What happened to using the future tense boxing predictions?

[Carbo]

This morning I was reading Secondsout's Ask The Editor column. Fans write in with questions ("what next for Mosley?"; "who is the best lightweight?"; "my boyfriend has a u-shaped penis and glow in the dark testicles, is this normal for a 16 year old?"; that kind of thing), and they are answered by four Secondsout bigwigs.

While reading, I noticed something disturbing: Two of the four 'editors' answering the questions, Greg Juckett and Michael Norby, have stopped using the future tense to describe events that could happen in the future.

"Jeff, I’m not sure if Mosley knocks out Mayorga…let alone beats the Nicaraguan," writes Juckett (ignore the misuse of the elipses for now), "I agree that Mosley wins pretty comfortably," says Norby.

I suddenly realized that I see this all the time -- using the present simple for boxing predictions -- not just on forums, but on other websites too, supposedly written by professionals.

Is the future tense being phased out as some kind of cost saving exercise in the face of the credit crunch? Is it some insidious Americanism? Or am I wrong? Is it in fact as acceptable as the headline that says “Gazprom cuts of gas to Ukraine” to describe an even that happened, say, yesterday?

I wonder if anyone else has noticed this spread, or am I turning into a pedantic old stickler since everybody but me was sacked from my department and I have no communication with human beings during my 10 hour day??

Help.

EDIT: Of course, inevitably, in a post about grammar, I missed a vital preposition out of the title. That'll learn me.

[twenty six]

EDIT "That'll teach me" son, not "That'll learn learn me" !

[Carbo]

EDIT "That'll teach me" son, not "That'll learn learn me" !

Are you serious?

[Old bones Ian]

Well i can see how it may get to you if you understand all of that future or past tense.
But we are just talking about 2 men punching each other in the face, so i don't really think it matters.

[Carbo]

Well i can see how it may get to you if you understand all of that future or past tense.
But we are just talking about 2 men punching each other in the face, so i don't really think it matters.

Yes, but Ian, will they punch each other in the face, or have they already punched each other in the face? Indeed, have they been punching each other in the face or are they punching each other in the face?

I really don't know much about tenses (except that one should never conjugate verbs of emotion in the continuous tense), but it's important, don't you think?

No? All right then, I'll shut up now.

[Old bones Ian]

Actually it perobably is importent Carbo, as english should be correct.
When i see threads like this i always think i should really educate myself on the correct way.

[levi billups]

Incorrect usage of tenses is pervasive in boxing - boxers use the third person singular when talking about themselves - eg Allan Green, instead of saying 'I am going to do this that and the other to my opponent, prefers to say 'Saturday night Allan Green is going to do x y z'

Yours pedantically

L Billups

[Asterix]

I think it was originally an American thing, but we're unfortunately adopting their ways of doing things.

And Carbo, it's "that'll teach me", not "that'll learn me", as 26 said. I remember people in Norfolk using the word 'learn' in place of 'teach'. Dodgy stuff.

[Mensa07]

one thing that does irritate me (mildly) is the constant mis-spelling I see of the word "lose", as "loose". Anyone else notice that?

[Asterix]

one thing that does irritate me (mildly) is the constant mis-spelling I see of the word "lose", as "loose". Anyone else notice that?

Yep. More common is the misuse of "could've" and "should've", eh Max? ;;-)

[Carbo]

I think it was originally an American thing, but we're unfortunately adopting their ways of doing things.

And Carbo, it's "that'll teach me", not "that'll learn me", as 26 said. I remember people in Norfolk using the word 'learn' in place of 'teach'. Dodgy stuff.

Are you and 26 German, or did you both have humour bypasses at birth? Sorry to offend, but I think I have a point -- especially for you, Asterix, after I answered 26, who 'noticed' that 'mistake', with "are you serious?"

Actually it perobably is importent Carbo, as english should be correct.
When i see threads like this i always think i should really educate myself on the correct way.

Actually, the whole piece was poorly written by the two 'editors' mentioned. They might try to defend themselves by arguing that a casual style is required for ATE, but I would argue (correctly) that writing informally is not an excuse for lacklustre punctuation and grammar. It's published work, for chrissakes.

"GREG JUCKETT ANSWERS: Jeff, I’m not sure if Mosley knocks out Mayorga…let alone beats the Nicaraguan [1]. I think Mosley-Mayorga is going to be very entertaining. If Shane wins, it’s hard to say what’s next. At 37-years-old [2], he’s not going to be fighting any up-and-comers and doesn’t need to. Mosley is the mandatory at 147 for Paul Williams - a physically difficult fight for Shane - on paper [3]. Does he go after Vernon Forrest one more time now that Forrest owns the WBC title? [4]"

1. Why the ellipses?

2. Can anybody tell me why we needed hyphens to indicate age in this way?

3. I think what Juckett means here is, "Mosley is the mandatory challenger for Williams, a fight which would be, on paper, physically difficult for Mosley". Instead he writes something to the effect of Mosley being on paper, and therefore not in practice, the mandatory challenger to Williams, and that would be a physically difficult fight. Big difference.

