Dan Rafael...opinions?

[chris s]

Glyn, I take your points on board and do appreciate everything you say, negative, positive whatever. You know that I have great respect for your opinion, even when it's faintly threatening! Apologies regarding the 11 for 2011 if you feel that we had lifted the idea / title from Boxing Monthly. I worked on the original Ringside show for several years, it was a title we used before so we used it again, we really did not mean to plagiarise. I didn't chose it for the show on Thursday but must admit, when it was mentioned, Boxing Monthly didn't come to mind, I just thought it a quite generic title from the original show. A show that many of the present team worked upon. If I had associated it with Boxing Monthly I would certainly have suggested something else immediately. Again, genuinely, I'm really sorry it caused offence. I can see why you would be upset. I will also pass on the message, at least we have a year to think of something new!

Regarding the thread title, few could deny that Dan Rafael has his finger on the pulse of the boxing scene Stateside, personally I think his blogs are unmissable. He can be controversial, I don't always agree with him but he is also extremely well informed which is why he's on Ringside. He's over there, we're not, it's where the majority of international boxing news comes from, he has a more independent opinion. It's not a reaction to Gareth A Davies, honestly, if there are parallels then they are incidental. If that wasn't the case I'd just admit it.

It's been a very busy few months for us and we're still finding our feet. The show will improve...

'Independent Opinion'. He is an out and out GBP cheerleader

[SweetLikeSugar]

As regards the '11 for 2011' thing, your comment - 'it doesn't mean too much' - betrays a disturbing but all too familiar attitude. I'm well aware that TV magazine shows consider themselves a law unto themselves and above the printed form — one actually went as far as to call itself 'Boxing Monthly' in the 1990s and I had to take legal action (for the only time in my life) against it to get it to stop using the name (they changed it to Boxing First). Before I got legal, the attitude of the generic TV executive we met with (what TV company was it now, can't remember) was: 'So what?' Here's what, fella, the name's mine, I've been using it for years, so fuk right off and think up your own name.

Your attitude towards the use of the name of a feature BM had been using for years is exactly the same as theirs — and your defence that a long defunct show called Ringside, the name being the only relation it bears to your six month old programme, that stopped broacasting over 10 years ago once used it last century doesn't hold water. BM picked up something that wasn't being used and hadn't been used for years, you picked up something that BM had used as recently as '10 for 2010', but thankfully did not use this year. And it's not as though you had the courtesy to check whether BM was going to use it this year - obviously you didn't see the need.

This is one of the rare occasions I have to disagree with you Glyn, I think you're being a little harsh regarding this matter. You can't open a magazine/newspaper or switch on the TV at the turn of the year without coming across one of these lists. There are loads of other publications with wide-ranging subjects that used the '11 for 2011' format this year and many years previous.

I can maybe see your point in that BM was probably the first boxing publication to use the title but I don't think that gives you sole rights to it. I understand and admire the fact that you're so protective of the magazine but think you're giving Ed an unfairly hard time.

[stujones]

Glyn,

Can I ask, regarding the Boxing Monthly TV Magazine show, not affiliated with the Magazine - how did that affect business? I appreciate if you don't want to answer - I'm just thinking if I was say an editor of a Performing Arts Magazine called "The X factor" and then up pops Simon Cowell - I think financially there would be no way I would be fighting it - even if I didn't want to be associated with the show. Did you pick up punters before it went legal and they changed their name.

It does make you think you brought the idea of what then became known as "Boxing first" to the TV execs. The people clearly didn't know about Boxing Monthly! Which makes you think.

A second point I would like to make is that for two posts you have, in a nice way, belittled your prospect articles 7 for 2007 and so forth. Some quotes on it "but thankfully did not use this year", Why did you have them for 4 years if you didn't like them? Personally, I do like such articles although conceed they probably work better on TV Magazine shows with clips.

[ed robinson]

chris s - I mean't independent from Sky! He's employed by ESPN - a rival organisation. He just provides a different opinion.

[ourkid1984]

I think that most ESPN journalists are far too biased towards American sport and American sport stars because that is what they are all about. Just in the same way most Sky Sports jouno's will talk about British sports like they're the best thing since sliced bread (apart from maybe their current love in for American football).

I would say the worst one for British boxer hating is Brian Kenny, he comes accross like a know it all and I struggle to remember anything constructive let alone good that he's said about a British boxer. It always makes me laugh what he used to say about Lewis when he was beating the best the Americans could throw at him and oddly said Mccall was average when Lewis beat him but before the rematch he was saying how good he was.

