fatcity69 wrote: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.....
Sounds like a hatchet job on Mr Lewis. Did you get turned down for the job?
I enjoy his stuff, on the blog and in the paper.
fatcity69 wrote: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.....
Sounds like a hatchet job on Mr Lewis. Did you get turned down for the job?
I enjoy his stuff, on the blog and in the paper.
stujones wrote: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.
Not really. I have seen boxers hit his gloves for a few rounds then switch attack. There are lessons to be learned, if you have a mind to learn them.
Sparring is not the same as a fight, even a shitty fight.
Sparring is not the same primarily due to the pressure of the fight - but I think 100% sparring (and it does happen) you learn alot more than these fights. I see what you say regarding offensive work, but then that is quite individualised - for example, I would train a fighter alot differently offensively to fight Joe Calzaghe as I would to train against Carl Froch. So you learn how to find angles to get through against Buckley - doesn't mean you will get through another guy.... and that is not a go at Buckley hear I could bring in any two boxers of any levels. What I am saying it is all invdividualised.
But the best thing, as Khan has found out, that a young fighter must learn is defence- that is the key. You could penetrate the Buckley guard, but could do so exposing so much of yourself and develop bad habbits. Like Khan has done at an all together much higher level.
Where I disagree with you is that you don't think sparring will correct Khan's chin in the air approach. I think proper, hard sparring, can. Get a sparring partner who can tag Khan when he comes in, then of course eventually (if Khan CAN learn) he will think "now why am I getting tagged coming in".
I think you mis understood on the Calzaghe/Froch example (especially as I never said "sparring" for them). I was just using this example as how individualised offensive fighting it. Say for example, a fighter learns that a feint double left jab and right to the body works against Froch (and I don't know if it will, just using it as an example) would that work against Calzaghe? Probably not. If I was training a fighter for Joe, they would be on that bag getting that straight right hand as sharp as possible, for Froch it would be a total different approach. What I am saying is the because a fighter has managed to penetrate Buckley, it doesn't mean he can penetrate anyone else defence, especially as the fighter has the luxery of not worrying about his own defence he can channel his thoughts only on "now how am I going to hurt Buckley". In a quality spar this thought process cannot afford to be channelled like that cause the fighter has got to think about defence also.
I know what your saying re Khan - but no one really knows what sparring he had. It could be equally said maybe Roach is putting him through his paces with some tough spars, if we see Khan with a better defence - but you learn a hell of a lot more from a loss than the fighting journeymen and Khan hadn't learned when before when getting tagged, but surviving, in his other fights. So actually, I doubt he will ever learn and if he has then its due to the Roach input - and that will probably include some hard spars.
All I know is personally, I learned a hell of alot more from proper, hard spars, then from spars in which I was on 100% and my partner was in defence only. Learned nothing from those - although they were fun.
I aint suggesting limited sparring, I mean tough wars against someone ambitious who is more experienced than you - thats when you learn.
Re Joe: Oh I think you could look at the blueprint on how to beat Joe - Hopkins/Reid fights and use them. Joe is infact quite predictable for a legend and hasn't ironed out his own flaw as Hopkins/Kessler showed.
stujones wrote: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.
Knowledge doesn't pay bills.
Every young prospect has to pay their way, and fights against buckely and other journeymen are a chance to get a paycheck, get exposure, and hopefully build a following.
I don't make it a habit of coming on boxing forums as I generally find I end up getting into rows that turn personal, but I would like to make a few points to defend myself in this whole saga.
It was never my intention to insult Peter Buckley. My original intention in writing a story on him was so that his final fight would not go unnoticed and it is worth noting that a Sports Network press release on him sent out on Monday recieved precisely zero coverage in the national press.
Getting boxing stories in the national press is not easy. It is not a case of "there's a page for boxing, fill it" - nothing apart from football and racing gets guaranteed space. To get in the paper, you have to write stuff that appeals to non-boxing people as sports editors generally don't know much about boxing. Hence, getting stuff in the paper on Nicky Cook, Junior Witter, Carl Froch, Enzo Maccarinelli, Clinton Woods etc is really hard. I have covered world title fights that have been reduced to little over 100 words. Compared to other papers, I think The Times does pretty well. We were the only British national at Klitschko-Peter, which I am sure Danny can confirm, and did a page lead of Hopkins-Pavlik. I try to get to as many fights as I can. It isn't a case of getting sent there, it isn't a case of even making any money out of it.
Like it or not, the most interesting fact about Peter Buckley to a non-boxing readership is the fact he hasn't won a fight in more than five years. To non-boxing people, the fact that someone can make a living from sport while never winning, is interesting. Buckley is not the only boxer who fits into this category, but because of his sheer volume of fights, he is the most extreme example. Is he the world's worst boxer? No. The world's worst boxer would not get to ten fights, let alone 300.
