finally cancelled BN subscription

[King Tubby]

I stopped my subscription when it was up for renewal in January. Was disappointed when they didn't put up any opposition to the Cleverly/Bellew being PPV, among other things. Been thinking of renewing recently, though. Still like it.

[dalcumly]

A number of years ago Boxing news produced a questionnaire asking readers what they were looking for in the magazine, but if I remember correctly the questions were slanted in a particular direction. What I want from the Boxing News is this:

1 Detailed ringside coverage of EVERY professional fight in the UK
2 Analysis of upcoming world title fights and important fights in the UK
3 Interviews and discussions with trainers and managers of BRITISH boxers
4 A closer relationship with the BBB of C so that magazine has an update of trends issues effecting professional boxing in this country.
5 An old timers section of several pages featuring fights /fighters from the past.
6 Regional contributors who go round the gyms speaking to locals and providing the latest news.
7 An amateur section with results from the small shows around the UK
8 Hard hitting articles on current issues (PPV,etc)
9 Review section of books/CDs.
10 British rankings produced monthly ,at least.
11 Profile of BRITISH boxers ( questions/answers

[magwitch]

A number of years ago Boxing news produced a questionnaire asking readers what they were looking for in the magazine, but if I remember correctly the questions were slanted in a particular direction. What I want from the Boxing News is this:

1 Detailed ringside coverage of EVERY professional fight in the UK
2 Analysis of upcoming world title fights and important fights in the UK
3 Interviews and discussions with trainers and managers of BRITISH boxers
4 A closer relationship with the BBB of C so that magazine has an update of trends issues effecting professional boxing in this country.
5 An old timers section of several pages featuring fights /fighters from the past.
6 Regional contributors who go round the gyms speaking to locals and providing the latest news.
7 An amateur section with results from the small shows around the UK
8 Hard hitting articles on current issues (PPV,etc)
9 Review section of books/CDs.
10 British rankings produced monthly ,at least.
11 Profile of BRITISH boxers ( questions/answers

I always thought the tag-line "Every punch, every fight, every week" was a bit of a grand thing to say. I've seen undercard fights covered in a couple of paragraphs despite going on for at least four to six rounds. "Every punch" I love the "f*ck it, just stick it in" mentality

[TheGoods]

For me it's gone downhill since Gilbert Odd left.

[palooka]

For me it's gone downhill since Gilbert Odd left.

You old bastard.

[Ezzard]

I think we’ve all had our moments of falling out of love with boxing. Becoming aware of the shenanigans that dog the sport.

I clearly remember Ray Leonard’s comeback. Leapfrogging Hearns for a crack at Hagler. Re-retiring. Getting the WBC to create a new weight division for him. Sucking Lalonde down to 168. Only agreeing to rematches with Hearns and Duran when they looked like busted flushes.

The Duran fight was awful. The hype around it was bu11sh1t and everyone knew it going in. But it was easy to market and hooked in many people. Bit like a Mayweather fight really.

Then Roy Jones came along and it got even worse. Terrible fights.

BBC and ITV dropped boxing and I could not afford SKY. I used to go around a mate’s to watch the boxing. But it always seemed like some big prospect (De La Hoya) draining down a couple of weight classes to hammer some poor bloke he dwarfed. This is now standard.

But then there are some great fights being made. And boxing still delivers more drama than any other sport out there. It’s the one sport where a man can finish the evening literally at the feet of his rival.

It’s the need to have spotless records that I hate. 50-50 math ups are far more preferable to one-sided beat downs.

Anyway, I think Boxing news is still excellent. All that stuff about nutrition and training seems pointless but it’s still a fine publication.

[boxref]

A few weeks back, Boxing News had a whole page dedicated to about 12 head shots of Chris Eubank jnr. Ffs why?? If ever I needed a reason as to why I don't buy it anymore, that was it !

[johnty1888]

I've been buying it religiously since 1990 but I'm also thinking about packing it in and just reading articles/results/interviews on the net.

Part of this reason of solely using the Internet is BNs fault........It get's on my tits when I open the magazine and it says "for more stories and interviews log on to http://www.boxingnewsonline.blah blah blah."

Hang on, I've just bought the trade magazine and it's telling me to read more of the stuff I want to read in the magazine, online for free? That doesn't make much sense to me

[gasman]

I have not bought BN in a few years, I used to subscribe to it but knocked it on the head with the fencing-sitting and bland editorials, watered down content - i.e. dumbed down guff like 'best tweets', filler and overloaded photos in place of word count etc. Even with a lot of the fight write ups, the undercard fights only get a line or so each - barely worth reading.

