Where is a boxing fan without the internet?

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:24

Perhaps I am in the minority here but I still think Boxing News has far more good than bad things about it. I agree that some of the journalism is ropey i.e. Jim Brady but they still succeed in their mission of reporting on every British fight that takes place.

I also like to read about the amateurs and their coverage of this is remarkably in depth.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:27

IMO (and I'm making a huge contradiction here) I think the internet has diluted the interest in boxing in the UK. I think the internet is partly responsible to why Boxing is no longer in the papers as much. As a direct result of this, the TV companies are not as interested.

kevo · Post by **kevo** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:29

I buy BN every week, for the same reason as a lot of people, the British card reports. A couple of years ago i couldn't stand BN, just robbed me mates to look at the Zany files! I buy the Ring regularly aswell, I lke the articles on past fighters and the other stories in general are pretty good.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:32

A few years ago a rival to Boxing News started called Boxing Weekly, it didn't last long even though it was a good paper. Think i still have the first copy somewhere, should get at least £1 on ebay.

Goes to show that even before the internet there wasn't room for 2 weekly boxing papers

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:40

stujones wrote:IMO (and I'm making a huge contradiction here) I think the internet has diluted the interest in boxing in the UK. I think the internet is partly responsible to why Boxing is no longer in the papers as much. As a direct result of this, the TV companies are not as interested.

Sorry Stu, you've made many sensible posts there, but there is absolutely no logic in what you're saying there whatsoever.

The internet sites responded to a gap in the coverage of the sport.

Why on earth would newspapers stop covering boxing because websites WERE covering it.

The newspapers love affair with boxing ended almost 15 years ago, Hamed was the last big star who made the pages regularly.

It has to be said also that the end of terrestrial coverage has to be held responsible too, that was the first link in the chain, and really the blame surely lies with them first and foremost for deciding that boxing didn't really fit with their new PC vision of the world.

However, everyone blames promoters for this, when in fact it was the TV companies who pulled out of boxing at a time when the sport was very healthy. Benn, Eubank and Hamed may all have been WBO champs for most of the time, but they were as exciting as anyone produced in the history of British boxing, and it was really at the height of this that the TV companies decided not to spend money on boxing any more and retracted from the sport.

The promoters and fighters went elsewhere because more money was on offer, ITV clearly decided they wanted nothing farther to do with the sport, and this also co-incided with football reinventing itself and football coverage becoming the holy grail for terrestrial sports coverage.

Whilst I think that Sky means that fewer people know who boxers are, without there being any other competitive coverage now BBC have decided to wash their hands of the sport.

Internet sites spring up because boxing has a truly global if minority fanbase whose interest in the sport is poorly represented in nons-subscription TV and mainstream media, if anything internet coverage helps recruit new fans, so I just don't see how your arguement stacks up.

The internet definetly rekindled by interest in the sport about 5-6 years ago after losing touch with it for about 5 years. I was a massive fan from the age of 11-18, but as it dissapeared from by TV screen my interest naturally waned.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 08 Mar 2005, 10:50

Most people that still get BN do so out of habit or loyalty by the sound of it then, so where do the new readers come from then? how are they being attracted?

Sure its good to have a sit down to read a hard copy but a good boxing encyclopedia will give you more for the price of a months BN.
And the internet will give you the latest news.

BN needs new ideas instead of just relying on their name.

ABA Boxing · Post by **ABA Boxing** » 08 Mar 2005, 11:53

Goz wrote:Boxing Monthly have a reasonable website on which you can order back issues etc, read samples from the latest edition. Their forum however is an embarrassment to the publication (or should be) some of the things allowed to pass on it are astounding.

Look when they last updated there links page!

Magazines have had there day. Internet is so fast and it gets cheaper every month.
Why pay out for a magazine that is out of date by the time you read it.

It is the future! The magazine companys could go online and still make money just maybe not so much. But it would get out to more people than there mags do!

lvlarc · Post by **lvlarc** » 08 Mar 2005, 12:23

Yeh the internet is the topspot for boxing fans, well it is for me anyway. Very few of my mates enjoy the sport so good job i found this site

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 08 Mar 2005, 12:33

chris s wrote:Fair play to the inetrnet reporters who work for nothing but some of the stuff on Brit Boxing and Doghouse is so long winded, you lose your way 200 words in and it takes about ten minutes to get to the gist of the story.
If I want to read 1000 word articles I buy a Sunday newspaper that is well written.

