NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

[Glyn Leach]

I've always had a soft spot for Katz, he's a grumpy, cynical old sod but he can be bloody funny at times

[Kilburn]

I haven't bought BM for quite some time, and part of me does feel guilty about that.

The trouble was I only really looked forward to reading GL's column.

[Autobarn]

hasn't katz quit writing?

[chinny]

Seems wrong to post in this thread given the misleading title, but anyway...

I think BM gets the balance about right. It will still cover fights, but rather than describing exactly how 'x jabbed y' etc round after round, will (rightly) assume the reader has seen most of the fights and will look to cover it means in the wider context, ie what potential matches does it set up and so on.

Thomas Hauser's piece was as usual excellent this month. I read it without noticing who the author was but when he revealed a precise detail about the PPV revenue sharing I thought "only Hauser would know that". He more than anyone else understands and takes an interest in what really propells the sport - eg the money, the TV companies.

Glyn absolutely nailed Sky's tired old format this month too.

I used to read all the boxing mags religiously but now just get BN and BM because they offer content I can't find anywhere else. It is also just nice to have old fashioned stapled bits of paper to read instead of pixels once in a while too...

[Autobarn]

the mags lose their impact for me because i've already discussed to death all the fights that interest me, on this and other forums. magazines are always going to be less essential nowadays, so it does make them an easier target. but how we would moan if there weren't any boxing mags in this country.

[gasman]

Seems wrong to post in this thread given the misleading title, but anyway...

I think BM gets the balance about right. It will still cover fights, but rather than describing exactly how 'x jabbed y' etc round after round, will (rightly) assume the reader has seen most of the fights and will look to cover it means in the wider context, ie what potential matches does it set up and so on.

Thomas Hauser's piece was as usual excellent this month. I read it without noticing who the author was but when he revealed a precise detail about the PPV revenue sharing I thought "only Hauser would know that". He more than anyone else understands and takes an interest in what really propells the sport - eg the money, the TV companies.

Glyn absolutely nailed Sky's tired old format this month too.

I used to read all the boxing mags religiously but now just get BN and BM because they offer content I can't find anywhere else. It is also just nice to have old fashioned stapled bits of paper to read instead of pixels once in a while too...

I disagree. Overall the piece was well intended. The appeal of UFC to a younger demographic is true, of course it is, and yes, we can all agree that we (err television anyway) are failing a new generation of talented boxers due to the lack of coverage. All good so far. Then the punch line. The presenters on Sky are dressed as politicians or on big fight nights, worse, bouncers - hence a minor symptom of how tv is failing to tailor its product to the target market.

After reading the first half of the editorial I was expecting something like: we get to see more live fights on the undercard, or if we are paying ppv - how about we see all the fights live or at least the majority of them, how about Sky squeeze promoters to put on more competitive - 50-50 fights, some new panelists.....etc. This is the product that we punters want. I thought Leach was going to launch into some of these issues as he seemed to be building up to it. Who gives a shit about what their attire is!!


PS. This is a constructive comment, not intending to have a dig at BM - which in my view has the best writers and features by a Swedish mile.

[Glyn Leach]

Fair enough Gasman, though I did point out that the bank clerk dress sense was only symptomatic of the greater malaise, the complete lack of understanding of what is required, even at the most basic surface level. You're right though, it is a subject I could well and truly explore further and I hope to do it at some stage. It would be relatively easy to knock out a blueprint for a more interesting boxing broadcast or at least a few suggestions, although I'd be lying if I said I didn't resent doing the TV execs' work for them, given their bank balance compared to mine. That said, it is a subject very close to my heart and it seems unlikely I won't be going down that road at some time in the near future. I am pretty much obsessed with televised boxing, this I will admit. I am fascinated in the way the sport is presented to the public at large. And I do believe television has become lazy and could do a far better job for boxing. Times are changing but TV isn't, yet boxing always seems to get the blame when there is very little wrong with it as an attractive sporting spectacle.

Regarding magazines in general, agreed, their place in today's market, with the internet growing, is in a state of flux. But I believe change is good, as is competition. It's a tricky balance though. You have to keep tweaking and adjusting a magazine's format without doing anything so major that it will alienate readers. There is no new readership out there waiting for a "new" mag, because TV hasn't created that level of interest in boxing amongst non-fight fans. So it is best to change things gradually, in my opinion, because people often do not take kindly to change. A point in proof: I remember a post on here a couple of years ago noting that BM had redesigned again and supposing that indicated we were in trouble. Far from it, you just have to keep trying to freshen things up in today's market and that's no bad thing. Hearteningly, BM's sales are up year on year and we've never had so many subscribers, so we seem to have been hitting the spot with a few more people even if we have lost some old readers along the way. You can't please everyone.