The worst thing about Dan Rafael is his weight rankings and his explanation of putting some boxers above others come with no substance and how many British boxers will you see in his top 10's even with 4 world champions, hardly any and then the cheek of having to pay to see the p4p list and other blogs.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn,

Can I ask, regarding the Boxing Monthly TV Magazine show, not affiliated with the Magazine - how did that affect business? I appreciate if you don't want to answer - I'm just thinking if I was say an editor of a Performing Arts Magazine called "The X factor" and then up pops Simon Cowell - I think financially there would be no way I would be fighting it - even if I didn't want to be associated with the show. Did you pick up punters before it went legal and they changed their name.

It does make you think you brought the idea of what then became known as "Boxing first" to the TV execs. The people clearly didn't know about Boxing Monthly! Which makes you think.

A second point I would like to make is that for two posts you have, in a nice way, belittled your prospect articles 7 for 2007 and so forth. Some quotes on it "but thankfully did not use this year", Why did you have them for 4 years if you didn't like them? Personally, I do like such articles although conceed they probably work better on TV Magazine shows with clips.

Stu, it was a monthly show and we jumped on it very early, so it didn't get a chance to affect business, even if it might have - I think it only went out twice under the name of Boxing Monthly. My point was that I didn't want a bunch of people not associated with the magazine giving views that might be taken as those of the magazine. I'm very protective of BM, sometimes too much so, I will admit. But I'm fiercely independent and will not have us linked with others who might in some way damage what we have worked for. We probably could have got some healthy damages had we taken the issue to court, the TV company really didn't have a leg to stand on, they were in breach of the intellectual property laws. But money wasn't the object, we just wanted them to stop using our name, and once they did we were happy to drop it. I suppose indirectly we were responsible for their changing the name to Boxing First, but we certainly didn't suggest it. Once we got our name back, the matter was dead as far as we were concerned, we had nothing more to do with them. They renamed it Boxing First because it went out in the first week of every month, or something like that. But like so many TV boxing shows, it didn't last five minutes anyway — another reason not to let it go with the name Boxing Monthly, had it gone under while called that it would have been categorised as our failure, when in fact we had nothing to do with it!

Certainly not belittling the '7 for 2007' features, but there is an obvious problem with them — if you follow it through, you do end up with '19 for 2019'! And I challenge anyone to come up with 19 top prospects in one year! That's why we cut it dead at 10, seemed like a realistic number to call it a day on. Plus we'd been doing it for a few years, time to move on. But we haven't dropped the idea of a prospects feature at the start of each year, there's one in the issue that comes out next week.

Hope that answers your queries fella.

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn, I take your points on board and do appreciate everything you say, negative, positive whatever. You know that I have great respect for your opinion, even when it's faintly threatening! Apologies regarding the 11 for 2011 if you feel that we had lifted the idea / title from Boxing Monthly. I worked on the original Ringside show for several years, it was a title we used before so we used it again, we really did not mean to plagiarise. I didn't chose it for the show on Thursday but must admit, when it was mentioned, Boxing Monthly didn't come to mind, I just thought it a quite generic title from the original show. A show that many of the present team worked upon. If I had associated it with Boxing Monthly I would certainly have suggested something else immediately. Again, genuinely, I'm really sorry it caused offence. I can see why you would be upset. I will also pass on the message, at least we have a year to think of something new!

Regarding the thread title, few could deny that Dan Rafael has his finger on the pulse of the boxing scene Stateside, personally I think his blogs are unmissable. He can be controversial, I don't always agree with him but he is also extremely well informed which is why he's on Ringside. He's over there, we're not, it's where the majority of international boxing news comes from, he has a more independent opinion. It's not a reaction to Gareth A Davies, honestly, if there are parallels then they are incidental. If that wasn't the case I'd just admit it.

It's been a very busy few months for us and we're still finding our feet. The show will improve...

Thanks Ed and not a problem, as I said we'd dropped the idea anyway. But we had used it on the front cover in the past and had we been doing that this month, only to see Ringside use it before we came out, that would have been very irksome. I have absolutely no doubt you would have changed the name had you realised, I know you're an honourable fella.

We're fortunate really, we can look on this as a near miss with no damage done. But I think you lads need to be aware that you have a far louder voice than the rest of us and there is a responsibility that comes with that. It's a bit like a big kid playing football with little kids in the playground, he might not mean to do any harm but if he treads on their toes he's going to do some damage.

