AyeTerry Dooley wrote:
Cheers, it gives me an excuse to go to Mossley once a month and grab some fried food before meeting him
The Amir one came about by chance. He was at an event, bumped into my other half, asked how I was and that he was up for a catch up interview. I could have done the entire thing about the things that interest me (metabolising after Ramadan, how the five pillars of Islam are interlinked etc.), but some people may have asked for more Floyd content as we’re a boxing magazine. There was so much Floyd/Khan/Brook/Manny stuff flying about the Internet, so it was a case of getting something that made sense if he did or didn’t get the fight. If that makes sense?
Hmm, I'd have liked to have seen an article based on those other topics you mentioned - something never really been discussed in boxing magazines that I'm aware of.Terry Dooley wrote:Cheers, it gives me an excuse to go to Mossley once a month and grab some fried food before meeting himMightyWarrior wrote:Loved the Chris Sanigar article, excellent profile by Andrew Harrison, great background and research too. I remember reading about that rematch he had with Sid Smith In box news, a British fight of the year seem to recall.
Overall a very good issue, and the Billy Graham page by Terry is getting better by the month.
Though got to say Amir Khan is not the most interesting interview, I guess he sells a few by being on front cover (?), and I really actually like him, but there's only so many times we need to hear him say he wants a Floyd Mayweather fight, and no, Manny never knocked him down in sparring
The Amir one came about by chance. He was at an event, bumped into my other half, asked how I was and that he was up for a catch up interview. I could have done the entire thing about the things that interest me (metabolising after Ramadan, how the five pillars of Islam are interlinked etc.), but some people may have asked for more Floyd content as we’re a boxing magazine. There was so much Floyd/Khan/Brook/Manny stuff flying about the Internet, so it was a case of getting something that made sense if he did or didn’t get the fight. If that makes sense?
More opportunities in other sports for black lads now, football, rugby, athletic has become much bigger business also.roy wrote:The Chris Sanigar article refers to having great fighters in the gym. All 8 of those mentioned were either black or mixed-race. It struck me that comparatively few of the top British boxers these days are black. Anthony Joshua being the obvious exception. Is it my imagination, or are there fewer black boys boxing these days than there were 30 years ago?
Yup, good issue again and my favourite fight mag is in good hands.Loved the Chris Sanigar article, excellent profile by Andrew Harrison, great background and research too. I remember reading about that rematch he had with Sid Smith In box news, a British fight of the year seem to recall.
Overall a very good issue, and the Billy Graham page by Terry is getting better by the month.
Though got to say Amir Khan is not the most interesting interview, I guess he sells a few by being on front cover (?), and I really actually like him, but there's only so many times we need to hear him say he wants a Floyd Mayweather fight, and no, Manny never knocked him down in sparring
Nice to hear so many positive comments about the issue. It is truly gratifying to all of us who work on the publication. Terry did indeed expand on Amir's faith in the Khan interview, but it was an editorial decision to excise some of this, the feeling being that readers generally might have deemed it to be too "non-boxing". It's all about striking the right balance. What might please some readers is likely to displease others.veriton wrote:sanigar piece was brilliant, mick williamson and ryan rhodes were really good but felt like they needed more of a runout, they felt (and looked) squeezed to me.
khan article was so-so, pbc didnt have anything new in it, billy graham bit was great. didn't really like houston's gambit, which seemed to be a full page on a point raised in opening line of the previous months book review...felt like navel gazing.
still well worth a read.
I think I might renew my subscription - I stopped buying print magazines for boxing several years ago, as I thought that they'd had their day, but in truth, the quality of boxing website journalism has gone right down, as I think those websites now no longer care too much about content, but only driving advertising, as they realised the subscription model just wouldn't generate enough revenue.Graham Houston wrote:Nice to hear so many positive comments about the issue. It is truly gratifying to all of us who work on the publication. Terry did indeed expand on Amir's faith in the Khan interview, but it was an editorial decision to excise some of this, the feeling being that readers generally might have deemed it to be too "non-boxing". It's all about striking the right balance. What might please some readers is likely to displease others.veriton wrote:sanigar piece was brilliant, mick williamson and ryan rhodes were really good but felt like they needed more of a runout, they felt (and looked) squeezed to me.
khan article was so-so, pbc didnt have anything new in it, billy graham bit was great. didn't really like houston's gambit, which seemed to be a full page on a point raised in opening line of the previous months book review...felt like navel gazing.
still well worth a read.
Sorry you didn't like the "journeyman" column, Veriton. Actually it was inspired -- if that's the right word -- by a comment made in a TV broadcast, when it was suggested that the term "journeyman" is misused these days. I was trying to draw a comparison between the 1950s, when contender types such as Ralph "Tiger" Jones were described as journeymen, and today, when a boxer with a record something like 5-85-4 is described as a journeyman. A then-and-now thing. I've never been accused of navel-gazing before (that's a new one for me) but if this was a hint that I was dwelling in the past I must say that I believe boxing's rich history is one of the things that sets it apart from MMA.
Didn't get the "pbc" reference, Veriton. That one went over my head.