[oliverfennell]

Hearteningly, BM's sales are up year on year and we've never had so many subscribers.

That is honestly brilliant news.

Giz a job?

[Glyn Leach]

Surprising news Oliver, that's for sure. Wasn't expecting it, I thought we were bound to be down last year but apparently we were one of the very few mags — as in any mags — that increased its sales. Don't get me wrong, we're only talking about a couple of percent increase, not enough to cover the increased production costs, but I'll take what I can get mate!

[Terminator666]

Well i like the mag and have every single issue to prove it

[gasman]

Fair enough Gasman, though I did point out that the bank clerk dress sense was only symptomatic of the greater malaise, the complete lack of understanding of what is required, even at the most basic surface level. You're right though, it is a subject I could well and truly explore further and I hope to do it at some stage. It would be relatively easy to knock out a blueprint for a more interesting boxing broadcast or at least a few suggestions, although I'd be lying if I said I didn't resent doing the TV execs' work for them, given their bank balance compared to mine. That said, it is a subject very close to my heart and it seems unlikely I won't be going down that road at some time in the near future. I am pretty much obsessed with televised boxing, this I will admit. I am fascinated in the way the sport is presented to the public at large. And I do believe television has become lazy and could do a far better job for boxing. Times are changing but TV isn't, yet boxing always seems to get the blame when there is very little wrong with it as an attractive sporting spectacle.

You did.

Although, I think there is quite a lot wrong with boxing, not just the television coverage. I think it is a vicious circle in many ways - problems within the sport of boxing - lack of TV coverage - sponsorship etc....

Take that farce the other week about Guzman and his gross neglect of the weight division in which he was supposed to be fighting - even more sickening was that this crap was allowed to be tolerated by profiteering ABCs who bend over backwards to make unhealthy provisions to ensure they still get their cut. We all know about the many other perennial problems with the sport without rehashing them in detail here.

That kind of bull has been going on for years. There is so much to love about boxing but it can be a hell of a lot better, especially since we are all paying a lot more for the privilege of enjoying it.

[oliverfennell]

Surprising news Oliver, that's for sure. Wasn't expecting it, I thought we were bound to be down last year but apparently we were one of the very few mags — as in any mags — that increased its sales. Don't get me wrong, we're only talking about a couple of percent increase, not enough to cover the increased production costs, but I'll take what I can get mate!

I read somewhere that some specialist mags are doing well again because they have such a defined audience, whereas more broad-spectrum titles are suffering from the internet's influence. In other words, niche market mags that play to their strengths rather than trying to appeal to a wider demographic remain the go-to point for enthusiasts.

I also maintain that print media in most cases has the (deserved) reputation for offering a higher quality of journalism than the web and hopefully this is another reason for your slight upswing in sales. For sure, I get all my results and news snippets from the web on a daily basis, but for me it will never beat sitting down and having a long read of a quality magazine.

[Deserter]

Surprising news Oliver, that's for sure. Wasn't expecting it, I thought we were bound to be down last year but apparently we were one of the very few mags — as in any mags — that increased its sales. Don't get me wrong, we're only talking about a couple of percent increase, not enough to cover the increased production costs, but I'll take what I can get mate!

I read somewhere that some specialist mags are doing well again because they have such a defined audience, whereas more broad-spectrum titles are suffering from the internet's influence. In other words, niche market mags that play to their strengths rather than trying to appeal to a wider demographic remain the go-to point for enthusiasts.

I also maintain that print media in most cases has the (deserved) reputation for offering a higher quality of journalism than the web and hopefully this is another reason for your slight upswing in sales. For sure, I get all my results and news snippets from the web on a daily basis, but for me it will never beat sitting down and having a long read of a quality magazine.

As Glyn´s already touched on, virtually all mags are down Y-o-Y, but it does vary from sector to sector e.g. men´s lifestyle is an absolute bloodbath, with only Men´s Health and GQ managing to maintain circ, while the likes of Loaded, Nuts, FHM and Zoo go to the wall - to put it in context FHM had a peak of around 750,000 but is now down to around 100,000.
Some specialist mags are holding up well, such as cycling, but equally others are dying as the content they provided can be replicated far more successfully on the internet e.g. computer games mags.
The bottom line is that the traditional publishing business model for mags and newspapers is gradually being broken and will go the same way as the music industry. However, certain mags will have a better chance of survival than others and rates of decline will differ - in some cases quite dramatically.