I wrote in the magazine that you boys will get your own ideas going once you have your feet under the table and I don't doubt that will be the case. In the meantime, as I said, the approach you are using is effective and pragmatic - and I'm a great admirer of pragmatism, it suggests intelligence and awareness.

And I have no problem with Ray Feel beyond the curious way his name is pronounced! I mean, it wasn't Manchester Utd defender Ray Feel who was sent off yesterday! Tottenham's Ray Feel Van der Vaart isn't the bargain buy of the season! The boxing brothers were not Gabriel and Ray Feel Ruelas! We need answers Ed, put on your investigative journalist hat and explain this mystery to the world!

All the best, will ring you once I have put this beast to bed - which isn't proving easy after the enforced layoff, not used to having five weeks off and my head really doesn't want to go into gear.

[Glyn Leach]

As regards the '11 for 2011' thing, your comment - 'it doesn't mean too much' - betrays a disturbing but all too familiar attitude. I'm well aware that TV magazine shows consider themselves a law unto themselves and above the printed form — one actually went as far as to call itself 'Boxing Monthly' in the 1990s and I had to take legal action (for the only time in my life) against it to get it to stop using the name (they changed it to Boxing First). Before I got legal, the attitude of the generic TV executive we met with (what TV company was it now, can't remember) was: 'So what?' Here's what, fella, the name's mine, I've been using it for years, so fuk right off and think up your own name.

Your attitude towards the use of the name of a feature BM had been using for years is exactly the same as theirs — and your defence that a long defunct show called Ringside, the name being the only relation it bears to your six month old programme, that stopped broacasting over 10 years ago once used it last century doesn't hold water. BM picked up something that wasn't being used and hadn't been used for years, you picked up something that BM had used as recently as '10 for 2010', but thankfully did not use this year. And it's not as though you had the courtesy to check whether BM was going to use it this year - obviously you didn't see the need.

This is one of the rare occasions I have to disagree with you Glyn, I think you're being a little harsh regarding this matter. You can't open a magazine/newspaper or switch on the TV at the turn of the year without coming across one of these lists. There are loads of other publications with wide-ranging subjects that used the '11 for 2011' format this year and many years previous.

I can maybe see your point in that BM was probably the first boxing publication to use the title but I don't think that gives you sole rights to it. I understand and admire the fact that you're so protective of the magazine but think you're giving Ed an unfairly hard time.

Maybe I was SWS, I do get out of my pram when I think BM needs defending, it means a lot to me. It was Ed's comment along the lines of 'it's no big deal' that irritated me. As I explained to Ed in an answer to his post, we've used that theme on the cover in the past and had we been doing that this year, only to find that Ringside had used it 'first', BM would have been thought of as copycats, which wouldn't have been the case. That would have pissed me right off.

Of course the '7 for 2007' type theme isn't original, of course it gets used elsewhere. But my point is that there are perhaps four mainstream British boxing magazines in existence. BM, BN, Ringside on TV and Buncey's show on the radio. There was no need for it to be used, word for word, by Ringside — who Ed tells me didn't realise what they had done, and I believe him because he is a straight fella. But for us all to get on, we have to respect each others boundaries and individuality. We need to be aware of what each magazine and magazine show is doing and respect it if we are to maintain a strong specialist media. If we start 'cutting each other's throats', it would be damaging to the boxing scene in general. I want us all to co-exist peacefully in a healthy and productive environment because I really do believe we all have the same goal in mind and that we are working towards the same ends.

[freddydoesdallas]

As regards the '11 for 2011' thing, your comment - 'it doesn't mean too much' - betrays a disturbing but all too familiar attitude. I'm well aware that TV magazine shows consider themselves a law unto themselves and above the printed form — one actually went as far as to call itself 'Boxing Monthly' in the 1990s and I had to take legal action (for the only time in my life) against it to get it to stop using the name (they changed it to Boxing First). Before I got legal, the attitude of the generic TV executive we met with (what TV company was it now, can't remember) was: 'So what?' Here's what, fella, the name's mine, I've been using it for years, so fuk right off and think up your own name.

Your attitude towards the use of the name of a feature BM had been using for years is exactly the same as theirs — and your defence that a long defunct show called Ringside, the name being the only relation it bears to your six month old programme, that stopped broacasting over 10 years ago once used it last century doesn't hold water. BM picked up something that wasn't being used and hadn't been used for years, you picked up something that BM had used as recently as '10 for 2010', but thankfully did not use this year. And it's not as though you had the courtesy to check whether BM was going to use it this year - obviously you didn't see the need.