Also, the human punchbag line (while it wasn't mine) is not new. I seem to remember years ago Nadeem Siddique billing a fight he had against Buckley as "Golden Boy Sid versus the Human Punchbag" or something similar.
Now you can think what you like of me, but I have never disrespected a boxer. Last week, I had to give a speech as chairman of the Boxing Writers' Club at our dinner, while Gilbert Eastman was in a hospital bed. My theme of the speech is that we should remember and respected who takes the risks, whether is be Gilbert Eastman or Audley Harrison - it's easy to condemn people from ringside. For me to say that and then to disrespect Buckley would be wrong. I certainly don't believe I disrespect him, but to put his career in the same category as great fighters is totally disingenuous.
To me, Peter Buckley is a shadow of the fighter he was when he had had 200 fights. Then he was a good defensive boxer who could give prospects a test, now he isn't and is much easier to hit. The Board are concerned about him, I had several conversations with leading Board people about Buckley before writing my piece. It has been a very long time since he was in the ring with a future star. The Board no longer sanction bouts between him and prospects, now he just seems to face raw novices. It is also been some time since he boxed a 6X3s.
The Board are right to be worried. Imagine the publicity for the sport if he did get injured. The headlines about a guy boxing who is almost 40 and hadn't won in 88 fights.
And while people are saying things like "talk about who he fought". I did mention Acelino Freitas, Duke McKenzie etc in my original piece, but all those fights were over ten years ago.
I don't know who my supposed former colleague who wrote a note above is, but I am sure anyone who knew me wouldn't think my boxing knowledge was just off the internet. I have been watching boxing for more than 30 years, covered shows for Boxing News and wrote Frank Maloney's programmes when I was at school and I don't know any other national newspaper writer who watches as many fights live as me. I have obviously made an enemy somewhere, but I don't know anyone who seriously doubts my boxing knowledge - no one whose opinion I care about anyway.
As I say, think about me what you like. I did not mean to insult Buckley and am genuinely sorry if that has happened. I hope he wins tonight, although I will not be there as I am in New York. I also hope Don Broadhurst wins. I did an interview with him this week and I think he's a lovely guy. However, I couldn't get a word on him in the paper. The angle of potentially being a reigning Commonwealth amateur and professional champion at the same time didn't create enough interest.
Ron Lewis
Last edited by RLewis on 31 Oct 2008, 10:35, edited 2 times in total.
I feel it's a shame that the national press have felt the need to brand Peter Buckley as a "loser" (The Times article, yesterday's ITN news to name but two) rather than focussing more on his long and colourful career as a boxer which has given him the opportunity to fight countless champions, make a few quid and - in Buckley's own words - kept him on the straight and narrow.
Steve Bunce's analysis on his Setanta show (along with Spencer Oliver's piece) was far more insightful and respectful to a guy who put himself on the line against (many) hot young prospects time and time again, knowing he was only there to make up numbers; he rarely got stopped in all his fights.
"The Professor" deserves credit for what he has done for the sport rather than simply being lampooned by those who know very little about boxing.
There's every chance he will go out with a win and I for one would not begrudge him that.
It's obvious that you can't condemn/criticise your sub-editor publically, but he's a prick for turning that article into something that was getting on for a ridiculing piece, which ignored all of the good points of Buckleys career.
To your comment:
And while people are saying things like "talk about who he fought". I did mention Acelino Freitas, Duke McKenzie etc in my original piece, but all those fights were over ten years ago.
What difference does it make if it was 10 or 20 years ago, it's his retirement and you and The Times should be discussing the highlights of his career not just the lowlights.
I believe that you didn't intend or want the article to be as negative as it was, so I'd imagine that your pissed off that your name has been dragged through the mud in the boxing world
Billy_Boy wrote:
Steve Bunce's analysis on his Setanta show (along with Spencer Oliver's piece) was far more insightful and respectful to a guy who put himself on the line against (many) hot young prospects time and time again, knowing he was only there to make up numbers; he rarely got stopped in all his fights.
dbflex wrote: I imagined the people most likely to appreciate the job Buckley does – i.e. helping to develop prospects by forcing them to try to fing gaps in his defence
Thats what sparring is for. I agree with what has been said.. and said again.
I appreciate it may be difficult to get boxing coverage in your publication, but to use cheap shots at someone like Buckley to get your piece in is disgusting.
I'm sure, he would like his landmark duly noted but he would have prefered it ignored rather than to be treated like this. He will have to live with these comments for the rest of his life
Many other publications have covered this, and have been very respectful of the professor, unfortunately your story stands alone.
You have tried to blame you sub editor but at no time have you offered an unreserved apology.
Maybe you do not want to stick the boot in to your boss as you have bills to pay and need your job, this may help you understand why many fighters have to take short notice fights against better opposition, and fight defensively to extend their career, as they have to pay the rent too.