Speaking on behalf of one of the sites you mention, with all due respect, you get the jist from the headline and paragraph or two on the homepage.

True, some is very detailed - good for those who want it and if you don't, I'm sure you are capable of skimming it.

I definitely want to write more things which allow some creativity and a wider focus - like Jim Lawton does, and the writers Slapsie earlier mentions. But it's having the time and the audience to be able to do so.

Buying a Sunday paper doesn't necessarily guarantee quality. I've read articles with a few blips - written by non-specialists, of course - and because the sub-editors/editor doesn't know anything about it, they get through. But true, most of the lads on the Sunday broadsheets understandably overshadow Internet journalism.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Mar 2005, 12:44

Yes, I am sure my articles would be incredibly polished and far better than they are now if it was what I did full time. Finding the time to write 3 articles a week when you work 9-5 is easier said than done, especially when you are trying to do more than simply regurgitate the same as all the other sites and put your own 'stamp.' on it.

As Ian says, there are some who like succinct articles with little else but the bare facts, others like a more discursive type of article which talks about much more than just the fight itself, which I prefer to read. The point is, there's something there for most people.

I think the way forward is to put together a boxing book, there's quite a few authors doing so, and there seem to be a lot get published. Again though, it's finding the fecking time.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Mar 2005, 13:46

I still get my Boxing News every Friday and it is still an important part of my weekend.

But the Internet is now my major source of Boxing information.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 08 Mar 2005, 16:31

James,

Just offering my take on the situation. Pre internet, I would buy and religiously read Boxing Monthly and also buy the NOTW specifically for the Mr Warrens' column. I would also try and read as many different sources I would could get hold off (Teletext, and other papers).

Pre internet, I would treat Warren's column as gospel and I would watch every fight with enthusiam. For example, whilst I would never have classified the WBU as a ligitimate world title (personally) I might have still considered Skelton vs Moli as a good match. Would Skelton vs Moli been made in the pre-internet days? Yes, of course it would have. Would the interested been better pre-internet, Yes I think so also - because the opportunity to find out about Moli's flaws would have been limited.

As far as the internet effective media coverage, I disagree about the Media dropping out of boxing around the time of the deal. Look at the mass media for Tyson vs Francis and also for Audley Harrison and Amir Khan. However, I do think that post 2000 it has deteriorated and THIS is due to the internet. Look at the press coverage for Tyson vs Francis and compare it Tyson vs Williams or even Tyson vs Lewis (much less for the latter two).

James - on your other point about TV deals. Live rights to Premiership Football went to Sky aswell, doesn't mean to say the terrestial didn't want them.

Now I don't know the ins and out of the initial deal between SN and Sky, but I do (alledgelly) remember it was an awful lot of money. I think at the time (alledgelly) ITV were very dissapointed at losing those rights, as they were with the live Footie rights. I think it is wrong to blame ITV without knowing the facts (and I'm not saying I do), did they really want out or did Sky make an offer that couldn't be refused.

The ball park has changed now, its been 10 years since regular live world class action (and before people point out, I said the words regular not what the BBC have been offering) from the UK on terrestial TV - and I wouldn't be surprised the it is largely believed by the bosses that the fanbase is no longer there, as this is reflected in the press coverage. The internet is here, but 20 obsessed fight fans in a discussion forum isn't a good argument that there is a mass appeal.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 09 Mar 2005, 06:58

Mike Tyson is the exception that proves the rule Stu. Just because 19,000 people turned up to watch Julius Francis fold like a deck chair, does not mean that boxing in general was getting much coverage.

It's much like the argument regarding the health of boxing. Sports Network correctly point out that they hold many sell out shows and have the most popular fighters in the country. However, this does not mean boxing overall is healthy.

I've heard the argument regarding Amir Khan, but that was the olympics, 8 million people would tune in to watch Britain compete in fornicating curling if there was a chance of a medal, it's a national obsession. Had that been the boxing world championships, then no way would they have got those figures. I mean, millions tuned in to watch Redgrave in the olympics, but what other rowing would they watch?