiterate what I posted earlier: Sky - more so than the promoter - are answerable for this situation. Sky are taking the money fom your bank account. Sky made a killing on the Hatton-Mayweather PPV. Shouldn't at least some of that money be re-invested in boxing? Shouldn't that money, together with the approx. £40 a month we are paying them, be sufficient to fund the broadcast of an Amir Khan show at this stage of his career? The buck stops with Sky, as far as I'm concerned. If we are to criticise BN, it should be for their failure (so far) to take Sky to task over this.

[Deserter]

As I wrote earlier, those of us who subscribe to Sky Sports are already paying about £500 a year (not £200, as quoted by the previous poster). I reiterate what I posted earlier: Sky - more so than the promoter - are answerable for this situation. Sky are taking the money fom your bank account. Sky made a killing on the Hatton-Mayweather PPV. Shouldn't at least some of that money be re-invested in boxing? Shouldn't that money, together with the approx. £40 a month we are paying them, be sufficient to fund the broadcast of an Amir Khan show at this stage of his career? The buck stops with Sky, as far as I'm concerned. If we are to criticise BN, it should be for their failure (so far) to take Sky to task over this.

Completely fair point fella - my criticisms weren't both directed at the BN-Warren relationship and I fully accept that in terms of the PPV situation BN should be taking Sky to task as well as Frank. Doesn't look like either is on the cards though.

[dbflex]

Deserter, in terms of Claude's column, you'd have to ask him but I'm sure you are not suggesting that the death of a good quality former fighter should be shunted to make space for the Hatton criticism. That wouldn't be fair would it?
As for the opinion thing, I'm not contradicting myself. When space etc allows we can put our own opinion into things, of course we can, but that is not always the case, especially when the Olympics are on. We cannot devote a whole page to the MEN show – postive or negative – so one we'd covered the new Sky deal, Khan's new opponent – which, whether you like it or not, are both newsworthy items – plus the undercard, there was not a great deal of space left in the story. With McIntyre, his being stripped WAS the story, that was it. With Khan/Sky, there were many different details that needed to be mentioned.
If you feel we were wrong to omit strong criticism of the bill going on PPV, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not because we 'bottled' it and, while I'm promising nothing, please bear in mind that there are still news stories, a preview and a fight report to come from this bill.
As to the poster who asked about letters, there will be several on Friday on this very issue.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

All this talk of "loyalty" and "what the fans want" is pure hogwash

1) define how a business (which exists purely to make money) needs to show "loyalty" to a bunch of internet neer-do-wells, who, if you follow this forum, have not been satisfied by a single fight in all of boxing since 1997

2) this PPV, any PPV, will live or die by how many people buy it, if this card sells and is well received (might be a fornicating cracker, i dunno) then all of this gibberish some people on here spout about "what the fans want" will be proven to be the drunken bluster it always is.

Ok, this card/interview/whatever isnt what you want, but this forum does not represent anyone or anything of any importance, this forum is not the "last bastion of the true boxing fan, if it did why did 55,000 people show up to watch Hatton when on this forum the event was likened to the Nuremberg rally.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

As I wrote earlier, those of us who subscribe to Sky Sports are already paying about £500 a year (not £200, as quoted by the previous poster). I reiterate what I posted earlier: Sky - more so than the promoter - are answerable for this situation. Sky are taking the money fom your bank account. Sky made a killing on the Hatton-Mayweather PPV. Shouldn't at least some of that money be re-invested in boxing? Shouldn't that money, together with the approx. £40 a month we are paying them, be sufficient to fund the broadcast of an Amir Khan show at this stage of his career? The buck stops with Sky, as far as I'm concerned. If we are to criticise BN, it should be for their failure (so far) to take Sky to task over this.

Completely fair point fella - my criticisms weren't both directed at the BN-Warren relationship and I fully accept that in terms of the PPV situation BN should be taking Sky to task as well as Frank. Doesn't look like either is on the cards though.

Boxing News is a commercial enterprise, not the Q'uran,what good would it do anyone to alienate Britains most influential promoter?