You make out you are an expert with 30 years experience, but either you knowledge is very limited or you were happy to sell poor Pete down the river for a few pieces of silver.
Coco wrote:I appreciate it may be difficult to get boxing coverage in your publication, but to use cheap shots at someone like Buckley to get your piece in is disgusting.
I'm sure, he would like his landmark duly noted but he would have prefered it ignored rather than to be treated like this. He will have to live with these comments for the rest of his life
Many other publications have covered this, and have been very respectful of the professor, unfortunately your story stands alone.
You have tried to blame you sub editor but at no time have you offered an unreserved apology.
Maybe you do not want to stick the boot in to your boss as you have bills to pay and need your job, this may help you understand why many fighters have to take short notice fights against better opposition, and fight defensively to extend their career, as they have to pay the rent too.
You make out you are an expert with 30 years experience, but either you knowledge is very limited or you were happy to sell poor Pete down the river for a few pieces of silver.
Nothing you have said redeems you in my eyes.
See, I don't see what my "cheap shot" was. Plenty of boxers take fights at short notice and box defensively, but how many have not won in five years? Should boxers who don't win in 88 fights box at all? That was the point of my piece. Are papers not allowed to mention the fact that he has not won in five years and all writers should just toe the line that - what a great servant, 300 fights? And while he taken a lot of fights at late notice, he has hardly been matched tough of late. Spot five boxers who went on to win a litle in that 88? And if I was going to apologise to "poor Pete", who has done very well out of boxing, I would do it to him, not on this forum.
It is not the job of a boxing journalist just to write pro-boxing stories.
Anyway, he won, so it has had a happy ending too.
Coco wrote:I appreciate it may be difficult to get boxing coverage in your publication, but to use cheap shots at someone like Buckley to get your piece in is disgusting.
I'm sure, he would like his landmark duly noted but he would have prefered it ignored rather than to be treated like this. He will have to live with these comments for the rest of his life
Many other publications have covered this, and have been very respectful of the professor, unfortunately your story stands alone.
You have tried to blame you sub editor but at no time have you offered an unreserved apology.
Maybe you do not want to stick the boot in to your boss as you have bills to pay and need your job, this may help you understand why many fighters have to take short notice fights against better opposition, and fight defensively to extend their career, as they have to pay the rent too.
You make out you are an expert with 30 years experience, but either you knowledge is very limited or you were happy to sell poor Pete down the river for a few pieces of silver.
Nothing you have said redeems you in my eyes.
See, I don't see what my "cheap shot" was. Plenty of boxers take fights at short notice and box defensively, but how many have not won in five years? Should boxers who don't win in 88 fights box at all? That was the point of my piece. Are papers not allowed to mention the fact that he has not won in five years and all writers should just toe the line that - what a great servant, 300 fights? And while he taken a lot of fights at late notice, he has hardly been matched tough of late. Spot five boxers who went on to win a litle in that 88? And if I was going to apologise to "poor Pete", who has done very well out of boxing, I would do it to him, not on this forum.
It is not the job of a boxing journalist just to write pro-boxing stories.
Anyway, he won, so it has had a happy ending too.
How can you not see the cheap shots??? Have you read your article??? The tone of the whole article is disrespectful, 'Worlds Worst Boxer' and Eddie the Eagle comparisons ring any bells???
Of course you are allowed to mention his statistical deficiencies, but as a tribute piece on his 300th fight it is no more than a tabloid hatchet job. There is a time and a place for discussions about the role of journeymen and fighters who lose a lot, but this was certainly not it.
I hope this means that you will apologise to Pete, I agree it should be done in person, it would be nice to see some humility and at least express some remorse on here.
I agree it is not your job to write only pro boxing stories, you should write informative, insightful truthful ones, but you have clearly failed in that respect.
Lets hope you do not write anyone's obituary!
And the result in the fight tonight cannot make up for your failings, if anything it shows that even at this stage of his career, with notice and home advantage he can win, which again discredits your article. It shows your lack of knowledge in how the game works for the away fighter.
I presume you will be now writing an article about his opponent tonight is the new worlds worst fighter. And have you ever heard of Eric Crumble? Certainly if you look into many foreign records, where the sport is not tightly regulated, you will see a plethora of journeymen who get knocked out every fight
Coco wrote: Should boxers who don't win in 88 fights box at all? That was the point of my piece.
To be fair, there are lots of athletes who will take part in many contests, over many years, and never win. Cycling, Swimming, Showjumpers, Runners etc. Boxing is different, of course, being a 1 on 1 sport, but never the less the fact that someone doesn't register wins isn't always an indication that they shouldn't be there at all.
Coco wrote: Should boxers who don't win in 88 fights box at all? That was the point of my piece.
