Boxing News Editors Office

[dalcumly]

Thursday morning.

" Have you heard the news, they've decided that Bellew v Cleverley is a PPV fight "

" You're joking !"

" No, it's been announced."

" That's ridiculous ,nobody will buy it, especially coming up for Christmas "

" We need to comment on this, it's simply not fair to the fans who've shelled out already for PPV this year, and anyway it's not at that level "

" Wait a minute though, Eddie will spend thousands advertising this and we can't afford to miss out on that."

" But we've always been totally independent of any promoter and in the past we've fearlessly came out and made a stand when appropriate"

" It's not really a 'boxing matter' - let's move on "

[Flump]

Thursday morning.

" Have you heard the news, they've decided that Bellew v Cleverley is a PPV fight "

" You're joking !"

" No, it's been announced."

" That's ridiculous ,nobody will buy it, especially coming up for Christmas "

" We need to comment on this, it's simply not fair to the fans who've shelled out already for PPV this year, and anyway it's not at that level "

" Wait a minute though, Eddie will spend thousands advertising this and we can't afford to miss out on that."

" But we've always been totally independent of any promoter and in the past we've fearlessly came out and made a stand when appropriate"

" It's not really a 'boxing matter' - let's move on "

I've not seen today's issue yet, I take it they have bottled it then?

Edit: To be fair they have probably gone to press when it was officially announced, I'll look forward to next week's.

[DIRT SUGAR]

WILL HAVE GONE TO PRESS - RETRACT THIS.

[dbflex]

Announced after we went to press. As for Matchroom advertising Dalcumly, when was the last time you saw one of their ads in BN? Just curious.

[dalcumly]

Did Eddie Hearn not advertise the Froch v Groves fight ??? If they haven't advertised for some time then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. What this would suggest is that you will have nothing else to consider in next weeks' edition if you choose to comment on the PPV issue.
By the way did you happen to catch Talksport last night when even Nathan Cleverley said he didn't think the bill was worthy of PPV.

I really do think this is pure greed and I feel strongly that OUR Boxing News, and I do consider it 'belongs' to us, the fans, should comment.

Did you realise that the Ryder Cup at the weekend was the third most popular sports programme ever worldwide, and provided you subscribed to to SKY you didn't need to pay anything extra, but SKY and Eddie Hearn think we should pay extra for Bellew v Cleverley.

[mullenman]

i honestly think it is a total disgrace and on a side note this weekends boxing from leeds is the most one sided card i have ever seen from a bookmaking point of view. most fighters are 100-1 on to win their fight. That is like a scratch golfer playing a twenty handicapper with no shots.

[dbflex]

Did Eddie Hearn not advertise the Froch v Groves fight ??? If they haven't advertised for some time then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. What this would suggest is that you will have nothing else to consider in next weeks' edition if you choose to comment on the PPV issue.
By the way did you happen to catch Talksport last night when even Nathan Cleverley said he didn't think the bill was worthy of PPV.

I really do think this is pure greed and I feel strongly that OUR Boxing News, and I do consider it 'belongs' to us, the fans, should comment.

Did you realise that the Ryder Cup at the weekend was the third most popular sports programme ever worldwide, and provided you subscribed to to SKY you didn't need to pay anything extra, but SKY and Eddie Hearn think we should pay extra for Bellew v Cleverley.

They have not for some time, that is correct. I did not catch Talksport. And even if they did advertise that would have no impact upon our coverage. If you read this week's you will find criticism of Frank W despite allegedly being an advertiser. As for next week, Tris is back in the hotseat and we will see how we cover the story.

[dalcumly]

Danny

Appreciate the time taken to respond. Point taken, Matchroom don't advertise with Boxing News, its SKY who do it ( although the implication's still the same)

I'll watch next weeks editorial with interest. Do you think it would be detrimental to the Boxing News to occasionally initiate a campaign/ beat the drum, for an issue close to the hearts of the dedicated boxing fan? On the Bellew v Cleverley matter, you may not think its worthy of comment, time will tell, but what other forum do we have to complain other than on here. The Boxing News and Boxing Monthly surely have greater influence than a 100 or so punters on here.

[dbflex]

Danny

Appreciate the time taken to respond. Point taken, Matchroom don't advertise with Boxing News, its SKY who do it ( although the implication's still the same)

I'll watch next weeks editorial with interest. Do you think it would be detrimental to the Boxing News to occasionally initiate a campaign/ beat the drum, for an issue close to the hearts of the dedicated boxing fan? On the Bellew v Cleverley matter, you may not think its worthy of comment, time will tell, but what other forum do we have to complain other than on here. The Boxing News and Boxing Monthly surely have greater influence than a 100 or so punters on here.