"Well at least we listened to Boxrec and stuck by our principals!" they mutter as the office computers are re-possessed


The Boxing News staff, drunk on principles, and Gin, then march on Westminster to bring Gordon Brown to task for supplying arms to Loyalists paramilitaries "ONWARD BRAVE SOULS!!!! ONWARD TO VICTORY!!!!!"


and so on

[JamesH]

Just want to say I have gained massive respect for DBFlex by his determination to come in and chew the fat here, nice one mate

I understand what you are saying on this one but re "when space allows".....if valid opinion pieces are squeezed out of the page off season, what chance is there when there is actually a full compliment of fights on?

Blogs on the websites are fine but pertinent comments/opinions should be reflected in the mag also.

Here is an article, old (Nov 2000) and cautious of litigation, but imo extremely enlightening none the less.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/stor ... 32,00.html

[Deserter]

I'm sure you are not suggesting that the death of a good quality former fighter should be shunted to make space for the Hatton criticism.

I absolutely am! Are you seriously trying to tell me that the death of a Spanish fighter who around 0.5% of your readers will have heard of is more relevant and interesting than a piece from the editor 'calling out' Hatton for the contradiction in his 'for the fans' statement?
Danny, with the greatest respect that displays a worrying lack of news sense and an understanding of what makes your readers tick.

[Deserter]

All this talk of "loyalty" and "what the fans want" is pure hogwash

1) define how a business (which exists purely to make money) needs to show "loyalty" to a bunch of internet neer-do-wells, who, if you follow this forum, have not been satisfied by a single fight in all of boxing since 1997

2) this PPV, any PPV, will live or die by how many people buy it, if this card sells and is well received (might be a effing cracker, i dunno) then all of this gibberish some people on here spout about "what the fans want" will be proven to be the drunken bluster it always is.

Ok, this card/interview/whatever isnt what you want, but this forum does not represent anyone or anything of any importance, this forum is not the "last bastion of the true boxing fan, if it did why did 55,000 people show up to watch Hatton when on this forum the event was likened to the Nuremberg rally.

KG, as ever it's difficult to tell how much of your post is a true statement of intent and how much is playing to the crowd, but just to address your only clearly discernable point, it's a recognised fact in the media industry that if you don't deliver the content your readers demand and expect you'll suffer commercially through lost sales.

[dbflex]

If it's all about reflecting what your readers want – and it is – I should state that yours is the first complaint we've had about choosing to highlight the passing of a great fighter over "pulling Hatton up" and also that our sales figures have yet to nosedive at all in recent months. If our readers – i.e. the ones who actually write in to our letters page, email us personally, respond to our website appeals etc – are avid about something, we will respond to it.
I am now going to step back from the fray as I don't feel we are resolving much but agan, I must say that any/all of you feel free to email our letters page or me personally with your views. This game is all about opinions so, even as I disagree with your view, I will fight for your right to have it (or something like that).

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

All this talk of "loyalty" and "what the fans want" is pure hogwash

1) define how a business (which exists purely to make money) needs to show "loyalty" to a bunch of internet neer-do-wells, who, if you follow this forum, have not been satisfied by a single fight in all of boxing since 1997

2) this PPV, any PPV, will live or die by how many people buy it, if this card sells and is well received (might be a effing cracker, i dunno) then all of this gibberish some people on here spout about "what the fans want" will be proven to be the drunken bluster it always is.

Ok, this card/interview/whatever isnt what you want, but this forum does not represent anyone or anything of any importance, this forum is not the "last bastion of the true boxing fan, if it did why did 55,000 people show up to watch Hatton when on this forum the event was likened to the Nuremberg rally.

KG, as ever it's difficult to tell how much of your post is a true statement of intent and how much is playing to the crowd, but just to address your only clearly discernable point, it's a recognised fact in the media industry that if you don't deliver the content your readers demand and expect you'll suffer commercially through lost sales.

me, playing to the crowd? never...

Also you fail to see my "main" point!!

it's a recognised fact in the media industry that if you don't deliver the content your readers demand and expect you'll suffer commercially through lost sales.

