Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym v Bernard Dunne

[scottmallon]

sligobhoy67 - it's the Bangkok Post, not the Bangkok Times and Thailand does not border Vietnam!

Plus Poonsawat would never spar with Pongsaklek....but he has with WBA fly champ Denkaosan

Funny, I said the same thing...

[slapbangwhallop]

sligobhoy67 - it's the Bangkok Post, not the Bangkok Times and Thailand does not border Vietnam!

Plus Poonsawat would never spar with Pongsaklek....but he has with WBA fly champ Denkaosan

Funny, I said the same thing...

Jesus lads - its a 3,000 word article and if those are the only inaccuracies in the article then I am pretty happy.

The only one that I would be annoyed about is if I got the sparring partner wrong.

Scott, have I got the sparring partner wrong?

[lowersmiths]

Jesus lads - its a 3,000 word article and if those are the only inaccuracies in the article then I am pretty happy.

you say poonsawat lost a convincing points defeat to sidorenko in germany yet the scores were 120-108, 116-112 and 115-113 - hardly convincing considering where the fight was held.

you say his win over somsak was a breakthrough win but it wasn't. i would say the win over cordoba was a breakthrough. somsak had been mullered by cabellero and had a lot of trouble even trying to get down to super-bantam to fight poonsawat. he was way over the limit and looked a shell of himself.

[steve689]

True. 120-108 is far from convincing

[slapbangwhallop]

Jesus lads - its a 3,000 word article and if those are the only inaccuracies in the article then I am pretty happy.

you say poonsawat lost a convincing points defeat to sidorenko in germany yet the scores were 120-108, 116-112 and 115-113 - hardly convincing considering where the fight was held.

you say his win over somsak was a breakthrough win but it wasn't. i would say the win over cordoba was a breakthrough. somsak had been mullered by cabellero and had a lot of trouble even trying to get down to super-bantam to fight poonsawat. he was way over the limit and looked a shell of himself.

I conceeded that it was the Bangkok Post and it was the Cambodian border not the Vietnamese border - but as boxing goes, who gives a feck!?

So lets get down to the other issues eh!

Do you know that Poonsawat didnt spar with Pongsaklek. Please confirm!

Did you see the Sidorenko fight? Are you trying to say it wasnt convincing?

As for breakthrough - you can have more than 1 breakthrough you know. Yes the Cordoba win was a breakthrough - but the convincing defeat to Sidorenko was a set back - not to square one but a major set back its also heralded a step up from bantamweight to super bantam. The Somsak victory was a breakthrough - not only because of the name defeated and manner of the victory but because it was his first big win at SBW, its was a WBA title eliminator and it settled who was Thailands number one SBW. It was a changing of the guard and most definately a breakthrough for Poonsawat and his career.

[lowersmiths]

Do you know that Poonsawat didnt spar with Pongsaklek. Please confirm!

yes. whast makes you think he did?

Did you see the Sidorenko fight? Are you trying to say it wasnt convincing?

yes i saw it. he was close on two scorecards against a germany-based champion in germany so it was hardly convincing.

As for breakthrough - you can have more than 1 breakthrough you know.

no you can't

it settled who was Thailands number one SBW.

not really because somsak couldnt make super-bantam for the fight and hasn't been near the division since

[slapbangwhallop]

Do you know that Poonsawat didnt spar with Pongsaklek. Please confirm!

yes. whast makes you think he did?

Did you see the Sidorenko fight? Are you trying to say it wasnt convincing?

yes i saw it. he was close on two scorecards against a germany-based champion in germany so it was hardly convincing.

As for breakthrough - you can have more than 1 breakthrough you know.

no you can't

it settled who was Thailands number one SBW.

not really because somsak couldnt make super-bantam for the fight and hasn't been near the division since

In that case I simple just think you are talking shiite!

If I am wrong on the sparring partner than I am wrong - fair cop - but I will wait until Scott Mallon confirms that.

I consider that the defeat to Sidorenko was convincing - therefore it is my opinion and therefore not factually incorrect - so we are entitled to disagree - that doesnt make me wrong. I would be interested to hear other peoples opinions on whether or not they thought it was a convincing defeat.

I will let others consider if the Somsak fight was a breakthrough or not - I consider that it was and its my opinion - therefore not factually incorrect. As for you the statement that you cant have two breakthroughs - well that is factually incorrect.

For example if Usan Bolt betters the world record at 100m - thats and breakthrough, if he does it again its another breakthrough and if he beats the 200m record thats another breakthrough.