Matchroom have advertised but do not currently. Sky do not advertise. The other question is not one for me to answer personally :)

[Bodyshot3]

@dbflex.....good to see and hear that editorial is not being driven/commanded by advertising concerns; that will do a great deal to keep the core readership happy and loyal. Suspect you're publisher must feel differently from time to time, a few double page spread bookings from Matchroom would be most welcome? But please keep the editorial faith.....a shit fight like this is not PPV and that needs to be said.

[reggaereggae]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

[boybrooks]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

To be fair mate, I've not missed a issue of BN for years and I think it's the best it's been since Tris took over. There is no way it's pay per view but I don't need boxing news to tell me!

[Flump]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

That's harsh. I think he's a good writer. He's not Harry Mullan granted but I think he's good and the mag is in the best shape it's been in for years, save the unnecessary culling of the old timers half page.

[Boxerbeetle]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

That's harsh. I think he's a good writer. He's not Harry Mullan granted but I think he's good and the mag is in the best shape it's been in for years, save the unnecessary culling of the old timers half page.

Very harsh assessment mate, can't agree with that at all.

[veriton]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

you must have some personal axe to grind because Dixon is an excellent writer, knows his stuff and I'd say he is better than the guy he took over from Abrams. the mag has improved a lot recently, but still too much amateur stuff for my liking. as for him being on sky, what's that got to do with it? he's a boxing expert, watches more fights than he has hot dinners and is right at the centre of the worldwide boxing scene - where do you expect him to appear...come dancing? i'm sure he'll be fair about the ppv issue and the fact is nobody is being forced to buy it, right?

[reggaereggae]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

you must have some personal axe to grind because Dixon is an excellent writer, knows his stuff and I'd say he is better than the guy he took over from Abrams. the mag has improved a lot recently, but still too much amateur stuff for my liking. as for him being on sky, what's that got to do with it? he's a boxing expert, watches more fights than he has hot dinners and is right at the centre of the worldwide boxing scene - where do you expect him to appear...come dancing? i'm sure he'll be fair about the ppv issue and the fact is nobody is being forced to buy it, right?

Ok let me make my position clear - I think Tris has done great work as an editor, the magazine looks really good, it's modernised and I did really like the ipad version until it was stopped.

However, I do think that Tris is not a good writer. Cliches, a too familiar style of writing, needlessly faux-dramatic statements, whilst also taking a stab at pretentiousness. I find the writing to be the level of a C grade a level student.

[lefty]

Tris Dixon, as well as being a terrible writer is pretty spineless unlike his predecessors and seems like a bit of a jobs worth . We'll see if he has cojones in the next issue.

My feeling is that he will say it's not really a PPV show, but won't nearly go hard enough on Sky. Plus he has been on Sky a few times and probably wants to keep that position.

you must have some personal axe to grind because Dixon is an excellent writer, knows his stuff and I'd say he is better than the guy he took over from Abrams. the mag has improved a lot recently, but still too much amateur stuff for my liking. as for him being on sky, what's that got to do with it? he's a boxing expert, watches more fights than he has hot dinners and is right at the centre of the worldwide boxing scene - where do you expect him to appear...come dancing? i'm sure he'll be fair about the ppv issue and the fact is nobody is being forced to buy it, right?

Ok let me make my position clear - I think Tris has done great work as an editor, the magazine looks really good, it's modernised and I did really like the ipad version until it was stopped.

However, I do think that Tris is not a good writer. Cliches, a too familiar style of writing, needlessly faux-dramatic statements, whilst also taking a stab at pretentiousness. I find the writing to be the level of a C grade a level student.

Too familiar style of writing? What do you mean by that?

[palooka]

There's always one.

[olij999]

I am a fan of BN and have been since I started buying it around the time of Honeyghan-Curry, when I was at school, and remain so. I've also read every issue from 1960 cover to cover. I can see different points of view on this:

- it must be a colossal undertaking getting the magazine to print every week, and I applaud all the team, past and present, who have to do this. Writing good stuff is very hard at the best of times, but doubly so when you are working to short deadlines.

- this is Boxing News, not a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature. And, in many ways, thank goodness for that.

