I like Tony Bellew but...

[TDixon]

Guys,
Thanks for taking the time to comment about me, the mag and Flex.
We do take your opinions on board. I often read this site but do not post for the simple reason that, on a weekly trade paper where the phone does not stop ringing, where the e-mails do not stop coming and with so many pages to fill (whether it’s with pictures and ads!) it is very hard to get embroiled into debates, gentle or heated, and keep doing it. I do try to respond to every individual e-mail and anyone who asks me anything on Twitter. That is not always possible but I try.
It does not mean I do not listen to what is said. I do.
Much of what has been written on here makes for very interesting reading. My designer is away this week but on his return I will talk to him about picture size. I trust his judgement although perhaps there is some leeway. But boxing images can be truly wonderful things. We are fortunate to have such a photogenic sport to cover and to have contacts/contracts with some of the best boxing snappers in the world.
With regards to the ads, I know this point has been debated on here before. We need them but I do not see that we have an excessive amount.
When I put together the 48-page schedule each week we have two full page ads within the mag, excluding cover positions. And they tend to be house ads advertising other BN products, be it the website, Fighting Fit or the recent Haye-Klitschko special. The rest are quarter-page ads, but it is not often we have more than four, aside from the classified positions we have always had.
The amateur debate is interesting and the poster who said about the enhanced coverage being due to the Olympics, having a very good crop of amateurs and them being the future of the sport is bang on. I’m hoping some of you have started to read John’s Vested Interest stuff as he is giving these young guns a platform to tell their stories. They make for interesting features now, and it will be fascinating to look back on them in time. Daniel Herbert wrote pieces on several top amateurs before they were famous, from Kostya Tszyu to Amir Khan, and they make for brilliant reflective reading.
As for the Sky stuff, it does not change what I think, feel – which is all I have ever said when working for them. A couple of times I have said things that I wished had come out slightly differently, nothing major, but TV stuff is not easy. I find it a real challenge and it certainly takes me out of my comfort zone having spent a decade behind a computer screen. If I felt it compromised my integrity I would not do it. No chance. But I will not let it alter what I write which is, again, how I think and feel. I think I have been on TV five times: three Ringside shows and two Big Fight Nights (Maidana-Morales and Hopkins-Pascal II), in 18 months as editor. Claude did plenty throughout his career. He was a regular on the BBC before becoming semi-regular on Setanta. As far as I know, he was doing most big shows with Buncey before they had to cut their budget and were left with one studio expert, Steve. Before Claude was leading the BN charge, Harry Mullan did it on the BBC.
Every Sunday morning journalists sit around the table at Sky talking football and cricket and that is what I am on the box to do, but to talk boxing. There is no agenda. There is no brief and there is no script for the guests, just the autocue for presenters. The main reason, on my part, for being there is to raise the profile of the magazine. And if I was not doing it I would like one of my guys to be there instead rather than any other journalist. I just want BN to reach the widest possible readership and for it to thrive.
If, at any point, there was a conflict of interest my first and foremost concern is BN and I would always do what I felt was best for the magazine.
Which segues nicely with the Haye stuff. Compared to other journos I did not hammer Haye although I emphasised what I considered to be the three major points as I saw it; that the toe excuse was lame, that Haye failed to live up to the hype and that this Klitschko fella is actually pretty good.
My memory is not great but I do not think I previewed it for Sky in anyway but, of course, I did in the magazine. And with a 100-page special (with just one ad in if anyone is keeping score). For me, it was the biggest fight of the year and was second only to Floyd-Manny on the list of contests I wanted to see. Was I excited about it? Damn right. I live for fights like that. It is part of what makes my job the best one in the world, to me.
Was I disappointed afterwards? I was. But sitting ringside, up until the 11th round when the knockdown was scored, there was never a time when I thought it was ‘game over.’ I was riveted (sometimes it just comes down to taste, I have found some action fights not especially entertaining but have enjoyed other people thought were horrible – like Froch-Dirrell.) But that is boxing. It only takes one punch and both Haye and Wlad can hit and, occasionally, David was still swinging. I don’t buy it that he gave up trying to win. I just think he thoroughly ran out of ideas. His tactics were to apply pressure but he ended up absorbing it throughout the fight. And rather than pressuring for openings he waited for them and against someone as patient, calculated and aware of his own fragilities as Wlad there is no point waiting for an opportunity because he won’t present you with one. You have to get inside and earn the chance to take him out.
I have been ringside at Klitschko fights for 10 years now and the amount of opponents who have completely shut up shop (big right hand at their disposal or not) has driven me barmy. Haye was still looking and still shooting (albeit wildly and missing) and often there was nothing to hit. But I found that refreshing. How many Klitschko fights have you seen where an opponent is a mile behind (as Haye was) and you are thinking, ‘Just throw one right hand’? Too many for my liking. Haye was not Marciano, I know, but he was not Rahman, either.
Did I think Haye could win beforehand? Of course I did, although whoever I picked I would not have been enormously confident going into the fight. I weighed it up over and over and debated this way and that for weeks. I always acknowledged Klitschko was the favourite but sometimes you have to make a call. I got it wrong this time. I maintain it is not as bad as a previous BN prediction when we tipped Cockell to topple Marciano.
And the way I select a winning fighter has nothing to do with race, nationality, taste in music or anything else that does not count in the ring. I watch loads of tapes, put the fighters in the ring in my mind and let it take care of the rest. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. But it is always as I see it.
With regards to the aftermath, I reached out to David and his PR team and had no calls returned before we went to press. He did some TV stuff but had no inclination to do anything for us. That is his prerogative.
Hope I have not bored you too much and thanks for sharing your thoughts, whether they’re positive, negative or neutral.