I used to have a scan at BN when in Tesco but I have not done that for a while. Overall, I think the magazine has lost its appeal - the fitness stuff that they have added is boring, I have no interest in it. I have a large stack of old BN mags from the days of Mullan et al and I love reading through them, it is a shame about the current copy. Nothing against any of the writers, they can all write well, I think the issue is more about the strategy and direction of the magazine.......

[Ezzard]

That winds me up too. Magazines, newspapers and TV shows that just read out or publish tweets. I don't go on those sites. I'm not interested. If I was I'd go on twitter not by the magazine.

[corker77]

It’s great to know that Boxing News remains so important to so many people on here, and I do regularly read and empathise with concerns detailed on this forum. I rarely post so bear with me, but I’ll try and respond to the main points mentioned.

I have been the editor since May, and the current format of the magazine is largely the one I inherited and is very much a work in progress. With a weekly, as I’m sure most of you know, it is not easy with such a small team – who now have more platforms to look after than ever before – to change things overnight. As soon as we put one issue to bed on the Tuesday night, we begin work on the next one on Wednesday morning. However, that is not to say that plans are not in place to freshen things up – with a lot of points made here in mind.

Looking at this thread and a previous one addressed specifically to me – and sincere apologies for not getting back to you on that – we would need a weekly magazine of around 80-100 pages to keep everyone happy. Obviously that is not plausible. Also, when people come on here and say they haven’t bought the magazine in five years because it was poor – and therefore must still be poor - is not that helpful. There are things I have slowly been implementing that those who no longer buy the magazine, or even scan it in the shop, will know about.

I also understand those that are tired of Floyd Mayweather etc. I am a little bit too. But it would be silly of us to ignore the fact that the likes of Mayweather provide us with our biggest sales figures. I suspect that was the case in years gone by with Tyson, Leonard, Ali and so on.

As for the cynics out there, it’s good to know that you admit it! Boxing will never be as good as it was in years gone by to many, no matter what. Bitterness around the inflated costs and egos is perfectly understandable but – and I have been following boxing intently for a little over 30 years – I do genuinely believe that the sport is in good shape at the moment. All that said, I remember the excitement I felt when I would buy BN, or KO Magazine or Boxing Illustrated. Even in the 1980s, it wasn’t simple to find these publications and the mark of a good newsagent to me was one that stocked several boxing mags. I remember when the first Boxing Monthly came out, with a shadowy Mike Tyson on the cover, and it was like Christmas. A new boxing magazine! The weekly format of BN though, and its fearless nature, always made it my favourite. I say all this to make it clear that I understand where you’re all coming from.

Due to the immediacy of the media these days, though, it’s going to be almost impossible to replicate anything like that because often, back in the day, everything in the magazine was new to the reader. Today, we are simply trying to compliment, and enhance, your whole experience of being a boxing fan.

The fitness section seems to be the biggest frustration on here and believe me, I hear you. There are certain obligations we need to fulfil in that regard but I do not see that as a long term fixture in the magazine – far from it. Also the need for a more ‘involved’ news section, where we speak to fighters and gyms, from grass roots level and beyond (rather than merely regurgitating old news), is in the process of being implemented. In regards to the website, and the regular pointers towards it in the mag, we feel this is important because as much as we try, we simply cannot cram all the news into the magazine. The website is updated 24-7 and allows us to react to, or break news rather than waiting until the magazine comes out to tell you about it. The site also allows us to include content – like videos, live blogs, galleries etc – that we cannot do in the print format. It has also allowed us to build the brand all over the world, and it continues to grow. It does not mean, though, that all that you read in the mag is available for free online – not at all.

Another concern has been our apparent failure to report on all British shows. I completely understand worries in this regard. Each show is still covered in detail in the magazine – the round-up section is not merely scanning the internet for results – and this is something I am monitoring every week. A query from Dalcumy a few months ago asked why shows were covered in London from ringside and not Scotland. It is sincerely a case of looking at the shows on a week-by-week basis; there is absolutely no London bias (but maybe the odd bit of Birmingham bias). If a non-title show has four fights, and another has 12, it’s likely we’ll ensure the one with 12 is covered from ringside. That way it gives us more chance of ensuring every fight gets reported. It should also be noted that the fantastic Andy Whittle, who puts together the round-up, goes to great lengths to research exactly what happened at every single show, often by being there. But as I mentioned, the current format is not set in stone. None of the magazine is.