4. For which title? Only welterweights are discussed during the whole answer, and so saying “Forrest owns the WBC title” indicates that he is WBC welterweight champion. But did he not just win the WBC title at 154? Should that not have been mentioned?

And this is just one answer. It carries on in this manner.

Listen, my work is littered with mistakes. David Payne will be able to tell you that I can't submit a single article for his blog without sending a revised version (or five) to correct typos, punctuation errors, spelling mistakes, and all the rest. Literally. I just can't get it right first time.

But for Seconds Out, which is supposedly a leading website, this is f*cking abysmal. I hope Hauser takes one look at that shower and decides his brilliant work has no place next to a sloppy load of doo-doo.

[Asterix]

I think it was originally an American thing, but we're unfortunately adopting their ways of doing things.

And Carbo, it's "that'll teach me", not "that'll learn me", as 26 said. I remember people in Norfolk using the word 'learn' in place of 'teach'. Dodgy stuff.

Are you and 26 German, or did you both have humour bypasses at birth? Sorry to offend, but I think I have a point -- especially for you, Asterix, after I answered 26, who 'noticed' that 'mistake', with "are you serious?"

I don't know you and I don't know what is your kind of humour. I thought you were just mistaken. I've been around plenty of people before who thought that it was perfect English.

[Wax On]

Bloody hell Carbo. You must have been creaming your pants when 'Eats, shoots and leaves' was published!

PS Your poor spelling of chrissakes offends me deeply. Do you mean for Christ's sake?

[chesh]

Regarding point 4., the Mosley-Mayorga fight is at 154, not welterweight.

[jamesmcdonnell]

This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

[twenty six]

Carbo,
Take a chill pill man - ok, I'm right and you're wrong grammatically, but there was a wink at the end of it.
Serious in the sense I'm right, funny in the sense you're wrong !!
Just laugh mate, it won't change the world.

[AlexY2K4]

one thing that does irritate me (mildly) is the constant mis-spelling I see of the word "lose", as "loose". Anyone else notice that?

Too right, and the all-too-frequent use of "alot" in place of a lot. "Could of" instead of could have.

Anyway...

[jammidodger]

one thing that does irritate me (mildly) is the constant mis-spelling I see of the word "lose", as "loose". Anyone else notice that?

i only go on boxing and footie forums and this mistake drives me up the wall no end!!!!

[Captain Hook]

This morning I was reading Secondsout's Ask The Editor column. Fans write in with questions ("what next for Mosley?"; "who is the best lightweight?"; "my boyfriend has a u-shaped penis and glow in the dark testicles, is this normal for a 16 year old?"; that kind of thing), and they are answered by four Secondsout bigwigs.

While reading, I noticed something disturbing: Two of the four 'editors' answering the questions, Greg Juckett and Michael Norby, have stopped using the future tense to describe events that could happen in the future.

"Jeff, I’m not sure if Mosley knocks out Mayorga…let alone beats the Nicaraguan," writes Juckett (ignore the misuse of the elipses for now), "I agree that Mosley wins pretty comfortably," says Norby.

I suddenly realized that I see this all the time -- using the present simple for boxing predictions -- not just on forums, but on other websites too, supposedly written by professionals.

Is the future tense being phased out as some kind of cost saving exercise in the face of the credit crunch? Is it some insidious Americanism? Or am I wrong? Is it in fact as acceptable as the headline that says “Gazprom cuts of gas to Ukraine” to describe an even that happened, say, yesterday?

I wonder if anyone else has noticed this spread, or am I turning into a pedantic old stickler since everybody but me was sacked from my department and I have no communication with human beings during my 10 hour day??

Help.

EDIT: Of course, inevitably, in a post about grammar, I missed a vital preposition out of the title. That'll learn me.

Good post, I'm something of a grammar nazi myself mate...

[Old bones Ian]

[Captain Hook]

This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

True mate. You'd be amazed at the amount of English teachers who call to moan about perceived grammatical errors. They won't accept house style.

[Loftgroov]

The one that really irritates me is cretins who say “I borrowed him it” rather than “I lent him it”.

Whoever started that little craze should be flogged.

[n1ebf]

The one that really irritates me is cretins who say “I borrowed him it” rather than “I lent him it”.

Whoever started that little craze should be flogged.

[n1ebf]

I enjoy it when people say "nooone" instead of no one :)

noone is correct, not no one..people don't put it cos it looks wrong.

[n1ebf]

The one that really irritates me is cretins who say “I borrowed him it” rather than “I lent him it”.

Whoever started that little craze should be flogged.

then what about quartered or is that harsh??