[Tommy Gunn13]

I enjoy the Amateur section(vested interest) Well done John Dennen&Daniel Herbert..Long may it continue

[Deserter]

Shop wasn't shut. The story was covered, just not as extensively as you'd have liked.

Danny, sorry, you've said some good points on here but you're bordering on being utterly disingenuous here. Given the magnitude of the story, the BN coverage (or more pointedly, the lack of it) was a disgrace.
Those of us who've been long-term readers were also only too aware of the lack of a critical response to bouts such as the ones previously outlined, such as Enzo vs Gunn.
In a bid to adopt a more positive note, I was back in the UK at the weekend and picked up the latest issue, and I continue to feel that it's a far stronger product under Tris' editorship.

[Deserter]

Guys,
Thanks for taking the time to comment about me, the mag and Flex.
We do take your opinions on board. I often read this site but do not post for the simple reason that, on a weekly trade paper where the phone does not stop ringing, where the e-mails do not stop coming and with so many pages to fill (whether it’s with pictures and ads!) it is very hard to get embroiled into debates, gentle or heated, and keep doing it. I do try to respond to every individual e-mail and anyone who asks me anything on Twitter. That is not always possible but I try.
It does not mean I do not listen to what is said. I do.
Much of what has been written on here makes for very interesting reading. My designer is away this week but on his return I will talk to him about picture size. I trust his judgement although perhaps there is some leeway. But boxing images can be truly wonderful things. We are fortunate to have such a photogenic sport to cover and to have contacts/contracts with some of the best boxing snappers in the world.
With regards to the ads, I know this point has been debated on here before. We need them but I do not see that we have an excessive amount.
When I put together the 48-page schedule each week we have two full page ads within the mag, excluding cover positions. And they tend to be house ads advertising other BN products, be it the website, Fighting Fit or the recent Haye-Klitschko special. The rest are quarter-page ads, but it is not often we have more than four, aside from the classified positions we have always had.
The amateur debate is interesting and the poster who said about the enhanced coverage being due to the Olympics, having a very good crop of amateurs and them being the future of the sport is bang on. I’m hoping some of you have started to read John’s Vested Interest stuff as he is giving these young guns a platform to tell their stories. They make for interesting features now, and it will be fascinating to look back on them in time. Daniel Herbert wrote pieces on several top amateurs before they were famous, from Kostya Tszyu to Amir Khan, and they make for brilliant reflective reading.
As for the Sky stuff, it does not change what I think, feel – which is all I have ever said when working for them. A couple of times I have said things that I wished had come out slightly differently, nothing major, but TV stuff is not easy. I find it a real challenge and it certainly takes me out of my comfort zone having spent a decade behind a computer screen. If I felt it compromised my integrity I would not do it. No chance. But I will not let it alter what I write which is, again, how I think and feel. I think I have been on TV five times: three Ringside shows and two Big Fight Nights (Maidana-Morales and Hopkins-Pascal II), in 18 months as editor. Claude did plenty throughout his career. He was a regular on the BBC before becoming semi-regular on Setanta. As far as I know, he was doing most big shows with Buncey before they had to cut their budget and were left with one studio expert, Steve. Before Claude was leading the BN charge, Harry Mullan did it on the BBC.
Every Sunday morning journalists sit around the table at Sky talking football and cricket and that is what I am on the box to do, but to talk boxing. There is no agenda. There is no brief and there is no script for the guests, just the autocue for presenters. The main reason, on my part, for being there is to raise the profile of the magazine. And if I was not doing it I would like one of my guys to be there instead rather than any other journalist. I just want BN to reach the widest possible readership and for it to thrive.
If, at any point, there was a conflict of interest my first and foremost concern is BN and I would always do what I felt was best for the magazine.
Which segues nicely with the Haye stuff. Compared to other journos I did not hammer Haye although I emphasised what I considered to be the three major points as I saw it; that the toe excuse was lame, that Haye failed to live up to the hype and that this Klitschko fella is actually pretty good.
My memory is not great but I do not think I previewed it for Sky in anyway but, of course, I did in the magazine. And with a 100-page special (with just one ad in if anyone is keeping score). For me, it was the biggest fight of the year and was second only to Floyd-Manny on the list of contests I wanted to see. Was I excited about it? Damn right. I live for fights like that. It is part of what makes my job the best one in the world, to me.