I agree with that 100%, i also believe that the views expressed on this forum are in no way representative of the vast vast majority of "boxing fans"


And thank god for that, if boxing fans were like people on this forum, no fight would have ever sold a single ticket


And if you think this forum is in any way representative (or influential, or particularly relevant) remember this:

Hatton - Lazcano 55,000, paid

None of my boxing mates (who dont post here) think its a disgrace that Khan is on PPV, i think it would be wrong to suggest that the whole nation is up in arms about it.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

If it's all about reflecting what your readers want – and it is – I should state that yours is the first complaint we've had about choosing to highlight the passing of a great fighter over "pulling Hatton up" and also that our sales figures have yet to nosedive at all in recent months. If our readers – i.e. the ones who actually write in to our letters page, email us personally, respond to our website appeals etc – are avid about something, we will respond to it.
I am now going to step back from the fray as I don't feel we are resolving much but agan, I must say that any/all of you feel free to email our letters page or me personally with your views. This game is all about opinions so, even as I disagree with your view, I will fight for your right to have it (or something like that).

But this forum, for some reason, thinks it represents the entire boxing fan nation (even though only about 25 people regularly post here, and half of them have to get their nurse to assist them)

[banjo]

PPV are shit anyway, they are never worth the money you pay especially when we can watch it on Sky Sports a couple of days later. Only a friggin mug would pay 15 quid to watch something that they'll be able to watch for free in a couple of days.

[Deserter]

All this talk of "loyalty" and "what the fans want" is pure hogwash

1) define how a business (which exists purely to make money) needs to show "loyalty" to a bunch of internet neer-do-wells, who, if you follow this forum, have not been satisfied by a single fight in all of boxing since 1997

2) this PPV, any PPV, will live or die by how many people buy it, if this card sells and is well received (might be a effing cracker, i dunno) then all of this gibberish some people on here spout about "what the fans want" will be proven to be the drunken bluster it always is.

Ok, this card/interview/whatever isnt what you want, but this forum does not represent anyone or anything of any importance, this forum is not the "last bastion of the true boxing fan, if it did why did 55,000 people show up to watch Hatton when on this forum the event was likened to the Nuremberg rally.

KG, as ever it's difficult to tell how much of your post is a true statement of intent and how much is playing to the crowd, but just to address your only clearly discernable point, it's a recognised fact in the media industry that if you don't deliver the content your readers demand and expect you'll suffer commercially through lost sales.

me, playing to the crowd? never...

Also you fail to see my "main" point!!

it's a recognised fact in the media industry that if you don't deliver the content your readers demand and expect you'll suffer commercially through lost sales.

I agree with that 100%, i also believe that the views expressed on this forum are in no way representative of the vast vast majority of "boxing fans"


And thank god for that, if boxing fans were like people on this forum, no fight would have ever sold a single ticket


And if you think this forum is in any way representative (or influential, or particularly relevant) remember this:

Hatton - Lazcano 55,000, paid

None of my boxing mates (who dont post here) think its a disgrace that Khan is on PPV, i think it would be wrong to suggest that the whole nation is up in arms about it.

Thanks for responding without the trademark humour (which I actually enjoy greatly when it's not directed at me!).
I think we're bordering on two separate issues here. I agree that the mainstream punter will not have the same response to the PPV (though as an aside I am still of the belief that Khan doesn't possess the 'pull' of the likes of Hatton so expect this particular PPV to perform poorly). However, BN's readers constitute the minority of punters - they are the 'hardcore' special interest fans and in that respect this forum is far more representative of them than it is of the general public. BN readers by their very nature will be 'educated' about the sport and so more are likely to recognise the PPV for the rip-off it is. Even if there's a minority that don't, you can make a strong case for saying that part of BN's role should be to point this out as a service to the reader.

[Deserter]

If it's all about reflecting what your readers want – and it is – I should state that yours is the first complaint we've had about choosing to highlight the passing of a great fighter over "pulling Hatton up" and also that our sales figures have yet to nosedive at all in recent months. If our readers – i.e. the ones who actually write in to our letters page, email us personally, respond to our website appeals etc – are avid about something, we will respond to it.
I am now going to step back from the fray as I don't feel we are resolving much but agan, I must say that any/all of you feel free to email our letters page or me personally with your views. This game is all about opinions so, even as I disagree with your view, I will fight for your right to have it (or something like that).