[Glyn Leach]

Fair enough Gasman, though I did point out that the bank clerk dress sense was only symptomatic of the greater malaise, the complete lack of understanding of what is required, even at the most basic surface level. You're right though, it is a subject I could well and truly explore further and I hope to do it at some stage. It would be relatively easy to knock out a blueprint for a more interesting boxing broadcast or at least a few suggestions, although I'd be lying if I said I didn't resent doing the TV execs' work for them, given their bank balance compared to mine. That said, it is a subject very close to my heart and it seems unlikely I won't be going down that road at some time in the near future. I am pretty much obsessed with televised boxing, this I will admit. I am fascinated in the way the sport is presented to the public at large. And I do believe television has become lazy and could do a far better job for boxing. Times are changing but TV isn't, yet boxing always seems to get the blame when there is very little wrong with it as an attractive sporting spectacle.

You did.

Although, I think there is quite a lot wrong with boxing, not just the television coverage. I think it is a vicious circle in many ways - problems within the sport of boxing - lack of TV coverage - sponsorship etc....

Take that farce the other week about Guzman and his gross neglect of the weight division in which he was supposed to be fighting - even more sickening was that this crap was allowed to be tolerated by profiteering ABCs who bend over backwards to make unhealthy provisions to ensure they still get their cut. We all know about the many other perennial problems with the sport without rehashing them in detail here.

That kind of bull has been going on for years. There is so much to love about boxing but it can be a hell of a lot better, especially since we are all paying a lot more for the privilege of enjoying it.

Very true. Boxing will always suffer from lacking a true governing body that will throw the book at those who don't follow the rules. I watched a UFC show the other night and a British fighter deliberately hit his opponent once the fight was over. That was that for him! Dana White appeared immediately after the show and said the guy will never fight for the UFC again, no matter if the guy goes on to prove himself as the best in the world in another MMA promotion. White can do that because he controls his version of MMA, but boxing is very different. Even if a body tries to standardise the rules and regs, such as in America, you get ridiculous situations like the Williams-Cintron farce in California, where the local commission overrules the national one in order to appease a promoter. Without question, boxing needs to clean up its own act and be far harder on itself in order for it to become more acceptable to the public at large. Too often it is perceived as a bad joke by the man in the street, who would prefer to walk on by, and understandably so. As things stand there are too many people chasing too few dollars and pounds in boxing, which results in an undignified scrabbling around on the floor, like a bunch of tramps who have spotted a 50p piece in the gutter and will fight each other to the death for it. While this situation prevails, rules will always be bent as a matter of convenience. I have no idea what the answer to this problem is but there certainly needs to be one.

[Deserter]

Without question, boxing needs to clean up its own act and be far harder on itself in order for it to become more acceptable to the public at large. Too often it is perceived as a bad joke by the man in the street, who would prefer to walk on by, and understandably so. As things stand there are too many people chasing too few dollars and pounds in boxing, which results in an undignified scrabbling around on the floor, like a bunch of tramps who have spotted a 50p piece in the gutter and will fight each other to the death for it. While this situation prevails, rules will always be bent as a matter of convenience. I have no idea what the answer to this problem is but there certainly needs to be one.

Couldn´t agree more. I went to the UFC event in Abu Dhabi and while some of the ´fighting´was a shocking spectacle, it didn´t deflect from the fact that the whole UFC phenomenon is a triumph of proper investment and marketing. The set-up was fantastic - lighting, sound, large video screens etc - and the organisation was flawless. Too often in boxing promoters look for a quick buck and don´t invest for the long-term. Customer service and added values are alien concepts to virtually all of them, hence so much of boxing´s pain being needlessly self-inflicted.

[gasman]

Fair enough Gasman, though I did point out that the bank clerk dress sense was only symptomatic of the greater malaise, the complete lack of understanding of what is required, even at the most basic surface level. You're right though, it is a subject I could well and truly explore further and I hope to do it at some stage. It would be relatively easy to knock out a blueprint for a more interesting boxing broadcast or at least a few suggestions, although I'd be lying if I said I didn't resent doing the TV execs' work for them, given their bank balance compared to mine. That said, it is a subject very close to my heart and it seems unlikely I won't be going down that road at some time in the near future. I am pretty much obsessed with televised boxing, this I will admit. I am fascinated in the way the sport is presented to the public at large. And I do believe television has become lazy and could do a far better job for boxing. Times are changing but TV isn't, yet boxing always seems to get the blame when there is very little wrong with it as an attractive sporting spectacle.