This is one of the rare occasions I have to disagree with you Glyn, I think you're being a little harsh regarding this matter. You can't open a magazine/newspaper or switch on the TV at the turn of the year without coming across one of these lists. There are loads of other publications with wide-ranging subjects that used the '11 for 2011' format this year and many years previous.

I can maybe see your point in that BM was probably the first boxing publication to use the title but I don't think that gives you sole rights to it. I understand and admire the fact that you're so protective of the magazine but think you're giving Ed an unfairly hard time.

Maybe I was SWS, I do get out of my pram when I think BM needs defending, it means a lot to me. It was Ed's comment along the lines of 'it's no big deal' that irritated me. As I explained to Ed in an answer to his post, we've used that theme on the cover in the past and had we been doing that this year, only to find that Ringside had used it 'first', BM would have been thought of as copycats, which wouldn't have been the case. That would have pissed me right off.

Of course the '7 for 2007' type theme isn't original, of course it gets used elsewhere. But my point is that there are perhaps four British boxing magazines in existence. BM, BN, Ringside on TV and Buncey's show on the radio. There was no need for it to be used, word for word, by Ringside — who Ed tells me didn't realise what they had done, and I believe him because he is a straight fella. But for us all to get on, we have to respect each others boundaries and individuality. We need to be aware of what each magazine and magazine show is doing and respect it if we are to maintain a strong specialist media. If we start 'cutting each other's throats', it would be damaging to the boxing scene in general. I want us all to co-exist peacefully in a healthy and productive environment because I really do believe we all have the same goal in mind and that we are working towards the same ends.

If only the sanctioning bodies tried to conduct themselves this way

[SweetLikeSugar]

As regards the '11 for 2011' thing, your comment - 'it doesn't mean too much' - betrays a disturbing but all too familiar attitude. I'm well aware that TV magazine shows consider themselves a law unto themselves and above the printed form — one actually went as far as to call itself 'Boxing Monthly' in the 1990s and I had to take legal action (for the only time in my life) against it to get it to stop using the name (they changed it to Boxing First). Before I got legal, the attitude of the generic TV executive we met with (what TV company was it now, can't remember) was: 'So what?' Here's what, fella, the name's mine, I've been using it for years, so fuk right off and think up your own name.

Your attitude towards the use of the name of a feature BM had been using for years is exactly the same as theirs — and your defence that a long defunct show called Ringside, the name being the only relation it bears to your six month old programme, that stopped broacasting over 10 years ago once used it last century doesn't hold water. BM picked up something that wasn't being used and hadn't been used for years, you picked up something that BM had used as recently as '10 for 2010', but thankfully did not use this year. And it's not as though you had the courtesy to check whether BM was going to use it this year - obviously you didn't see the need.

This is one of the rare occasions I have to disagree with you Glyn, I think you're being a little harsh regarding this matter. You can't open a magazine/newspaper or switch on the TV at the turn of the year without coming across one of these lists. There are loads of other publications with wide-ranging subjects that used the '11 for 2011' format this year and many years previous.

I can maybe see your point in that BM was probably the first boxing publication to use the title but I don't think that gives you sole rights to it. I understand and admire the fact that you're so protective of the magazine but think you're giving Ed an unfairly hard time.

Maybe I was SWS, I do get out of my pram when I think BM needs defending, it means a lot to me. It was Ed's comment along the lines of 'it's no big deal' that irritated me. As I explained to Ed in an answer to his post, we've used that theme on the cover in the past and had we been doing that this year, only to find that Ringside had used it 'first', BM would have been thought of as copycats, which wouldn't have been the case. That would have pissed me right off.

Of course the '7 for 2007' type theme isn't original, of course it gets used elsewhere. But my point is that there are perhaps four mainstream British boxing magazines in existence. BM, BN, Ringside on TV and Buncey's show on the radio. There was no need for it to be used, word for word, by Ringside — who Ed tells me didn't realise what they had done, and I believe him because he is a straight fella. But for us all to get on, we have to respect each others boundaries and individuality. We need to be aware of what each magazine and magazine show is doing and respect it if we are to maintain a strong specialist media. If we start 'cutting each other's throats', it would be damaging to the boxing scene in general. I want us all to co-exist peacefully in a healthy and productive environment because I really do believe we all have the same goal in mind and that we are working towards the same ends.

Fair response, Glyn.

[ed robinson]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

[ourkid1984]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

Top stuff Ed.... PS it made me laugh when you were talking about Audley having a couple of low key fights in America before having another crack here, it looked like you were going to crack up laughing.

