Times bash Buckley – no way to treat such a loyal servant

[gobbles]

I think he has addressed some of these points in his blog. Sorry,don't know if I did the link right.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/boxing/

[jamesmcdonnell]

The articles Terry posted are far more realistic pieces compared to the sensational tabloid muck the Times released the other day.
To any Buckley detractors, walk a mile in his shoes before you start shouting your mouth off

Alternatively, pay upwards of £30 a ticket to watch Buckley go through the motions and ask yourself if you've just received value-for-money Since when did Buckley's non-performances become acceptable in what is supposed to be a competitive sport? I've paid thousands of pounds to watch Buckley in action over the years and so find people lauding his lack of effort rather tiresome, as no doubt do the rest of the paying public who Boxing should have its best interests in appealing too.

Nobody pays 30 quid to watch buckley in a main event - that is nonsense.

[Brian Moore]

The articles Terry posted are far more realistic pieces compared to the sensational tabloid muck the Times released the other day.
To any Buckley detractors, walk a mile in his shoes before you start shouting your mouth off

Alternatively, pay upwards of £30 a ticket to watch Buckley go through the motions and ask yourself if you've just received value-for-money Since when did Buckley's non-performances become acceptable in what is supposed to be a competitive sport? I've paid thousands of pounds to watch Buckley in action over the years and so find people lauding his lack of effort rather tiresome, as no doubt do the rest of the paying public who Boxing should have its best interests in appealing too.

Nobody pays 30 quid to watch buckley in a main event - that is nonsense.

I didn't say anything about main events. But if a paying customer pays £30+ to watch a night's boxing he or she can be justified in having a moan if the contests they are watching are not competitive with one of the combatants seemingly going through the motions. Watching boxing as a paying punter isn't cheap.

[Coco]

The articles Terry posted are far more realistic pieces compared to the sensational tabloid muck the Times released the other day.
To any Buckley detractors, walk a mile in his shoes before you start shouting your mouth off

Alternatively, pay upwards of £30 a ticket to watch Buckley go through the motions and ask yourself if you've just received value-for-money Since when did Buckley's non-performances become acceptable in what is supposed to be a competitive sport? I've paid thousands of pounds to watch Buckley in action over the years and so find people lauding his lack of effort rather tiresome, as no doubt do the rest of the paying public who Boxing should have its best interests in appealing too.

You don't write for The Times by any chance!! I'm always weary of these new posters
There is no bigger disaster for a promoter than to have a succession of early finishes, genuine boxing fans appreciate sublime defensive skills.
Tabloid jokers expect every bout to come out of a Rocky film

[dbflex]

As for Brian Moore's value-for-money point, I don't think people buy tickets for the shows to see Buckley; they go to see their favourite who may be fighting Buckley and they are generally happy to see that boxer win regardless. As for the neutral, how many of those go to a show for the Buckley four-rounder on the bill?
As for gobbles, I assume "some people" is mainly me but I'm not pointing fingers, I was just unhappy with the slant of the article. Looking at the author's blog, neither was he, entirely.

[Brian Moore]

You don't write for The Times by any chance!! I'm always weary of these new posters
There is no bigger disaster for a promoter than to have a succession of early finishes, genuine boxing fans appreciate sublime defensive skills.
Tabloid jokers expect every bout to come out of a Rocky film[/quote]

Clearly you haven't paid to witness the misfortune of seeing as many Buckley fights as I have over the years. And if you're advocating that uncompetitive fights is good for boxing sadly you're seriously deluded and out of touch with the reality of what modern sport should be. I also beg to differ regarding your points that "quick KOs are a disaster for a promoter". Exciting, spectacular finishes don't seem to be harming the UFC, do they?

Dreary, predictable points wins AREN'T entertaining.

[lowersmiths]

fighters like buckley are the reason most people just watch one bout on a bill and then leave or stand in the bar.
they simply aren't fights that people want to watch. and i beg to differ on punters wanting to see rounds. i think most like to see a good tear-up and then someone getting KO'd.
on a lot of dinner shows, tickets are sold to businesses etc for entertaining clients. how is watching 60-54 of repetitive sparring doing that any good?

[lowersmiths]

how many fans just watch one fight on MMA shows?