Somsak was Thailands best SBW for years and had only been beaten once in ten years. If you think that that isnt a significant voctory then fair enough, I disagree.

[lowersmiths]

im interested - what made you write that they sparred?

it also seems you are writing about fights you havent seen.

[lowersmiths]

True. 120-108 is far from convincing

you missed these two out by mistake 116-112 and 115-113

[slapbangwhallop]

im interested - what made you write that they sparred?

it also seems you are writing about fights you havent seen.

I read a source that stated it.

[slapbangwhallop]

True. 120-108 is far from convincing

you missed these two out by mistake 116-112 and 115-113

so on average 111-117!

[slapbangwhallop]

new fights added to the bill.

Bernard Dunne v Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym
Andy Murray v Pasquale Di Silvio
Patrick Hyland v David Kiilu
Jamie Power v Michael Sweeney
Stephen Haughian v TBA
Oisin Fagan v TBA

shapin up nicely!

[lowersmiths]

im interested - what made you write that they sparred?

it also seems you are writing about fights you havent seen.

I read a source that stated it.

what source?

[slapbangwhallop]

im interested - what made you write that they sparred?

it also seems you are writing about fights you havent seen.

I read a source that stated it.

what source?

Scott Mallon in the Sweet Science.

[lowersmiths]

what's the link?

[slapbangwhallop]

what's the link?

I have a print out of the article on file but not a link. If you search both boxers names and Scott's name on Google then I am sure you will find it and then come back and apologise for being so obnoxious. ;)

[scottmallon]

what's the link?

I have a print out of the article on file but not a link. If you search both boxers names and Scott's name on Google then I am sure you will find it and then come back and apologise for being so obnoxious. ;)

Rubbish pal....this article is full of rubbish.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-a ... ll-matador

Quotes from the article:

In the end, it was the matador who did enough to win the unanimous decision in a bout that was in no way as controversial as some previous title fights in Germany. The fight was close throughout and many of the rounds could have gone to either fighter.

While not many would dispute a close decision in favor of Sidorenko, the scoring of Judge Mikael Hook certainly raised more than a few eyebrows. How he failed to give Kratingdaenggym even one round is a mystery but perhaps he was busy downing the Jagermeister and missed the fight.

The Sweet Science scored it 115-113 for Sidorenko.

While I did say there was little doubt as to whom the victor was, I also said that many rounds were close and scored it 115-113!

Jesus lads - its a 3,000 word article and if those are the only inaccuracies in the article then I am pretty happy.

The only one that I would be annoyed about is if I got the sparring partner wrong.

Scott, have I got the sparring partner wrong?

Three thousand words isn't all that long really and despite the length of the article, inaccuracies like stating Vietnam borders Thailand are amateurish and if you think this is acceptable then all I can say is keep making these sorts of mistakes.

Also, as far as I know, Poonsawat has NEVER sparred with Pongsaklek. He has sparred numerous rounds with Denkaosan, a tough but limited African, Jesus Muzaka, and various others, but never Pongsaklek.

This said, instead of taking our criticisms as an attack Sligobhoy, why don't you take the comments as constructive criticism. You were wrong, plain and simple, and to insert that information into an article, unchecked, is, as I said, amateurish. I understand it's boxing and you may not have an editor that is proactive with your work, but the point is that you should be more careful. It makes you look bad, not me, and my comments in the PM were meant to help you, nothing more.

Honestly, there's a reason why Julian writes for Boxing News and the Bangkok Post and I write for The Ring, Boxing Digest, Boxing News and various other publications - it's because the work we submit is professional and generally with no grammatical errors. Say what you will about the publications but there are far less mistakes in those magazines than online in articles similar to yours.

[scottmallon]

Do you know that Poonsawat didnt spar with Pongsaklek. Please confirm!

yes. whast makes you think he did?

Did you see the Sidorenko fight? Are you trying to say it wasnt convincing?

it settled who was Thailands number one SBW.

not really because somsak couldnt make super-bantam for the fight and hasn't been near the division since

In that case I simply just think you are talking shiite!

I will let others consider if the Somsak fight was a breakthrough or not - I consider that it was and its my opinion - therefore not factually incorrect. As for you the statement that you cant have two breakthroughs - well that is factually incorrect.

Somsak was Thailands best SBW for years and had only been beaten once in ten years. If you think that that isnt a significant victory then fair enough, I disagree.

Hardly a breakthrough when Somsak can't even make the 130 limit now and even then he had to kill himself to make weight.

