This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.
Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.
I think it's dreadful because it gives the impression that the fight is for the 'British title'. Ergo, unwitting readers which rely on reporting to, erm, be accurate, would be misled if they understandably thought that this chap was in any way, shape or form boxing to be acknowledged as the best in Britain.MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.
I get what your saying but it does state its the EBF British title , if anyone going to watch thinks hes the genuine british champion then they need to give their head a shake .dondada wrote:I think it's dreadful because it gives the impression that the fight is for the 'British title'. Ergo, unwitting readers which rely on reporting to, erm, be accurate, would be misled if they understandably thought that this chap was in any way, shape or form boxing to be acknowledged as the best in Britain.MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.
That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.dondada wrote:http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/story ... z2KrSSuDAI
This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.
Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.![]()
![]()
Knowing them. Probably not..... :-)MachoMan09 wrote: The EBF seem to have this covered. Do the guys putting on the Burton show?
That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!
I think it matters for the reasons I've stated above. If you don't, that's fine.MachoMan09 wrote:Whoever holds that belt is the genuine EBF Super-heavyweight British Champion. If some people are unable to differentiate between the various organisations that operate within boxing, or simply don't care, what does it matter?
I just think this is a 'good' example of how cack local reporting can be. Some can be very good.Vaudeville Villain wrote:As opposed to searing and brilliant local newspaper reporting that really cuts to the heart of the matter and is ultra-objective? This is a shocker. I'm shocked.
I totally agree but this shit will always happen and there's almost no point being annoyed by it any more.dondada wrote:That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!
It's part of my role to tell people that a) it is smoke and b) the direction of it.
You enjoy it by all means but don't expect me to join in
Mate, I only wish I could take your advice, I really do. It does me no good at all.Riddick Blowe wrote:I totally agree but this shit will always happen and there's almost no point being annoyed by it any more.dondada wrote:That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!
It's part of my role to tell people that a) it is smoke and b) the direction of it.
You enjoy it by all means but don't expect me to join in
And whos fault is that ? - maybe the promoter of the Burton show should have a word with the EBF fella for some tips on how to promote a show.The Insider wrote:That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.
The Insider wrote:That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.dondada wrote:http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/story ... z2KrSSuDAI
This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.
Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.![]()
![]()
Totally agree it's not Johns fault. He's being pro active and making a living.bripez wrote:And whos fault is that ? - maybe the promoter of the Burton show should have a word with the EBF fella for some tips on how to promote a show.The Insider wrote:That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.
It seems to me (I may be wrong / others may disagree) that the white collar promoters are more innovative in their approach to actually "promoting" their shows.
What do traditional small hall pro-boxing promoters do apart fron guaranteeing their boxers a win if they sell 200 tickets ?
Agree with your second sentence to a minor extent but I'm waaaaaaaaay off getting to your final one yet mate. I think my head might implode before I get there, to be fair.MachoMan09 wrote:Ian, I was in your camp on this one for years but not any more. Competition is good and organisations like the BBBofC should not be exempt. Their license no longer automatically carries any more weight with me than any other organisation's franking stamp.
The only way to have belts mean anything is to control them, that can only be done in a "closed" system with a single dominant promoter (Example UFC - Go on lads, start moaning)MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.
Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.
It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.
It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.
It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.
"The truth?"
What in the article above is untrue?
My point is that the article is factually accurate, we can argue about the implication, slant, bias whatever, but that's all opinion and goes for any article.dondada wrote:It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.
It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.
"The truth?"
What in the article above is untrue?
I think the point Dixonian is making is that there is no critical eye on the releases or whatever that are coming the paper's way. Hardly revelatory but still annoys me (and hardly anyone else, granted).