You did.

Although, I think there is quite a lot wrong with boxing, not just the television coverage. I think it is a vicious circle in many ways - problems within the sport of boxing - lack of TV coverage - sponsorship etc....

Take that farce the other week about Guzman and his gross neglect of the weight division in which he was supposed to be fighting - even more sickening was that this crap was allowed to be tolerated by profiteering ABCs who bend over backwards to make unhealthy provisions to ensure they still get their cut. We all know about the many other perennial problems with the sport without rehashing them in detail here.

That kind of bull has been going on for years. There is so much to love about boxing but it can be a hell of a lot better, especially since we are all paying a lot more for the privilege of enjoying it.

Very true. Boxing will always suffer from lacking a true governing body that will throw the book at those who don't follow the rules. I watched a UFC show the other night and a British fighter deliberately hit his opponent once the fight was over. That was that for him! Dana White appeared immediately after the show and said the guy will never fight for the UFC again, no matter if the guy goes on to prove himself as the best in the world in another MMA promotion. White can do that because he controls his version of MMA, but boxing is very different. Even if a body tries to standardise the rules and regs, such as in America, you get ridiculous situations like the Williams-Cintron farce in California, where the local commission overrules the national one in order to appease a promoter. Without question, boxing needs to clean up its own act and be far harder on itself in order for it to become more acceptable to the public at large. Too often it is perceived as a bad joke by the man in the street, who would prefer to walk on by, and understandably so. As things stand there are too many people chasing too few dollars and pounds in boxing, which results in an undignified scrabbling around on the floor, like a bunch of tramps who have spotted a 50p piece in the gutter and will fight each other to the death for it. While this situation prevails, rules will always be bent as a matter of convenience. I have no idea what the answer to this problem is but there certainly needs to be one.

Definitely. The lack of governance in boxing is a root problem.

The UFC comparison is an interesting one - it seems to be reaching a fanbase that boxing is missing. I was chatting to a friend the other day about boxing and he used to go years ago with his father, but has lost interest in it. Then in the same breath to spoke glowingly of UFC, he has been to a UFC fight and would like to go again as it was an exciting spectacle etc.

Another, random anecdote about MMA in general. I was in the States during the last Christmas break and saw more evidence of MMA/UFC than boxing. Whether it was in a themed sports bar/restaurant [national chains] that were advertising the UFC and food/drink promotions, coming across UFC branded clothing lines in department stores, catching MMA on tv and noticing MMA-related magazines out number boxing magazines in airport book stores by 3-1 [and Ring Magazine is selling for something like $10!].....

I can recall wise words from an American industrialist that I met years ago, his words on business: "if you do it for the money - you do it wrong. If you do it right - the money will follow". I think it applies to boxing too. Instead of scrapping like a bunch of tunnel vision tramps over a shrinking economy - how about doing something to grow the economy of boxing....

[Glyn Leach]

Also, returning to the TV theme, how about getting some presenters who actually seem interested in boxing? Sorry, that Dave Clark fella was around for at least two years before I bothered looking for his name in the credits — I wanted to put a name to the face that never changes and from which the droning monotone emits week in week out. And Nicky Piper always seems bored shiteless to me. If you can't get presenters who sound enthusiastic about the sport, why would you expect the public to be interested? It's all such basic logic, but TV people are too damned lazy to look at their own product. The Sky format is dated and top heavy and could learn from a UFC broadcast, which has two enthusiastic and knowledgeable men handling both the presenting of the show, the commentary and the after-fight interviews. There is absolutely no need for Sky to have two or three people in the studio, two commentators, one ringside reporter and dear old Spenny chipping in. The whole things needs to be pared down, the fat needs to be trimmed off Sky shows. Personally I'd take it down to Adam Smith and give Ed a shot at co-commentary, the bloke knows his stuff and is a genuine fight fan even if he is untried in that role. Just go with two, trim the wage bill and spend it on better production values. Or if a former fighter were really needed, Nelson is enthusiastic at least, plus he still looks like a fighter. Piper and Glenn, sorry chaps, you look and sound like tired middle aged men, a younger audience isn't going to relate to you. Age isn't preclusive to appealing to younger people but enthusiasm is — McGuigan being a perfect example. Enthusiasm is infectious and boxing needs to infect a new generation of fight fans.

[stujones]

Would you get rid of Watt, Glyn??