My love for boxing was formed with my head in history books, and then I discovered Boxing News, in all its finger-staining red top glory. My advice to anyone thinking of not renewing their subscription due to the common points raised on this thread is hang on a little while longer. I think you’ll be pleased with the new direction of the magazine.

And please don’t ever take my silence on here as ignorance. If anyone would like to get in touch with me at any time (regarding the magazine!) please e-mail or call me in the office. Try and avoid Tuesday afternoons though because they’re exceptionally manic!

Matt Christie

[CharlesListon]

Fair play to you for responding.

I'll reconsider my subscription renewal.

You won't be able to make everyone happy and I think we all appreciate that.

It's good to know you do listen to feedback. Thanks

[palooka]

I've been getting BN since '87 and I'll not be packing it in.

[Lenny Cravats]

As I recall he was. That was a great matchup.

The bookmakers had it a pick 'em fight, too.

[Ade L]

I preferred BN when it was in the "newspaper" format....don't like the style of the mag these days but I still subscribe to it

[palooka]

I preferred BN when it was in the "newspaper" format....don't like the style of the mag these days but I still subscribe to it

Me too, Are - I liked the black and white paper issues, it felt like it was a serious, insider sort of paper and years ago before YouTube etc there was no mway to watch many important bouts, we relyed on the descriptions given in BN.

[TheGoods]

As I recall he was. That was a great matchup.

The bookmakers had it a pick 'em fight, too.

I got Mayweather at 11/10 for that fight. Can't ever recall him being a betting underdog before or since. Good response from yer man Matt Christie. I think the publication now is better than in the days of Claude Abrams. What the paper REALLY needs is a fortnightly/monthly betting column. Penned by an irascible writer. Someone like Derek Bilton.

[Ade L]

I preferred BN when it was in the "newspaper" format....don't like the style of the mag these days but I still subscribe to it

Me too, Are - I liked the black and white paper issues, it felt like it was a serious, insider sort of paper and years ago before YouTube etc there was no mway to watch many important bouts, we relyed on the descriptions given in BN.

Agree 100%

[jamesmcdonnell]

As I recall he was. That was a great matchup.

The bookmakers had it a pick 'em fight, too.

I got Mayweather at 11/10 for that fight. Can't ever recall him being a betting underdog before or since. Good response from yer man Matt Christie. I think the publication now is better than in the days of Claude Abrams. What the paper REALLY needs is a fortnightly/monthly betting column. Penned by an irascible writer. Someone like Derek Bilton.

Or maybe Derek Hatton.

Trouble with betting columns is that they require quite a lot of work, and are a bit thankless. The fact is, you only make money betting where you there is actual value compared to your own perceived chance of victory for a given fighter, and what the bookies are offering, those margins are usually pretty small, or are not even there. The Fury v Klitschko fight is the perfect example, the odds being offered for Fury are rubbish, compared to his scant chance of winning and the odds on Klitschko there's zero margin in. It's a fight barely worth a punt, unless you can afford to put a huge amount on a Wlad win, for a meagre return.

[palooka]

As I recall he was. That was a great matchup.

The bookmakers had it a pick 'em fight, too.

I got Mayweather at 11/10 for that fight. Can't ever recall him being a betting underdog before or since. Good response from yer man Matt Christie. I think the publication now is better than in the days of Claude Abrams. What the paper REALLY needs is a fortnightly/monthly betting column. Penned by an irascible writer. Someone like Derek Bilton.

I like your style, Derek. Did you run for Mayor in the end or was it too much grief? I hope you get your betting column, when you see Mr Hunter say 'hello' from me.

[milpool]

Thanks for taking the time to come on and comment Matt. I'm not a subscriber, although I buy the magazine most weeks. Reading your post, it seems like exciting times ahead for the magazine and this is likely to prompt me to take up a subscription.
I wish BN all the best for the future.

[blanca]

It’s great to know that Boxing News remains so important to so many people on here, and I do regularly read and empathise with concerns detailed on this forum. I rarely post so bear with me, but I’ll try and respond to the main points mentioned.

I have been the editor since May, and the current format of the magazine is largely the one I inherited and is very much a work in progress. With a weekly, as I’m sure most of you know, it is not easy with such a small team – who now have more platforms to look after than ever before – to change things overnight. As soon as we put one issue to bed on the Tuesday night, we begin work on the next one on Wednesday morning. However, that is not to say that plans are not in place to freshen things up – with a lot of points made here in mind.