Always willing to discuss the magazine, and boxing generally, in intelligent conversation, as was Glyn (RIP, much missed).
mate, if you love boxing then you owe it to yourself to buy Boxing Monthly. it's got plenty in it, mainly hits some misses but always worth the price. i've got a sub and i wouldnt be without it. i gave up on websites, they dont have any depth or real knowledge. i can sit down with Boxing Monthly and feel like I've learned something.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think I might renew my subscription - I stopped buying print magazines for boxing several years ago, as I thought that they'd had their day, but in truth, the quality of boxing website journalism has gone right down, as I think those websites now no longer care too much about content, but only driving advertising, as they realised the subscription model just wouldn't generate enough revenue.Graham Houston wrote:Nice to hear so many positive comments about the issue. It is truly gratifying to all of us who work on the publication. Terry did indeed expand on Amir's faith in the Khan interview, but it was an editorial decision to excise some of this, the feeling being that readers generally might have deemed it to be too "non-boxing". It's all about striking the right balance. What might please some readers is likely to displease others.veriton wrote:sanigar piece was brilliant, mick williamson and ryan rhodes were really good but felt like they needed more of a runout, they felt (and looked) squeezed to me.
khan article was so-so, pbc didnt have anything new in it, billy graham bit was great. didn't really like houston's gambit, which seemed to be a full page on a point raised in opening line of the previous months book review...felt like navel gazing.
still well worth a read.
Sorry you didn't like the "journeyman" column, Veriton. Actually it was inspired -- if that's the right word -- by a comment made in a TV broadcast, when it was suggested that the term "journeyman" is misused these days. I was trying to draw a comparison between the 1950s, when contender types such as Ralph "Tiger" Jones were described as journeymen, and today, when a boxer with a record something like 5-85-4 is described as a journeyman. A then-and-now thing. I've never been accused of navel-gazing before (that's a new one for me) but if this was a hint that I was dwelling in the past I must say that I believe boxing's rich history is one of the things that sets it apart from MMA.
Didn't get the "pbc" reference, Veriton. That one went over my head.
Always willing to discuss the magazine, and boxing generally, in intelligent conversation, as was Glyn (RIP, much missed).
For me, it's articles and opinion pieces I want, not bald coverage, and it sounds like boxing monthly is ticking that box!
I would like to hear about this from a boxers point of view though not sure Khan would be the most suitable person to talk about it.jamesmcdonnell wrote:I know about the 5 pillars already, but was interested to hear a boxer talk about it. But cheers anyway Tel.
Is that father jack Hackett?Terry Dooley wrote:James "Sonny" McD.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Funnily enough I was taught to box by a priest at primary school.
That's me alright...!freddydoesdallas wrote:Is that father jack Hackett?Terry Dooley wrote:James "Sonny" McD.jamesmcdonnell wrote:Funnily enough I was taught to box by a priest at primary school.
The South London Press! That takes me back a bit! I was on the subs' desk there and covered the boxing for what the editor described as the "princely sum" of two guineas per article. (I was also the film critic under the pseudonym of "Clyde Graham").roy wrote:When I was growing up Graham Houston used to be the boxing correspondent for my local paper- the South London Press. In those days there used to be good quality amateur shows at Manor Place Baths most Monday evenings featuring the likes of Mark Rowe, Johnny Clark, Dave Proud, Terry Waller,Terry and Peter Henderson, Eamonn and Neville Cole, Chris Finnegan,etc. I'm sure Graham remembers them well and only 10/- (50p) to get in!
Boxing must have been much more fun back then, so many more fights, and competitive ones too - whenever an actual tear up breaks out these days it's big news, because there's just so few of them.Graham Houston wrote:The South London Press! That takes me back a bit! I was on the subs' desk there and covered the boxing for what the editor described as the "princely sum" of two guineas per article. (I was also the film critic under the pseudonym of "Clyde Graham").roy wrote:When I was growing up Graham Houston used to be the boxing correspondent for my local paper- the South London Press. In those days there used to be good quality amateur shows at Manor Place Baths most Monday evenings featuring the likes of Mark Rowe, Johnny Clark, Dave Proud, Terry Waller,Terry and Peter Henderson, Eamonn and Neville Cole, Chris Finnegan,etc. I'm sure Graham remembers them well and only 10/- (50p) to get in!
We had some excellent fighters in south London in my time at the SLP. Mark Rowe lives in Kent but we claimed him as south London because of his long connection with Fitzroy Lodge, the famous south London club. We had Johnny Clark, yes, also Jimmy Revie from Brixton, the Irish McCormack brothers, Young John (one of the nicest men I ever knew) and Pat, the Battersea featherweight Johnny Mantle, Bermondsey featherweight Phil Lundgren (beautiful stand-up boxer), Tooting welter Ivan Whiter (good right-hand puncher, knocked out fancied banger Peter Cragg in a three-round shootout). There was Battersea's Eric Blake, from the Caius club, who went to the Olympics but never quite made it as a pro middleweight. The light-heavy Johnny Hendrickson. Lightweight crowd-pleaser Lex Hunter... Al White ... some had moved outside the area but we claimed them from their amateur-club connections, and all retained their South London billing -- Mark Rowe was billed from Camberwell
The amateur boxers you mention, I remember so well. I loved going to the South-East London Division championships at Eltham Baths. In one year we had Terry Henderson, Tony Petch and Dave Proud all entered in the welterweight division. Well remember Eamon Cole (Lodge) outboxing Pat McCormack (Lynn) in a SE Divs final at light-welter: Pat was fancied ("too strong") but Cole's southpaw style was all wrong for McCormack.
Happy days? You bet they were.
johnswan1 wrote:The reason why there are more people of faith in boxing is because a higher proportion of people in boxing generally come from the lower classes of society, or less developed countries, two areas where religion is more prominent.
Why is this? Well, less developed countries tend to have more people of faith - perhaps having less or coming from a tougher background makes it easier to use religion for support, or perhaps the more educated middle and upper classes and people in more developed countries rely less on prayers for getting them stuff or helping them through life, and are educated enough to know that in all likelihood religion is utter tosh.
Religion is little more than a crutch to help the less fortunate through life. Or as Steven Hawking put it "religion is a fairytale for people afraid of the dark".