[Glyn Leach]

I like Watt, he could maybe fill the same kind of role as McGuigan on ITV. I'd get rid of the 'studio' totally and just have the show presented from ringside, by those who would commentate. There could be a place for Watt. It's difficult to decide what would work best when picking from current Sky staff. Definitely Clark and Piper would go, Spenny doesn't add much, I have a lot of time for Glenn but the whole show needs to be sped up, given a shot of adrenaline. Darkie I am also fond of, but lately he's been doing my head in — all this "our computer" garbage. Darkie mate you have no computer, just a couple of blokes recording punched at ringside. It's no more reliable than the much criticised amateur scoring system, in fact it's worse because at least you have five "computers" at major amateur tourneys. And if Sky's "computer" was so important, why didn't they fly it to Haye-Valuev?

Anyway, back on topic, of what Sky has available today, I'd whittle it down to Adam Smith, Jim Watt, Ed Robinson and Johnny Nelson, then pick two or three from them. Who would you have?

[MightyWarrior]

Yeah I liked the comment on the studio presenter's open necked "informal" look for prizefighter, hilarious, and does sum up the general clueless format sky have "put together".

And they have to get rid of the grinning buffoon who fronts the show. Piper is sleep inducing, and Nelson always seems to be trying too hard to please the boss, talking up any old crap as the next thrilla in manila. I did think he was better at co commentating the other day, rather than in the studio.

Jim Watt is a prize asset for any boxing show, and Darke is good but maybe a bit jaded lately, though I'm sure he'll bring a touch of class to a big night like Haye/Wlad for example.

But yes, seriously, they really need a boot up the backside at sky boxing, big time.

[stujones]

Personally, I am not convinced. Sky tried that from ringside thing before and it didn't really work in my opinion.

I think they need to go back to basics a bit more.

I'd like to see if they can lure Paul Dempsey back from the dole que.

and I would utilse as much as Darke and Watt as possible.... It would be a bit like "glory" days ITV with Darke doing the commentary and the interview (as Gutteridge did) and Watt doing co-commentating and ringside analysis post fight.... which would be somewhat cut back. I find they only state what Watt's been saying all along - In this format most of it will be discussing post fight will be about future opponents etc (again - like in the old glory days).

Now a second team would be needed if they are covering two shows - so in the shows in which there is no clash - have the second choice co-commentator (I would actually go for Spencer Oliver) doing a quick analysis every 3rd round (like in the early Sky days with Barry).

The 2nd team would have the same format but I would pick Smith as my commentator/interviewer and Oliver as my co-commentator/analysor. Not sure who I'd pick if they need a presenter.... I don't think Smith is comfortable as presenter.... doesn't have to be a boxing man, if Des Lynam was a few years younger.

I'd keep Ed on the books as an alternate and also heavily involved in a Boxing Magazine programme.

[Matt W]

I love BM although I would like to see more of Glyn's pieces in it. I enjoyed the recent Dana White interview and more on the TV debate would be interesting, as would something about the issue of drugs within the sport. I like the analysis that BM gives you as I'm not a huge fan of straight round-by-round fight reporting.

And for fresh new articles it could do a lot worse than getting Terry D on board

[Glyn Leach]

It's difficult imagining some of the current talking heads in any new format show. Personally I think that ITV had far more idea than Sky. Rosenthal and McGuigan presenting from ringside worked for me, though it would have worked better if it were McGuigan and someone a bit livelier and more enthusiastic IMO. And I thought Gabriel Clark's profile films were excellent, far better than the trite, corny nonsense Sky produce — you can predict every word of the voice overs to their fighter profiles and it's always done in that irritating sing-song nursery rhyme way. A few bob had been spent on Clark's profiles, that was obvious. But it takes money and effort to produce quality. The Primetime profiles for Super Six are perfect, in my book — not a word of narration, just film of fighters and well-picked quotes to tell the story. You don't need narration, just imaginative and creative editing of fly on the wall filming. Frochy tells me that the Showtime cameras are all over them leading up to a fight, filming non stop, and then a tremendous amount of editing must take place in order to produce the final profile. Sky's efforts look like 10-minute jobs, no thought and low budget — they should axe some of the talking heads and use the money to improve the production quality of the shows in general.

[steve689]

I see my mate David Kelly is doing a bit for BM these days.

Glyn you have never been afraid to say it how it is and boxing needs more of this. You need to write more stuff in the magazine.

[Terminator666]

I would like to see something along the lines of " A day in the life of training". Whereby one of the BM team spends a day with different boxers from morning through to night and see the training routine they do and the subtle differences that there no doubt will be toward each ones training/regime, diet etc. Just a thought.