Danny, hope I don't sound patronising here, but publishing is never that black and white. People rarely feel strongly enough to write into a magazine (whether that's positives or negatives), and you'll never see a sudden drop-off on the basis of one article. However, what happens is that things like this contribute to an overall opinion on a magazine and people just start buying it less or stop buying it at all. You also need to weigh up the other side from a publishing perspective e.g. if Claude and/or others did publish strong opinion pieces would you see a circulation rise of a few hundred copies per issue over a period of time and would it be through stealing market share from the competition (Boxing Monthly)? I think that's perfectly plausible (after all, the Mail wouldn't pay Littlejohn £1m a year if they didn't think he was one of the prime motivators in purchasing the paper).
You only have to look at the men's lifestyle sector to see what happens when editors and editorial teams 'lose the pulse' of readers - collectlvely Maxim, Loaded and FHM have lost hundreds of thousands of readers in the last few years. A large part of that is the internet, but it's also to do with the editorial teams failing to stay in touch with their reader interests. Again, you can't pinpoint a single article causing the decline, but you can bet that any number of articles that were not in tune with readers contributed to the decline.
From an internal perspective, you also know you only have a finite space to fill each week and I'd seriously question anyone who felt that Spanish fighter was worthy of a full page on a premium position at the front of the book - that's just not effective content management however you look at it.
Finally, I genuinely appreciate you coming on here and taking the comments in the manner they're intended and I respect the fact you're fighting your corner. I'd just love to see that passion on the page in the form of strong opinion pieces in the publication itself. It's one of the few areas that BM absolutely heads you on.

[Kilburn]

I too was disappointed that Boxing News didn't address this whole PPV farce. It kind of reminded me of how TV channels in this country will largely act like fighters on other networks simply don't exist (not a single mention of Amir Khan while Romanov was thumping Thaxton on Sky etc).

I want someone with a lesser knowledge of boxing to be able to pick up the otherwise superb Boxing News and know exactly what is going on. A few readers letters at the back just doesn't carry enough weight. We want experts to make their opinions known!

[MightyWarrior]

Lack of space my arse. A laughable excuse, bottom line is BN are s**t scared to criticise Warren, fact. If not, lets see it? No chance

Is Khan v some bum on PPV good for british boxing? Is it hell, its a bloody disaster. And yet BN sit mute on the sidelines, too scared to lose their precious ringside passes.
What they have lost though, as a result, is their readers respect.
And with that, eventualy, their sales, and then their jobs.
Lets see if "space allows" next week eh?

[whatashambles]

I too was disappointed that Boxing News didn't address this whole PPV farce. It kind of reminded me of how TV channels in this country will largely act like fighters on other networks simply don't exist (not a single mention of Amir Khan while Romanov was thumping Thaxton on Sky etc).

I want someone with a lesser knowledge of boxing to be able to pick up the otherwise superb Boxing News and know exactly what is going on. A few readers letters at the back just doesn't carry enough weight. We want experts to make their opinions known!

This is one problem I've had with Boxing News over the last couple of years is that there is not enough comment based articles and the internet has become one of the reasons I've gradually stopped buying it.
I can get my news from any number of sites and will watch and download several cards from all over the world every weekend. In the end it doesn't leave a huge amount to read for the £2.55.
The fight previews are excellent as are other aspects, interviews, old timers and the big features but unless there is a big fight or something of particular interest I don't personally think it justifies the money.
There is a hole for good comment pieces, Boxing Monthly is only monthly and the Ring though excellent, is expensive and several months out of date by the time it is published.
You guys at Boxing News are some of the best in the business and got there for a reason (despite the thread from last month) and would like to know what you think.

As for the Khan PPV being a success I'm sure it will be, as was the Hatton-Urango fight. Boxing is becoming more of a business than a sport. Anyone can become a world champion if they pay the sanctionaing fees, hell Butterbean is fighting for a European 'title'.
Personally I think it should be Boxing News' job to tell the public that even if Khan wins a WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF belt he isn't Lightweight champion unless he beats the best in his division. They should call Warren and Sky up on these no mark fights as should other boxing writers in the media, otherwise we'll just continue to be fed these pointless fights.