Kevin Mitchell interview Box News

[dalcumly]

When Danny Flexen came on here in the New Year and declared that the Boxing News was no longer a British boxing magazine, I stopped buying it. The other week I got a copy of the issue featuring an interview with Kevin Mitchell? I thought it was well written and gave a unique insight into Mitchell's background . Thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope he wins this weekend. I ll be able to watch it in a few weeks time when they show it again because I ll not be paying extra for it.
Sadly, I noticed that the Boxing News are now giving full coverage to foreign fight bills, featuring 'unknowns' , while reducing British bills to a round up section. What can I say.
Please Matt, if you're reading this, turn the ship around before it sinks.

[Bodyshot3]

When Danny Flexen came on here in the New Year and declared that the Boxing News was no longer a British boxing magazine, I stopped buying it. The other week I got a copy of the issue featuring an interview with Kevin Mitchell? I thought it was well written and gave a unique insight into Mitchell's background . Thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope he wins this weekend. I ll be able to watch it in a few weeks time when they show it again because I ll not be paying extra for it.

Sadly, I noticed that the Boxing News are now giving full coverage to foreign fight bills, featuring 'unknowns' , while reducing British bills to a round up section. What can I say. Please Matt, if you're reading this, turn the ship around before it sinks.

Agreed The Mitchell interview was excellent and a really good piece of journalism.....they got Kevin to be completely honest annd open-up in a way that most interviews with sports stars never touch. No PR bullshit.

I had not realised, for example, that the Burns fight was also such a shambles and that Kevin had not completely fixed his lfestyle after the Katsidis meltdown. That interview was worth the cover price alone and the supporting photography was excellent as well...the piece was a profile about a guy and his demons....so they mainly used close-ups of Kevin rather than PR shots or ring action photos.

To be fair to Danny, I interpreted his posts here rather differently. Maybe I am wrong, but the gist of what he was saying seemed to be that Boxing News was a British fight magazine but with an international outlook and following. So we'd get overseas fights and British action in equal measure. That issue last week was pretty slack once they'd done Golvokin.....so sometimes pages do need to be filled with reports from Palookaville.

I remain optimistic about the mag's future; an international fight magazine with a British flavour!

[palooka]

I too really enjoyed the Mitchell interview and I also really enjoyed this weeks Beltran interview, it's still a very good read and I look forward to it every week.

[magwitch]

I too really enjoyed the Mitchell interview and I also really enjoyed this weeks Beltran interview, it's still a very good read and I look forward to it every week.

I don't buy it religiously like I once did. I've got a refound dedication to the B Monthly so I don't get both as I sometimes don't read it in time.

However, if I pick it up (BN) I normally end up buying it because something always appeals - I got the recent one with Golovkin on the front.

Have to say, for a few years now KMM has been one of my favourite fighters - he's seems to come up short at the top, but seems to always find a way to win against everybody else. He's a fella that I just wouldn't write off - against anybody! It's a pity I missed this piece as I'd deffo have bought it. I'll see if they've got a website.......

[dbflex]

Download the app and you can still read it...

Thanks for the kind comments. Going to visit Quigg in Bury tomorrow for my next one.

BN will always cover UK shows and good international shows. The only real change in that regard is that the better shows with more good fights or hot prospects etc get more coverage - the recent Goodwin show got two pages, a first for a small-hall show - while the lower key ones sometimes are included in a round-up section. Not everyone will agree with that move and Matt may well change it but that really is the extent of the change.

[dalcumly]

Delighted Danny is coming 'north' for the Quigg interview. That is what the magazine needs. I know I'm a complete bore, and a relative old timer but is it not better featuring British boxers than Pedro Gonzalez from the first shack on the left as you enter Tijuana, whose ' best piece of advice' was from his brother who told him when he was young ' don't get caught with the gear ' , and he would like Nicole Kidman to play him in a film about his life !!!

[dbflex]

I dunno, that sounds like an amazing feature

[Boxerbeetle]

Yeah I'd like to hear more about this Pedro Gonzalez.

[veriton]

mitchell piece was superb, as is beltran this week. in fact, with degale and the previews/reviews this issue of boxing news is one of the best for a long time. it makes up for the shallow dross that went in after pacman v mayweather.

plenty of fun in boxing monthly this issue too as graham houston tries to say he thought mayweather would do that to pacman all along, although i could swear he picked manny in his preview!

[Graham Houston]

mitchell piece was superb, as is beltran this week. in fact, with degale and the previews/reviews this issue of boxing news is one of the best for a long time. it makes up for the shallow dross that went in after pacman v mayweather.

plenty of fun in boxing monthly this issue too as graham houston tries to say he thought mayweather would do that to pacman all along, although i could swear he picked manny in his preview!

Picked Manny, true, but did point out in the preview, after saying how I thought Pacquiao could win the fight ... "Of course, Mayweather will have something to say about that, and this gifted boxer could simply be too talented for Pacquiao — he could have the answer for everything Pacquiao attempts."