Also, if you know about Somsak, you know he was a one-hit wonder, that's it. He fought that one night as a true champion would fight, the rest of his bouts his fought like a journeyman, which is what he is. He gets hurt by tomato cans in every single fight, he never fought anyone worth a damn before Monshipour, that is, who were in their prime, and to say he was the best SBW in Thailand for ten years is ridiculous.

Both Julian and I were at the Somsak - Poonsawat fight, ringside and behind the scenes - were you? I think not. We spoke with both fighters before and after the bout - did you? Did you even know that Somsak killed himself to make weight? Please....Breakthrough? Nope - Poonswat did what was expected of him. He was expected to win and frankly, Somsak is tough but can't take a punch. With the exception of the one night in France he's NEVER been more than a slightly better than average fighter.

One thing I find amusing about writers outside of Thailand or Asia who choose to write about fighters and fights...most never talk to the fighter, can't speak the language, don't know the culture or how it relates to the fight game, haven't seen the boxer fight or coming up as a fighter, and generally, instead of checking with the source and verifying the facts, assume things and then write their articles like they know what's up. This is especially true with writers in the US who are simply fans, writing about Filipino fighters. With Thailand, it's worse IMO because of the language barrier, however Thais aren't getting the exposure the Filipinos are now.

[ApolloCreed]

it's because the work we submit is professional and generally with no grammatical errors

"Generally without grammatical errors" would read much better.
Otherwise, well done. Can you list all of the other boxing magazines you write for? Would you like a pat on the back?
Sligobhoy made a mistake and was a bit of a tit afterwards - big deal. No need to be such an arsehole about it.
Boxing "journalism" is notorious for employing local stringers who aren't anywhere near professional standard but can cover a fight and are "handy". So don't get up on your high horse because you get a by-line in a few mags.
Whether you are a better writer than any random blogger is irrelevant anyway. As Ian McNeilly stated on another thread, it's more or less impossible to make a living writing on boxing. The sport is in decline and it's refreshing to see someone like Sligobhoy making an effort, even if he made a few errors and got a bit touchy when they were pointed out.
By the way, 3,000 words is a long piece by modern standards. Have you had longer published in one of the many and varied sporting tomes which employ you?

[slapbangwhallop]

what's the link?

I have a print out of the article on file but not a link. If you search both boxers names and Scott's name on Google then I am sure you will find it and then come back and apologise for being so obnoxious. ;)

Rubbish pal....this article is full of rubbish.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-a ... ll-matador

Quotes from the article:

In the end, it was the matador who did enough to win the unanimous decision in a bout that was in no way as controversial as some previous title fights in Germany. The fight was close throughout and many of the rounds could have gone to either fighter.

While not many would dispute a close decision in favor of Sidorenko, the scoring of Judge Mikael Hook certainly raised more than a few eyebrows. How he failed to give Kratingdaenggym even one round is a mystery but perhaps he was busy downing the Jagermeister and missed the fight.

The Sweet Science scored it 115-113 for Sidorenko.

While I did say there was little doubt as to whom the victor was, I also said that many rounds were close and scored it 115-113!

Jesus lads - its a 3,000 word article and if those are the only inaccuracies in the article then I am pretty happy.

The only one that I would be annoyed about is if I got the sparring partner wrong.

Scott, have I got the sparring partner wrong?

Three thousand words isn't all that long really and despite the length of the article, inaccuracies like stating Vietnam borders Thailand are amateurish and if you think this is acceptable then all I can say is keep making these sorts of mistakes.

Also, as far as I know, Poonsawat has NEVER sparred with Pongsaklek. He has sparred numerous rounds with Denkaosan, a tough but limited African, Jesus Muzaka, and various others, but never Pongsaklek.

This said, instead of taking our criticisms as an attack Sligobhoy, why don't you take the comments as constructive criticism. You were wrong, plain and simple, and to insert that information into an article, unchecked, is, as I said, amateurish. I understand it's boxing and you may not have an editor that is proactive with your work, but the point is that you should be more careful. It makes you look bad, not me, and my comments in the PM were meant to help you, nothing more.

Honestly, there's a reason why Julian writes for Boxing News and the Bangkok Post and I write for The Ring, Boxing Digest, Boxing News and various other publications - it's because the work we submit is professional and generally with no grammatical errors. Say what you will about the publications but there are far less mistakes in those magazines than online in articles similar to yours.

Again, I dont think there are many inaccuracies in the article. Granted its the Cambodian border not the Vietnamese border - but when you pointed that out to me the day it was released I contacted the editor to alter it and they didnt.

Apart from that, which I consider a minor inaccuracy, I dont think there is anything wrong.