[Coco]

http://timesonline.typepad.com/boxing/2 ... .html#more

This is Ron Lewis's blog, he claims to have never labelled Buckley as the world worst boxer, and never mentioned Tim Henman or Eddie Edwards, this was apparently done by the sub editor as the story was being marketed to a non sporting audience.

I'm not sure how often this sort of thing is done but I know Bob Mee complained to me about this practice when Claude Abrams kept doing it to him.

I also notice the writer used to write for Boxing News, I wonder if Danny Flexen had a hidden agenda here.

And the reason you have quick endings in MMA is because of the mismatches in that the opponents they pick out of the pub to fight have no idea how to defend themselves

[Coco]

I know Miguel Matthews is still seething about an articles written about him, one fella from the Mail told him he wanted to write a positive one, went to the gym with him, met the family and kids, Miguel even cooked him dinner in the house, only for him to take the piss in the write up.
Some journalists are scum, with no thinking for the impact these lies can have on decent people's lives

[stujones]

It might sound harsh, but I honestly think a good sparring sessions is better for the fighter than going through Buckley. What can a fighter learn from it - only mistakes.

A good sparr will iron out mistakes.

[dondada]

I assumed on another thread it was Ron Lewis' sub-editor stitching him up with a shitty headline. I've read it now and Ron is negative initially - but you can't get away from the fact that Buckley has lost 256 fights. The tone is a bit unfortunate, perhaps. Ron does have to try and get the space in the first place though.

Buckley does divide opinion - Ron does give balance further down the piece.

The Eddie the Eagle analogy is a bit strained - Edwards was always complete shite, Buckley wasn't.

Ron makes a stout defence on his blog. I said on another thread: "No way will he have picked his own headline. Not sure of the tone of the piece but this is the reason why most journos loathe sub-editors with a passion."

I was defending Ron because I thought it extremely unlikely he would set out to bash Buckley. But I'm amazed at how much of a liberty that wanker sub-editor has taken with his piece. The things he's been getting a kicking for aren't even his...despite them being under his name. And that includes the shite Eddie the Eagle bit

[Chambers2]

I assumed on another thread it was Ron Lewis' sub-editor stitching him up with a shitty headline. I've read it now and Ron is negative initially - but you can't get away from the fact that Buckley has lost 256 fights. The tone is a bit unfortunate, perhaps. Ron does have to try and get the space in the first place though.

Buckley does divide opinion - Ron does give balance further down the piece.

The Eddie the Eagle analogy is a bit strained - Edwards was always complete shite, Buckley wasn't.

Ron makes a stout defence on his blog. I said on another thread: "No way will he have picked his own headline. Not sure of the tone of the piece but this is the reason why most journos loathe sub-editors with a passion."

I was defending Ron because I thought it extremely unlikely he would set out to bash Buckley. But I'm amazed at how much of a liberty that wanker sub-editor has taken with his piece. The things he's been getting a kicking for aren't even his...despite them being under his name. And that includes the shite Eddie the Eagle bit

I'm not familiar with the workings of the newspaper world, but I was amazed to read that a sub-editor can rewrite a journos piece and still put it out with the journos name on it.

[jamesmcdonnell]

It might sound harsh, but I honestly think a good sparring sessions is better for the fighter than going through Buckley. What can a fighter learn from it - only mistakes.

A good sparr will iron out mistakes.

You don't get paid for sparring sessions last time I checked.

[Spud]

While the tone of the piece may be harsh by the Times journalist, Buckley represents one of the things that is wrong with British boxing and why many of today’s younger fans are being more attracted to MMA. Boxing cards are supposed to contain competitive, well-matched bouts right the way down the card. It’s not about just having a decent main event and chief support. Buckley has long since ceased to be competitive, arguably since the early 90’s, and just goes through the motions, effectively conning the paying public. Do you think they care about Buckley being a loyal servant? They just want to see competitive fights for their very hard earned money, not 60-54 every time Buckley steps through the ropes.

I don’t have a problem with journeymen of the likes of Tony Booth who at least give it a go and earn their money by putting in an honest shift when they climb through the ropes but this doesn’t apply to Buckley. Lets’ face it this is a man who earns good pocket money for essentially turning up and going through the motions. What is exactly is he teaching our prospects?

Trashing Buckley may be below the belt but celebrating him as some kind of iconic figure is equally naïve. If Boxing is to survive the fewer the “opponents” who adopt Buckley’s mindset, the better.