It's there in black and white on Page 39. It's what in the trade they call "balance", that is, a story -- in this instance a preview -- in which the writer gives both sides of the equation.

Why would I try to convince anyone I picked Mayweather when everyone knows I went with the underdog? What, honestly, would be the point of that?

I did say on the Brad Bogner radio show the week of the fight -- I think it's still out there on the internet -- that if Manny didn't get off to a flying start (say by winning two of the first three rounds) he wouldn't win the fight, no matter how many rounds were left -- that a strong, assertive start by Pacquiao was imperative.

Maybe I should have said in the post-fight analysis that I went for the upset? But, hey, that was no secret -- the preview was debated on this very forum, as I recall.

What's the big deal about making a pick that was outside the box, anyway? If we don't sit on the fence, if we dare to venture an opinion, we can get it wrong. Same as we can get it right (DeGale to beat Dirrell, for instance.)

Look, I can take it on the chin, no problem there, and I have taken my share of sly digs (why do people do this?) but I don't think it's fair to impute an intention to deceive when there was no such intention.

[freddydoesdallas]

Graham, this is the internet. You can't go around being balanced. You have to stick by what you say no matter what and then when it goes the opposite way you can cry foul and blame the judges (a la Kevin Mtichell!).

[Graham Houston]

Graham, this is the internet. You can't go around being balanced. You have to stick by what you say no matter what and then when it goes the opposite way you can cry foul and blame the judges (a la Kevin Mtichell!).

Gotcha! DD

[dbflex]

Can we now get back to the main point of this thread please... praising me?!

[freddydoesdallas]

Can we now get back to the main point of this thread please... praising me?!

As long as you make an outrageous prediction for the weekend and promise to stick by it no matter what actually happens

[dbflex]

I'm not convinced but I quite like Johnson to last the course at 4-1.

[freddydoesdallas]

It was an interesting read and i think Mitchell is an interesting person. Says he was an alcoholic yet drank wine 9 weeks ago which was probably during training. Thinks Maduma is his best opponent despite having an inferior card to a lot of his opponents, especially Burns & Katsidis.

Reading that has increased my confidence in him losing. He appears to be someone who can't accept that things have gone wrong and so refuses to address them properly.

[veriton]

mitchell piece was superb, as is beltran this week. in fact, with degale and the previews/reviews this issue of boxing news is one of the best for a long time. it makes up for the shallow dross that went in after pacman v mayweather.

plenty of fun in boxing monthly this issue too as graham houston tries to say he thought mayweather would do that to pacman all along, although i could swear he picked manny in his preview!

Picked Manny, true, but did point out in the preview, after saying how I thought Pacquiao could win the fight ... "Of course, Mayweather will have something to say about that, and this gifted boxer could simply be too talented for Pacquiao — he could have the answer for everything Pacquiao attempts."

It's there in black and white on Page 39. It's what in the trade they call "balance", that is, a story -- in this instance a preview -- in which the writer gives both sides of the equation.

Why would I try to convince anyone I picked Mayweather when everyone knows I went with the underdog? What, honestly, would be the point of that?

I did say on the Brad Bogner radio show the week of the fight -- I think it's still out there on the internet -- that if Manny didn't get off to a flying start (say by winning two of the first three rounds) he wouldn't win the fight, no matter how many rounds were left -- that a strong, assertive start by Pacquiao was imperative.

Maybe I should have said in the post-fight analysis that I went for the upset? But, hey, that was no secret -- the preview was debated on this very forum, as I recall.

What's the big deal about making a pick that was outside the box, anyway? If we don't sit on the fence, if we dare to venture an opinion, we can get it wrong. Same as we can get it right (DeGale to beat Dirrell, for instance.)

Look, I can take it on the chin, no problem there, and I have taken my share of sly digs (why do people do this?) but I don't think it's fair to impute an intention to deceive when there was no such intention.

yes, just one line in the analysis saying you picked pacquiao would have been a bit more honest, as the follow-up piece reads as though you backed mayweather (a view bolstered by cherry picking the phrases in the preview that fitted how the fight turned out).

it's not about picking an opinion that turns out to be wrong, it's about ackowledging that in subsequent reports. you dealt with why pacquiao didnt win, but you never said you thought he would. i suspect you may have made more of your ''çorrect pick against the grain'' if manny had actually pulled it off.

[broomy7s]

'Your author/writer thinks that it was a great article. Good work.

[Graham Houston]

mitchell piece was superb, as is beltran this week. in fact, with degale and the previews/reviews this issue of boxing news is one of the best for a long time. it makes up for the shallow dross that went in after pacman v mayweather.

plenty of fun in boxing monthly this issue too as graham houston tries to say he thought mayweather would do that to pacman all along, although i could swear he picked manny in his preview!