Was I disappointed afterwards? I was. But sitting ringside, up until the 11th round when the knockdown was scored, there was never a time when I thought it was ‘game over.’ I was riveted (sometimes it just comes down to taste, I have found some action fights not especially entertaining but have enjoyed other people thought were horrible – like Froch-Dirrell.) But that is boxing. It only takes one punch and both Haye and Wlad can hit and, occasionally, David was still swinging. I don’t buy it that he gave up trying to win. I just think he thoroughly ran out of ideas. His tactics were to apply pressure but he ended up absorbing it throughout the fight. And rather than pressuring for openings he waited for them and against someone as patient, calculated and aware of his own fragilities as Wlad there is no point waiting for an opportunity because he won’t present you with one. You have to get inside and earn the chance to take him out.
I have been ringside at Klitschko fights for 10 years now and the amount of opponents who have completely shut up shop (big right hand at their disposal or not) has driven me barmy. Haye was still looking and still shooting (albeit wildly and missing) and often there was nothing to hit. But I found that refreshing. How many Klitschko fights have you seen where an opponent is a mile behind (as Haye was) and you are thinking, ‘Just throw one right hand’? Too many for my liking. Haye was not Marciano, I know, but he was not Rahman, either.
Did I think Haye could win beforehand? Of course I did, although whoever I picked I would not have been enormously confident going into the fight. I weighed it up over and over and debated this way and that for weeks. I always acknowledged Klitschko was the favourite but sometimes you have to make a call. I got it wrong this time. I maintain it is not as bad as a previous BN prediction when we tipped Cockell to topple Marciano.
And the way I select a winning fighter has nothing to do with race, nationality, taste in music or anything else that does not count in the ring. I watch loads of tapes, put the fighters in the ring in my mind and let it take care of the rest. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. But it is always as I see it.
With regards to the aftermath, I reached out to David and his PR team and had no calls returned before we went to press. He did some TV stuff but had no inclination to do anything for us. That is his prerogative.
Hope I have not bored you too much and thanks for sharing your thoughts, whether they’re positive, negative or neutral.

Great post, though shocked to hear about Haye and his PR team effectively ignoring his core audience who were there for him when he had no mainstream profile to speak of. Yet another 'own-goal'.

[Final round]

Which segues nicely with the Haye stuff. Compared to other journos I did not hammer Haye although I emphasised what I considered to be the three major points as I saw it; that the toe excuse was lame, that Haye failed to live up to the hype and that this Klitschko fella is actually pretty good.
My memory is not great but I do not think I previewed it for Sky in anyway but, of course, I did in the magazine. And with a 100-page special (with just one ad in if anyone is keeping score). For me, it was the biggest fight of the year and was second only to Floyd-Manny on the list of contests I wanted to see. Was I excited about it? Damn right. I live for fights like that. It is part of what makes my job the best one in the world, to me.
Was I disappointed afterwards? I was. But sitting ringside, up until the 11th round when the knockdown was scored, there was never a time when I thought it was ‘game over.’ I was riveted (sometimes it just comes down to taste, I have found some action fights not especially entertaining but have enjoyed other people thought were horrible – like Froch-Dirrell.) But that is boxing. It only takes one punch and both Haye and Wlad can hit and, occasionally, David was still swinging. I don’t buy it that he gave up trying to win. I just think he thoroughly ran out of ideas. His tactics were to apply pressure but he ended up absorbing it throughout the fight. And rather than pressuring for openings he waited for them and against someone as patient, calculated and aware of his own fragilities as Wlad there is no point waiting for an opportunity because he won’t present you with one. You have to get inside and earn the chance to take him out.
I have been ringside at Klitschko fights for 10 years now and the amount of opponents who have completely shut up shop (big right hand at their disposal or not) has driven me barmy. Haye was still looking and still shooting (albeit wildly and missing) and often there was nothing to hit. But I found that refreshing. How many Klitschko fights have you seen where an opponent is a mile behind (as Haye was) and you are thinking, ‘Just throw one right hand’? Too many for my liking. Haye was not Marciano, I know, but he was not Rahman, either.