Looking at this thread and a previous one addressed specifically to me – and sincere apologies for not getting back to you on that – we would need a weekly magazine of around 80-100 pages to keep everyone happy. Obviously that is not plausible. Also, when people come on here and say they haven’t bought the magazine in five years because it was poor – and therefore must still be poor - is not that helpful. There are things I have slowly been implementing that those who no longer buy the magazine, or even scan it in the shop, will know about.

I also understand those that are tired of Floyd Mayweather etc. I am a little bit too. But it would be silly of us to ignore the fact that the likes of Mayweather provide us with our biggest sales figures. I suspect that was the case in years gone by with Tyson, Leonard, Ali and so on.

As for the cynics out there, it’s good to know that you admit it! Boxing will never be as good as it was in years gone by to many, no matter what. Bitterness around the inflated costs and egos is perfectly understandable but – and I have been following boxing intently for a little over 30 years – I do genuinely believe that the sport is in good shape at the moment. All that said, I remember the excitement I felt when I would buy BN, or KO Magazine or Boxing Illustrated. Even in the 1980s, it wasn’t simple to find these publications and the mark of a good newsagent to me was one that stocked several boxing mags. I remember when the first Boxing Monthly came out, with a shadowy Mike Tyson on the cover, and it was like Christmas. A new boxing magazine! The weekly format of BN though, and its fearless nature, always made it my favourite. I say all this to make it clear that I understand where you’re all coming from.

Due to the immediacy of the media these days, though, it’s going to be almost impossible to replicate anything like that because often, back in the day, everything in the magazine was new to the reader. Today, we are simply trying to compliment, and enhance, your whole experience of being a boxing fan.

The fitness section seems to be the biggest frustration on here and believe me, I hear you. There are certain obligations we need to fulfil in that regard but I do not see that as a long term fixture in the magazine – far from it. Also the need for a more ‘involved’ news section, where we speak to fighters and gyms, from grass roots level and beyond (rather than merely regurgitating old news), is in the process of being implemented. In regards to the website, and the regular pointers towards it in the mag, we feel this is important because as much as we try, we simply cannot cram all the news into the magazine. The website is updated 24-7 and allows us to react to, or break news rather than waiting until the magazine comes out to tell you about it. The site also allows us to include content – like videos, live blogs, galleries etc – that we cannot do in the print format. It has also allowed us to build the brand all over the world, and it continues to grow. It does not mean, though, that all that you read in the mag is available for free online – not at all.

Another concern has been our apparent failure to report on all British shows. I completely understand worries in this regard. Each show is still covered in detail in the magazine – the round-up section is not merely scanning the internet for results – and this is something I am monitoring every week. A query from Dalcumy a few months ago asked why shows were covered in London from ringside and not Scotland. It is sincerely a case of looking at the shows on a week-by-week basis; there is absolutely no London bias (but maybe the odd bit of Birmingham bias). If a non-title show has four fights, and another has 12, it’s likely we’ll ensure the one with 12 is covered from ringside. That way it gives us more chance of ensuring every fight gets reported. It should also be noted that the fantastic Andy Whittle, who puts together the round-up, goes to great lengths to research exactly what happened at every single show, often by being there. But as I mentioned, the current format is not set in stone. None of the magazine is.

My love for boxing was formed with my head in history books, and then I discovered Boxing News, in all its finger-staining red top glory. My advice to anyone thinking of not renewing their subscription due to the common points raised on this thread is hang on a little while longer. I think you’ll be pleased with the new direction of the magazine.

And please don’t ever take my silence on here as ignorance. If anyone would like to get in touch with me at any time (regarding the magazine!) please e-mail or call me in the office. Try and avoid Tuesday afternoons though because they’re exceptionally manic!

Matt Christie

That you responded in such depth speaks volumes. I will keep and eye on the progress of BN under your editorial tutelage and may come back if things improve for the better.

[57philbox]

thanks for that response,sounds like really positive news for folk who still want it to be a "trade paper",which i feel the majority of u.k. readers do

[Supremo]

As I recall he was. That was a great matchup.

The bookmakers had it a pick 'em fight, too.

I got Mayweather at 11/10 for that fight. Can't ever recall him being a betting underdog before or since. Good response from yer man Matt Christie. I think the publication now is better than in the days of Claude Abrams. What the paper REALLY needs is a fortnightly/monthly betting column. Penned by an irascible writer. Someone like Derek Bilton.

Good shout.
Boxing news is easily the best magazine about for insight and analysis from folk that actually know what they're talking about when it comes to upcoming fights.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Yes, but that is different to working on betting lines. There's more to it than predicting the winner.