I do not think it is Peter Buckley's fault - all he is doing is answering the call of the matchmakers and promoters of the sport - and in addition the BBBofC sanction the bouts so how on earth can anything be Buckley to do with this?

All Buckley is doing is earning some dough to pay the bills - fair play to him.

[E]

Well said, and E, if you have any evidence (i.e. stupid predicitions or comments I've/he's made in BN, shouldn't be too hard) to back up the half-wit comment. please share it with the group. We nearly made it through a whole thread without it getting personal. E, you know the drill, "you've let the forum down...

Sorry, you're right this was poor. I was pissed and in a bad mood....

I apologise as much as Jonathan Ross and Russel Brand.

It is unfair to hide behind a moniker on the internet and make personal attacks.

I just didn't think the article was THAT unfair really to Buckley - and at least he's getting some recognition from front page (I think) braodsheet.

Sorry mate.

(PS one thing I do remember that you wrote "I don't buy the glass chin theory about Khan" (from memory) in the Prescott preview.....whoops!) 8)

[Wake up call]

Sadly, loads of stuff that journalists write gets changed before it goes in the paper.

When we talk of newspaper boxing writers there are good and bad. Ron Lewis is one of the good guys so I believe this is the work of a stupid sub.

Peter Buckley is a hero. Anyone who dares to step through the ropes is a hero.

People like Buckley, the Smith brothers, Karl Taylor etc do a very important jobs and without them it would be difficult for the young fighters to develop.

[fatcity69]

I brought the paper thinking it would have an interesting peice on a largely unappreciated fighter, but when I then read it I was so disgusted I just threw it in the bin... its the kind of hatchet journalism that youd expect from the Sun rather than the times... it seems the keybaord warriors of the times think its funny to look down their noses at Peter on the basis of his won - lost record... which only goes to show the true paucity of their boxing knowledge. I actually had the 'pleasure' of working with Mr Lewis for a time and must say that I'm rather baffled by his appointment as the Times boxing writer... his lack of true boxing knowledge (aside from what he is able to pick up on the internet) is matched only by the dullness of his writing... Peter Buckley deserved better than having this dullard and his cronie doing a hatchet job on him.....

[Max Molyneux]

It might sound harsh, but I honestly think a good sparring sessions is better for the fighter than going through Buckley. What can a fighter learn from it - only mistakes.

A good sparr will iron out mistakes.

You don't get paid for sparring sessions last time I checked.

True but knowledge Is better than money.

[kevin]

BBN's tribute to the Professor

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3958- ... -foes.html

[dbflex]

Head to head Kevin – good to see we're both giving Buckley the atention he deserves. Cu tonite. E, what can I say, apology accepted, and ur bang on about the Khan thing – although I'm not sure getting sparked by a big puncher makes u glass-chinned, but then you'd say getting decked by blown-up super-feathers does!

[DavidPayne]

I think Lewis' stiff rebuttal has been pulled, I'm unable to access it.

[dondada]

I think Lewis' stiff rebuttal has been pulled, I'm unable to access it.

Yeah, that is weird. Just tried it myself. Not there.

Shame I can't be there tonight...would have looked forward to the atmosphere in the press section

[stujones]

It might sound harsh, but I honestly think a good sparring sessions is better for the fighter than going through Buckley. What can a fighter learn from it - only mistakes.

A good sparr will iron out mistakes.

You don't get paid for sparring sessions last time I checked.

True but knowledge Is better than money.

True James, but to a domestic level fighter fighting the likes of Buckley is similar to the mistakes Khan has made - fighting domestic level fighters and making the leap to world class (well in Khan's case we do not know it is world class) - moving from Buckley to say the 10th best British fighter in the devision could be a mistake for a young prospect.

A fighter learns nothing but mistakes and a false sense of security beating Buckley. Sorry to sound so harsh.

[Wales]

It might sound harsh, but I honestly think a good sparring sessions is better for the fighter than going through Buckley. What can a fighter learn from it - only mistakes.

A good sparr will iron out mistakes.

You don't get paid for sparring sessions last time I checked.

True but knowledge Is better than money.

When was the last time you paid for your weekly shopping with an interesting fact?

Its not sparring instead of fighting buickley. Its sparring then fighting buckely for money.