Agree with that I thought it was an absorbing and tactical fight rippling with suspense until the final bell.
Thankfully it seems the dust has finally settled on Hamburg and people can safely emerge from their bunkers and mildly applaud Haye's effort.

[dbflex]

Shop wasn't shut. The story was covered, just not as extensively as you'd have liked.

Danny, sorry, you've said some good points on here but you're bordering on being utterly disingenuous here. Given the magnitude of the story, the BN coverage (or more pointedly, the lack of it) was a disgrace.
Those of us who've been long-term readers were also only too aware of the lack of a critical response to bouts such as the ones previously outlined, such as Enzo vs Gunn.
In a bid to adopt a more positive note, I was back in the UK at the weekend and picked up the latest issue, and I continue to feel that it's a far stronger product under Tris' editorship.

I'm being straight with you. We were quite limited with what we could say without incurring at least a legal letter. But it's not simply applying sensible caution, it's practicalities too. You write more then you give all parties right of reply then send it to company lawyer. It's very time-intensive on a weekly mag if you want to get it in while it remains topical. There were many obstacles but I accept your point about the coverage being insufficient. I just want to make clear that this was not through a lack of courage.

[Deserter]

Shop wasn't shut. The story was covered, just not as extensively as you'd have liked.

Danny, sorry, you've said some good points on here but you're bordering on being utterly disingenuous here. Given the magnitude of the story, the BN coverage (or more pointedly, the lack of it) was a disgrace.
Those of us who've been long-term readers were also only too aware of the lack of a critical response to bouts such as the ones previously outlined, such as Enzo vs Gunn.
In a bid to adopt a more positive note, I was back in the UK at the weekend and picked up the latest issue, and I continue to feel that it's a far stronger product under Tris' editorship.

I'm being straight with you. We were quite limited with what we could say without incurring at least a legal letter. But it's not simply applying sensible caution, it's practicalities too. You write more then you give all parties right of reply then send it to company lawyer. It's very time-intensive on a weekly mag if you want to get it in while it remains topical. There were many obstacles but I accept your point about the coverage being insufficient. I just want to make clear that this was not through a lack of courage.

Fair enough, as I appreciate the context of your constraints in terms of both time and resource (access to/cost of company lawyer etc), not to mention how litigious a certain promoter is

[n1ebf]

The article in boxing news was a bit too Ok mag for me the first paragraph read like a social workers report from a family visit as i said i like bomber and was impressed with his frank and honest account of how he tried to make weight for the cleverley fight just felt it was out of place in a boxing mag lovely family though they are .

I find that Matt Christie (who I believe wrote the article) tries to make his prose too clever for want of a better word. I find it very inaccessible and a bit namby-pamby. I read his piece on Matthew Hatton a couple of months ago and I had to read the first paragraph about 3 times to figure out who/ what he was on about.

His write up on Tyson Fury I found interesting, but again - too long-winded.

It's a boxing magazine and as such it probably isn't pitched at brain-boxes (but that is not to say that I want the magazine dumbed down - the magazine is fine).

I read the Bellew piece and I though if street-kid Tony reads this he'll put it down after half a dozen lines. He should reign in his flowery prose and not over-do every single sentence to show how clever he is IMHO.

As I say - the last piece I could say I enjoyed of his was on Fury.
I like Ron lewis and James Lawton (who did a fantastic job of making Haye look like a total DICK a couple of weeks ago). And also Hugh McIllvaney's book - McIllvanney on Boxing - I could pick up, dip into anywhere and sit and read for hours...and you don't need a PhD to do so.