Picked Manny, true, but did point out in the preview, after saying how I thought Pacquiao could win the fight ... "Of course, Mayweather will have something to say about that, and this gifted boxer could simply be too talented for Pacquiao — he could have the answer for everything Pacquiao attempts."

It's there in black and white on Page 39. It's what in the trade they call "balance", that is, a story -- in this instance a preview -- in which the writer gives both sides of the equation.

Why would I try to convince anyone I picked Mayweather when everyone knows I went with the underdog? What, honestly, would be the point of that?

I did say on the Brad Bogner radio show the week of the fight -- I think it's still out there on the internet -- that if Manny didn't get off to a flying start (say by winning two of the first three rounds) he wouldn't win the fight, no matter how many rounds were left -- that a strong, assertive start by Pacquiao was imperative.

Maybe I should have said in the post-fight analysis that I went for the upset? But, hey, that was no secret -- the preview was debated on this very forum, as I recall.

What's the big deal about making a pick that was outside the box, anyway? If we don't sit on the fence, if we dare to venture an opinion, we can get it wrong. Same as we can get it right (DeGale to beat Dirrell, for instance.)

Look, I can take it on the chin, no problem there, and I have taken my share of sly digs (why do people do this?) but I don't think it's fair to impute an intention to deceive when there was no such intention.

yes, just one line in the analysis saying you picked pacquiao would have been a bit more honest, as the follow-up piece reads as though you backed mayweather (a view bolstered by cherry picking the phrases in the preview that fitted how the fight turned out).

it's not about picking an opinion that turns out to be wrong, it's about ackowledging that in subsequent reports. you dealt with why pacquiao didnt win, but you never said you thought he would. i suspect you may have made more of your ''çorrect pick against the grain'' if manny had actually pulled it off.

So now you are making assumptions. Who are you anyway "veriton"? Do I know you? Teddy Atlas has a word for people who launch personal attacks from behind assumed names on internet forums. Of all my many faults, I don't think even my worst enemies would call me dishonest. I picked Kell Brook "against the grain" to beat Shawn Porter, who was something like a 2-1 on betting favourite going into the bout, in my Boxing Monthly preview, but if you look through my post-fight analysis in Big Fight Spotlight I don't think you will find any reference to me mentioning the fact that I picked Kell to win. I don't believe in bigging myself up. I actually believe it's bad karma. I truly believe in the saying "pride goeth before a fall". If I didn't pat myself on the back for picking Kell for the upset over Porter, why would I do so for picking Pacquiao (had Manny won)? I probably wouldn't have made reference, in the post-fight analysis, to picking Pacquiao (had he sprung the surprise) because I don't believe in tempting fate. I believe you can tempt fate. I don't do it.

You really don't know me at all, Mr. whoever-you-are, yet you come on here making what I can only describe as snide assumptions (not to mention unfounded, mean-spirited, assumptions). As they say on the street these days: "You've got it twisted." And look, this is a Danny appreciation thread, not a thread about Graham Houston. Anyone reading this thread can form his or her own opinions on the matter. I've done with this.

[stevedoc]

@ Graham and Denny ,as established boxing writers you are targets for some here that just like to argue and prove they are smarter it must be annoying but boxrec is better when guys like yourself pop up here now and again so don't be put off by a few smug gits and keep posting

[Graham Houston]

@ Graham and Denny ,as established boxing writers you are targets for some here that just like to argue and prove they are smarter it must be annoying but boxrec is better when guys like yourself pop up here now and again so don't be put off by a few smug gits and keep posting

Thanks Steve. I have such a warm regard for the true followers of boxing, as I know Danny does. I will happily debate and discuss boxing with aficionados, just as Glyn used to do on this forum, just as Danny does. Malicious posts, though, are something else: These are comments designed to hurt and there's no "discussion" or "debate" about it. Danny, this was YOUR thread, sorry it got hijacked along the way, not my intention.

[Graham Houston]

@ Graham and Denny ,as established boxing writers you are targets for some here that just like to argue and prove they are smarter it must be annoying but boxrec is better when guys like yourself pop up here now and again so don't be put off by a few smug gits and keep posting

Thanks Steve. I have such a warm regard for the true followers of boxing, as I know Danny does. I will happily debate and discuss boxing with aficionados, just as Glyn used to do on this forum, just as Danny does. Danny, this was YOUR thread, sorry it got hijacked along the way, not my intention.

[dbflex]

Not your fault either mate lol I'm still reeling from the shock of the praise so the change in direction allowed me to absorb the shock.

[palooka]

Not your fault either mate lol I'm still reeling from the shock of the praise so the change in direction allowed me to absorb the shock.

Don't get comfy

[Bodyshot3]

@Graham Houston.....keep joining us Graham, you are very welcome here and sometimes people get just a bit too passionate or what they post perhaps comes out the wrong way or in haste. Mr. Flexen 'endures us' and once in a while he gets the praise he deserves.....

...although I will be reading his Quigg profile with much interest and no doubt awarding it marks out of ten!