As for the sparring partner issue. You stated the following in your article titled "Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym Interim Champion" in Sweet Science that "I have good sparring partners (WBC flyweight champion Pongsaklek Wonjongkam and PABA featherweight champion Saohin Srithai Condo) and will be ready for anything Sidorenko does."

[steve689]

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=1255

[lowersmiths]

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=1255

he has changed his name to chalermwong now which means something like ''prosperous family''....prakorb means something like ''fitting together''

[slapbangwhallop]

it's because the work we submit is professional and generally with no grammatical errors

"Generally without grammatical errors" would read much better.
Otherwise, well done. Can you list all of the other boxing magazines you write for? Would you like a pat on the back?
Sligobhoy made a mistake and was a bit of a tit afterwards - big deal. No need to be such an arsehole about it.
Boxing "journalism" is notorious for employing local stringers who aren't anywhere near professional standard but can cover a fight and are "handy". So don't get up on your high horse because you get a by-line in a few mags.
Whether you are a better writer than any random blogger is irrelevant anyway. As Ian McNeilly stated on another thread, it's more or less impossible to make a living writing on boxing. The sport is in decline and it's refreshing to see someone like Sligobhoy making an effort, even if he made a few errors and got a bit touchy when they were pointed out.
By the way, 3,000 words is a long piece by modern standards. Have you had longer published in one of the many and varied sporting tomes which employ you?

Well that is my point. I am not trying to say I am some big pro - I am certainly not - I've written about seven articles in total.

Maybe I should just stick to repeating quotes from boxers and trainers verbatim which is what the majority of boxing article are. My article is purely opinion and fact - much easier to get something wrong when doing that then when just regurgitating paragraph after paragraph of quotes - not that there is anything wrong with that per se it just that its a lot easier.

Now lets get onto what facts I have gotten wrong.

A. I was thankful to Scott Mallon for pointing out that it was the Cambodian border and not the Vietnamese border - but as I point out its hardly a central point in the article - but again I was thankful for him pointing that out and I did email the editor to ask him to change it and I did thank Scott for pointing that out.

B. The sparring partner - I sourced the names of the sparring partner from an article Scott did himself - now if he was incorrect in the name he used then fair enough - but it seems a bit rich to castigate me for an error (if it is infact an error - Scott has yet to confirm) like this when the source of the information was himself!

C. I dont think there are any other factual errors in the article. Lowersmith may disagree with my opinion that the loss to Sidorenko was convincing or the victory over Somsak was a breakthrough but that is his opinion not a fact. I have outlined my rationale behind those choosen words and think that they are more than resonible.

Lowersmith and Scott seem to be making out that the article is full of shiit - based on what? because the I said he was from the Vietnamese and not Camodian border? or because they disagree with my opinions?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&sou ... a=N&tab=wl

[J]

Sligo mate if you have only done 7 articles I think its commedable you give airtime to what in world boxing terms is basically a back water.

The fact you have made a few mistakes in your 7th article is bound to happen.

Dont get disheartened and Im guessing you arent getting paid like the pro's are so doing for the love of the sport.
Try and work on getting the facts straight and maybe raise with your editor also, a good ed is worth their wieght in gold mate, its partly down to him to spot some of these mistakes.

And 3 thousand words on basically a subject half the world dont care about is bloody good effort.

Aas for the pro journos on here ripping the poor bloke to shreds its that type of attitude that turn speople off this sport, if you are so opiniated get over the the Joe calzaghe thread and pick on a real issue there, instead of someone starting out and doing their best..pompous pair that you are. Grow some balls and comment on important issues cos you sure seem opinionated enough here..

Bet you have had plenty of articles corrected either prior to print or after in your time so it wouldnt hurt to be a tad more understanding and encouraging.

[scottmallon]

it's because the work we submit is professional and generally with no grammatical errors

"Generally without grammatical errors" would read much better.
Otherwise, well done.
Boxing "journalism" is notorious for employing local stringers who aren't anywhere near professional standard but can cover a fight and are "handy". So don't get up on your high horse because you get a by-line in a few mags.

Both Julian and I have written more than a few by-lines in a few mags. Both of us do make our living from boxing, so I guess we're a couple of the lucky ones.

As far as ripping this "poor bloke" to shreds, both Julian and I talked about this and the reason we did so is his flippant attitude towards his mistakes. Granted, if he's only had seven articles published he's inexperienced, but the idea is to have zero mistakes, regardless of the word count.

And Poonsawat has not sparred with Pongsaklek.