These are just my observations and not intended to disparage the author who obviously puts a deal of effort into each piece, but my advice - make it more punchy (haha...punchy, lol)

[dbflex]

The article in boxing news was a bit too Ok mag for me the first paragraph read like a social workers report from a family visit as i said i like bomber and was impressed with his frank and honest account of how he tried to make weight for the cleverley fight just felt it was out of place in a boxing mag lovely family though they are .

I find that Matt Christie (who I believe wrote the article) tries to make his prose too clever for want of a better word. I find it very inaccessible and a bit namby-pamby. I read his piece on Matthew Hatton a couple of months ago and I had to read the first paragraph about 3 times to figure out who/ what he was on about.

His write up on Tyson Fury I found interesting, but again - too long-winded.

It's a boxing magazine and as such it probably isn't pitched at brain-boxes (but that is not to say that I want the magazine dumbed down - the magazine is fine).

I read the Bellew piece and I though if street-kid Tony reads this he'll put it down after half a dozen lines. He should reign in his flowery prose and not over-do every single sentence to show how clever he is IMHO.

As I say - the last piece I could say I enjoyed of his was on Fury.
I like Ron lewis and James Lawton (who did a fantastic job of making Haye look like a total DICK a couple of weeks ago). And also Hugh McIllvaney's book - McIllvanney on Boxing - I could pick up, dip into anywhere and sit and read for hours...and you don't need a PhD to do so.

These are just my observations and not intended to disparage the author who obviously puts a deal of effort into each piece, but my advice - make it more punchy (haha...punchy, lol)

I realise you're not a fan but you could at least read the byline. Or my username. Or my posts. Lol as much as I'd love to make Matt a scapegoat I wrote the piece. Danny Flexen

[Final round]

The article in boxing news was a bit too Ok mag for me the first paragraph read like a social workers report from a family visit as i said i like bomber and was impressed with his frank and honest account of how he tried to make weight for the cleverley fight just felt it was out of place in a boxing mag lovely family though they are .

I find that Matt Christie (who I believe wrote the article) tries to make his prose too clever for want of a better word. I find it very inaccessible and a bit namby-pamby. I read his piece on Matthew Hatton a couple of months ago and I had to read the first paragraph about 3 times to figure out who/ what he was on about.

His write up on Tyson Fury I found interesting, but again - too long-winded.

It's a boxing magazine and as such it probably isn't pitched at brain-boxes (but that is not to say that I want the magazine dumbed down - the magazine is fine).

I read the Bellew piece and I though if street-kid Tony reads this he'll put it down after half a dozen lines. He should reign in his flowery prose and not over-do every single sentence to show how clever he is IMHO.

As I say - the last piece I could say I enjoyed of his was on Fury.
I like Ron lewis and James Lawton (who did a fantastic job of making Haye look like a total DICK a couple of weeks ago). And also Hugh McIllvaney's book - McIllvanney on Boxing - I could pick up, dip into anywhere and sit and read for hours...and you don't need a PhD to do so.

These are just my observations and not intended to disparage the author who obviously puts a deal of effort into each piece, but my advice - make it more punchy (haha...punchy, lol)

I realise you're not a fan but you could at least read the byline. Or my username. Or my posts. Lol as much as I'd love to make Matt a scapegoat I wrote the piece. Danny Flexen

i thought you'd left BN and moved to Mens health mag?

[Arnie]

Great post Tris

[dbflex]

I find that Matt Christie (who I believe wrote the article) tries to make his prose too clever for want of a better word. I find it very inaccessible and a bit namby-pamby. I read his piece on Matthew Hatton a couple of months ago and I had to read the first paragraph about 3 times to figure out who/ what he was on about.

His write up on Tyson Fury I found interesting, but again - too long-winded.

It's a boxing magazine and as such it probably isn't pitched at brain-boxes (but that is not to say that I want the magazine dumbed down - the magazine is fine).

I read the Bellew piece and I though if street-kid Tony reads this he'll put it down after half a dozen lines. He should reign in his flowery prose and not over-do every single sentence to show how clever he is IMHO.

As I say - the last piece I could say I enjoyed of his was on Fury.
I like Ron lewis and James Lawton (who did a fantastic job of making Haye look like a total DICK a couple of weeks ago). And also Hugh McIllvaney's book - McIllvanney on Boxing - I could pick up, dip into anywhere and sit and read for hours...and you don't need a PhD to do so.