To be fair, there are lots of athletes who will take part in many contests, over many years, and never win. Cycling, Swimming, Showjumpers, Runners etc. Boxing is different, of course, being a 1 on 1 sport, but never the less the fact that someone doesn't register wins isn't always an indication that they shouldn't be there at all.
The idea of sport is that it is competetive, that everyone tries. If a football team didn't win in five years or 88 matches that would be a story.
Boxers who don't try to win are supposed to lose their purse or part of a purse. But, apart from tonight, do guys like Buckley, Ojay Abrahams or David Kehoe, really try to win? And if one guy is not trying to win, how far is that from a fixed fight? Of course it is not as simple as that, but in the 1970s, Alan Minter and his opponent were disqualified for not trying and lost their purses.
My intent was not to insult Buckley, yet boxing is entertainment and he gets well paid. He has probably made more money in his career than many champions. He, nor his role in the sport, is above criticism. Neither is he some kind of victim. Boxing is a dangerous sport and there have been lots of boxers that have gone on too long and have been made to regret it.
And what made the difference between winning tonight and all those other fights he lost? Was tonight the only time he really tried, or was the other guy just poor?
Coco, you've got your opinion, but I would prefer not to be completely judged on one article out of about 1,000 I have written on boxing in the past five years or so. A few years ago I was on the committee that gave Buckley the Joe Bromley trophy for services to boxing, I'm sure that will live in the memory more than one story. There was nothing factually inacurate in the story and was no different to that and the tone of the BBC TV story. If you don't believe what I have said, don't believe it.
The headline of the worlds worst boxer, is certainly inaccurate, you don't have to go far to find a lot worse. Also he is called a human punchbag, he hasn't had a stitch in his career, which clearly showed he is not a punch bag at all.
If Buckley was not trying he would fall over in the 1st round each time, you probably don't realise how hard it is to 'go the distance' especially when you are fighting in top class.
In terms of fights being fixed, that is not needed when the matching is correct. This is even done at title level, the norm is there to be a clear favourite, such as when Broadhurst won tonight.
I certainly wouldn't call those fights fixed, but it does highlight how the business end of boxing works. Don't blame the player, blame the game, and it is the likes of Peter who puts his health on the line against superior fighters on a regular basis, so it is very unfair to criticise him.
You also vastly overestimate how much these fellas earn. He has prob averaged 10k a year.
The main difference which made him win tonight was that he was matched at his own level, had notice, and was fighting at home.
He is certainly not above criticism but the timing was in poor taste, in true tabloid style, you definately did insult him, you should take responsibility for that and I hope you do apologise
Terry D wrote:This article is that it got boxing on the front of The Times, great, yet given the size and scope of that publication, added to the authors burning desire to lay bare the disgraceful practices in boxing, I was left wondering why he went for Peter Buckley and not the promoters who put their lads in with 'serial losers' rather than other prospects. Or why not expose the lack of inter-promotional prospect fights, surely that is more damaging to the sport than Peter. Or why slag down the guys who make a living not from losing fights but from carrying bags around and worming their way through the sport as gofers and loafers. Why single Buckley out? Sure he fights this week, but there are bills on every week in which prospects beat up journeymen, instead of one another.
This crusading writer did not mount his white steed and put a lance through the bigger issues, why? I think the article went for an easy target. Buckley will not be able to sue or threaten. The author went for the easiest target possible in boxing, a journeyman fighter who has no clout.
Given the crusading nature of the piece, and the size of the paper, bigger targets could have been attacked. Only they were not. Buckley gets in there and fights, irrespective of who is going to hit him, unlike the author of the piece he cannot pick on guys who cannot fight back. That is why the article stinks a little. It ignores the bigger picture in order to poke fun at a little fish. It is a bully-boy piece.
"Why, why, why?"
Because it was his 300th fight, simple. That is newsworthy in itself, in whatever direction you present it.
The average Times reader isn't going to read an article with the headline "Silence Saheed - just another fight for a boxer who's not the worst in the world"
I think that if a boxing show contained say 7 good competative bouts and one "Peter Buckley" fight- a tought journeyman testing out a prospect- then year, fair enough. Thing is, fighters like Buckley make up the majority of undercard fighters nowadays.
rest assured the same people who are currently bollock deep in buckley will soon be tearing into calzaghe and hatton for not fighting king kong every time they lace on gloves
Coco wrote:
If Buckley was not trying he would fall over in the 1st round each time, you probably don't realise how hard it is to 'go the distance' especially when you are fighting in top class.
Ermm he hasn't fought anyone of top class for years, and years?
Ron is one of the few journo's that gets boxing some decent coverage, especially through the times online website.
By far and away the best boxing coverage from any of the papers actually - Although he was awful quite on the Khan PPV ;)
Dunno why you journo's look to stab your fellow journo's in the back all the time. Actually don't answer that, I already know
8)