- however, there are some small improvements that could be made. The odd typo is inevitable, but there do seem to be more these days than in previous years (and I have always been a pedant, so it's not me changing). There can be some irritating inconsistencies - for example, a fight report in the last couple of weeks (I'm doing this from memory as I don't have the mag in front of me) on a US prospect who had had an eight-round points win said that the win would help his development but the photo caption described the win as "facile". Either someone doesn't know what "facile" means, or this was missed in the review process.

- as for the style of the writing, it has certainly changed over the years, particularly the last 10 or so. The current style is not my favourite (I dislike the repeated misuse of the verb "to punctuate", for example), but that probably says as much about me as about BN. And I am conscious that they need to keep attracting new young subscribers while maintaining the interest of long-time readers, which is a difficult balance.

Overall, I still see far more positives in BN than negatives, and still look forward to it arriving every week. Keep going, BN!!

[reggaereggae]

you must have some personal axe to grind because Dixon is an excellent writer, knows his stuff and I'd say he is better than the guy he took over from Abrams. the mag has improved a lot recently, but still too much amateur stuff for my liking. as for him being on sky, what's that got to do with it? he's a boxing expert, watches more fights than he has hot dinners and is right at the centre of the worldwide boxing scene - where do you expect him to appear...come dancing? i'm sure he'll be fair about the ppv issue and the fact is nobody is being forced to buy it, right?

Ok let me make my position clear - I think Tris has done great work as an editor, the magazine looks really good, it's modernised and I did really like the ipad version until it was stopped.

However, I do think that Tris is not a good writer. Cliches, a too familiar style of writing, needlessly faux-dramatic statements, whilst also taking a stab at pretentiousness. I find the writing to be the level of a C grade a level student.

Too familiar style of writing? What do you mean by that?

I mean in an unprofessional manner, like talking to a friend in a pub.

Having said that, a lot of publications move that way now, but I don't like it personally.

[reggaereggae]

I mean in an unprofessional manner, like talking to a friend in a pub.

Having said that, a lot of publications move that way now, but I don't like it personally.

Stop talking bollocks and mine's a double Hennessy.

Ice with that?

[lefty]

Ok let me make my position clear - I think Tris has done great work as an editor, the magazine looks really good, it's modernised and I did really like the ipad version until it was stopped.

However, I do think that Tris is not a good writer. Cliches, a too familiar style of writing, needlessly faux-dramatic statements, whilst also taking a stab at pretentiousness. I find the writing to be the level of a C grade a level student.

Too familiar style of writing? What do you mean by that?

I mean in an unprofessional manner, like talking to a friend in a pub.

Having said that, a lot of publications move that way now, but I don't like it personally.

Personally I prefer that though. Otherwise the writing can end up being too stuffy and formal and thus IMO a bit dull. Most boxing fans (hardcore fans) know what they're on about to a degree so dont need the subject matter to be explained to them like a school teacher would to a pupil. This style of writing is more like you're an equal. It's less patronising

[Twinkle Toes]

Boxrec news had a lot to say about it...

[MarkMcBurney]

A lot of absolute bollocks being spoken on here. I for one enjoy Tris' work, but I accept that is subjective. What I can not comprehend are the personal attacks on him. I've been fortunate enough to meet him several times, each time when he's been on his way home after a long trip - he lives in Wiltshire - and has happily stopped to talk boxing with me, after doing so all day, when I'm certain he'd rather be at home with his family than talking work with a cabbie. He even checked that I'd managed to get tickets for Froch v Kessler 2.

Tris is a top man and deserves all the success he gets.

[reggaereggae]

A lot of absolute bollocks being spoken on here. I for one enjoy Tris' work, but I accept that is subjective. What I can not comprehend are the personal attacks on him. I've been fortunate enough to meet him several times, each time when he's been on his way home after a long trip - he lives in Wiltshire - and has happily stopped to talk boxing with me, after doing so all day, when I'm certain he'd rather be at home with his family than talking work with a cabbie. He even checked that I'd managed to get tickets for Froch v Kessler 2.

Tris is a top man and deserves all the success he gets.

I have never met Tris, so there is no personalised animosity. However I have bought BN every week for 25 years, so I have, I believe, every right to make a critical judgment on its editorship.

As i said, Tris has done a very good job at managing the magazine, modernising it whilst keeping its trade feel. I just don't like his style of writing. He may well be the nicest guy in the world but this is irrelevant to writing content.

I still buy BN every week, even though my interest in boxing is on the wane. That's all I can say.