These are just my observations and not intended to disparage the author who obviously puts a deal of effort into each piece, but my advice - make it more punchy (haha...punchy, lol)

I realise you're not a fan but you could at least read the byline. Or my username. Or my posts. Lol as much as I'd love to make Matt a scapegoat I wrote the piece. Danny Flexen

i thought you'd left BN and moved to Mens health mag?

Fighting Fit mate which is owned by the same people as BN. Still write a few bits for BN.

[Final round]

I realise you're not a fan but you could at least read the byline. Or my username. Or my posts. Lol as much as I'd love to make Matt a scapegoat I wrote the piece. Danny Flexen

i thought you'd left BN and moved to Mens health mag?

Fighting Fit mate which is owned by the same people as BN. Still write a few bits for BN.

Sorry, that's the one I meant. That's a good job you've got getting to work on both Danny

[crusader]

Tris seriously thought that Haye's performance against Klitschko was refreshing?

I know it's all opinions, but I find that one very odd.

[crusader]

Mate, you're clearly intelligent and articulate so how about leaving the "furious wank"-style jibes in the same gutter as the press you describe? You have shown you are able to make your point without dropping to that level. As for the 'let's hear about his fights, training etc', as I have already painstakingly explained 'Beyond the Ropes' is so-called for good reason: it is a feature series designed to focus on a fighters life, interests and motivations outside the ring, so not really focusing on the things you mention. If you believe that this approach is incongruous in a boxing magazine, I accept that, and you should tell BN that's what you think. But while the Beyond the Ropes series continues, that will be the type of subject matter it entails.

As for the Haye report, I didn't write it but were there specific elements you disliked? Any examples of the overall tone you are criticising? It's good to have a debate.

sorry, the furious wank reference was supposed to pass for a joke! with regards to the bellew piece, i understand that you were trying to do something different. it worked well in the fury piece but this time it was like you were trying to make too much out of nothing. playing with his kids? not worth that amount of space in a boxing mag in my opinion. how he met his wife? one paragraph at most. im sorry to say this because you have responded to my post and i appreciate that, but a lot of that article was waffle. if it had gone into two pages it would have been fair enough but it seemed like you were just trying to fill space rather than have anything that demanded that amount of coverage.

the haye report - far too kind to haye, seemed to be glossing over the actual fight and the air of disappointment that his display caused. i havent got the mag to hand so cant give you examples but i just read it and thought it was completely spineless. there was a piece in the previous week, in the guest column bit with haye saying he was going to do this and that, and then nothing from him in the week after the fight. he should have been in that column again, explaining and maybe apologising to everyone. that's the power BN has got, you can get these guys, thats why i buy the mag and have done for years. you have all these polls before the fight, pick haye to win (which personally i couldnt understand), talk haye up, give him a guest spot and then when he completely flops and leaves us all feeling ripped off, there is a weak fight report talking haye's display up!!! i can remember one sentence near the end something like "you can say there was sound without fury but there were two skilled and fit heavyweights in there" that seemed like it was trying to make us all think it wasnt as bad as it was. i felt let down by that and i expect more from Boxing News because it has given us more over the years.

We'll have to agree to disagree over Bellew as I felt devoting that amount of space to his family life – in a Beyond the Ropes piece – was wholly appropriate.

As for Haye, I can see some of your points. I should say though that it was probably almost impossible to get Haye to write a column post-defeat; if you were Haye, would you know what to say? Haye's performance was a big disappointment, though not as much as the post-fight excuse, but – and I think this is the point BN was trying to make – it wasn't an abject surrender in the manner of a Tony Thompson for example. Haye gave it a go but was found wanting tactically and never really committed to putting it all on the line. You clealy feel he should have been upbraided more robustly given his pre-fight boasts and I sympathise with that; that may have better reflected the consensus view among the fans. However, the journalist has to call the fight as they see it; they cannot be influenced heavily by promoters, boxers, fans or anyone else, it has to be their view. And I'm sure it was an honest view, not a populist one but an honest one.

Just curious about what you mean by this. Thompson threw about 150 more punches against Klitschko than Haye did, and according to CompuBox Thompson actually outlanded Klitschko. If Haye gave it a go then Thompson gave it more of a go.

[foxwoods]

chagaev and thompson gave it more of a go than haye

[TJ77]

[quote="MachoMan09"]...his thighs aren't as nice as Johnny Nelson's?