[Glyn Leach]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

No need to explain Ed, I know what you mean and I trust your integrity. And it's good to be defensive, shows pride in what you do. I respect that. As for Bunce, well, he's always been a law unto himself, that's what works for him lol. Struggling with a headline for a Braehmer feature here, anyone got any ideas? My brain's gone numb.

[orbtastic]

I doubt anyone these days actually has an original idea.

[stujones]

Hope you asked Brahmer what its like to be on Question of Sport and has he nailed Sue Barker yet.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

No need to explain Ed, I know what you mean and I trust your integrity. And it's good to be defensive, shows pride in what you do. I respect that. As for Bunce, well, he's always been a law unto himself, that's what works for him lol. Struggling with a headline for a Braehmer feature here, anyone got any ideas? My brain's gone numb.

It's a no brahemer for boxing's hot swot!

Hahaha! I am brilliant am I not - gizza job Glyn!

[orbtastic]

Braehmer? Dour Kraut?

[Glyn Leach]

Braehmer? Dour Kraut?

PMSL, good effort Orb - might drop me in a bit of doo doos though

[orbtastic]

You could always hide the Kraut part with some colour or behind something in the main photo.

I'm curious as to what he's actually like, he strikes me as a very humourless individual, although Germans can sometimes come across this way when they're not really.

[stujones]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

That doesn't leave you with much. Is that a request from the powers that be, or just a personal thing (that you wouldn't touch stuff reported elsewhere) cause, the saddo that I am, have heard quite a large number of your stories in the press (whether it be Boxing websites or Mags) before - sorry to say. Although, as I have mentioned before. I do like it, cause it does bring a sense of reality to some of the News (e.g. Chisora vs Klitchsko).

[stujones]

Hey Glyn, I don't want to sound like I'm back tracking but by saying it's no big deal - I was referring to Boxing Monthly using it after Sky originally did! As soon as you mentioned your cover I could picture it. All points taken on board and I really hope it doesn't happen again.

As you are defensive over your product, I can be over ours. I'm a bit of a saddo and boxing is my life. The dig about originality hurts a bit because we are all very passionate about the sport, working hard and willing to listen and adapt, perhaps for the first time. I'm not going to make excuses for the show because I'm very proud of it, however, I'll say again, it is a work in progress. Adam announced last week that the show will go on the road, hopefully Stateside at some time. We have tried to make every show different and not be safe all the time. Lennox and Wladimir specials, debates, different guests etc. There will be more changes and some innovation, we've finally got some time to change things now because the second half of last year was very chaotic for the team - with the PPV's and Behind the Ropes being introduced and Xmas specials all alongside the return of Ringside and some major changes behind the scenes.

My reference to the format of Boxing Monthly was not mean't as an insult, just that it is quite difficult to reinvent the wheel. A televised sport magazine show does have certain constraints. We also have to appeal to the hard core fans but spell things out a bit more for those that might be drawn into the sport while catching our programme for the first time. I have some ideas, we all do, we've just not had the time to implement them all yet. Likewise I will go through previous threads from here tonight and write down all the decent points that people on these boards have made, including opinions on Dan R.

We would never want to steal ideas from anyone else in the business. I have to come up with some news most weeks for the show, if something has been reported anywhere on the internet or is in BN that day then I wouldn't touch it, which doesn't leave me with much....

Agreed on the new approach although, as a regular listener of Steve Bunce's podcasts - I would say that World peace is still some way off!

No need to explain Ed, I know what you mean and I trust your integrity. And it's good to be defensive, shows pride in what you do. I respect that. As for Bunce, well, he's always been a law unto himself, that's what works for him lol. Struggling with a headline for a Braehmer feature here, anyone got any ideas? My brain's gone numb.

It's a no brahemer for boxing's hot swot!

Hahaha! I am brilliant am I not - gizza job Glyn!

That is actually really good Carlos!

Clever Brahem(n)s

[Mooresy]

.[/quote]

It's a no brahemer for boxing's hot swot!

Hahaha! I am brilliant am I not - gizza job Glyn! [/quote]

HYa ha, great work Carlos!! Do as the man says Glyn, give him a job!

[iamasadlittleboy]

Jeurgenna regret this

[iamasadlittleboy]

Jeurgenna regret this

[SweetLikeSugar]

Hope you asked Brahmer what its like to be on Question of Sport and has he nailed Sue Barker yet.

It's in the eyes!