November / December Boxing Monthly

[palooka]

Thank you for the reply, Graham

I understand the desire for an uplifting, 'good news' story about boxing in general and the MGM.

I hope, but don't imagine that the darker aspects of the MGM story are in the past. Large scale drug importation and reprisal murders don't just disappear and the money for the gym, in a prime part of Marbella came from somewhere....

In addition to reporting on, analysing and featuring boxing is it also the job of Boxing Monthly to be a moral compass cum criminal investigator cum mud slinger? The answer is: it's up to the guy at the helm and for the rest to decide whether that jives or it doesn't.

I wouldn't go that far though not mentioning anything about the issues surrounding MGM makes the article a bit of a puff piece.

[Dan Dares]

I wouldn't go that far though not mentioning anything about the issues surrounding MGM makes the article a bit of a puff piece.

The explanation as to why said issues were avoided is a load of puff too (not that I've read the article).

"We have no wish to become embroiled in any legal difficulties with MGM"

"MGM is supportive of the magazine, and it is not in the magazine's financial interests to pursue any bad news stories"

"We are scared of any reprisals"

Any one of the above would have done the trick, rather than the cop-out explanation provided.

Good grief.

[Junker]

re. the Mark Butcher piece - my 2 cents on the whole internet writers v print journalists thing is that I think each individual needs to be judged on merit. Personally I don't rate Jeff Powell, for example, or the paper he writes for. I don't care how long he's been doing it or how 'respected' he is in the trade. His work is crap, so I don't tend to read it. Not a fan of Kevin Mitchell at the Guardian, either.
Equally there are some guys on the internet who write some great stuff and have had little, if any, traditionally published but that doesn't detract from what they're doing. Paul Gibson's 'Balls of Wrath' blog has some great stuff on it, for example.

Of course there's loads of shite on the web as well, but when looking for stuff to read I'm not sure how possible it is to make these sort of web v print generalisations any more. Its a mixed bag on both sides.

[Dan Dares]

re. the Mark Butcher piece - my 2 cents on the whole internet writers v print journalists thing is that I think each individual needs to be judged on merit. Personally I don't rate Jeff Powell, for example, or the paper he writes for. I don't care how long he's been doing it or how 'respected' he is in the trade. His work is crap, so I don't tend to read it. Not a fan of Kevin Mitchell at the Guardian, either.
Equally there are some guys on the internet who write some great stuff and have had little, if any, traditionally published but that doesn't detract from what they're doing. Paul Gibson's 'Balls of Wrath' blog has some great stuff on it, for example.

Of course there's loads of shite on the web as well, but when looking for stuff to read I'm not sure how possible it is to make these sort of web v print generalisations any more. Its a mixed bag on both sides.

"I don't care how long he's been doing it or how 'respected' he is in the trade."

Spot on. A lot of it comes down to personal taste. Apart from his Mayweather v Pac 'on crack' piece, I quite like Kevin Mitchell. I've really liked Graham Houston's fight analysis when I've read it, but I don't see the point in reading it if you've seen the fights in question.

The best whole card ringside summary coverage I've read is probably Martin Supple, ex-boxrec news (although I'm biased). Ian McNeilly (sadly, no longer writing about boxing) and Nelson Stanley pen the best features I've read by a country mile. Again, I'm probably biased, and it all comes down to personal taste.

Ben Dirs does some good stuff for the Beeb. I used to like Dan Herbert's stuff too, and I think Tris Dixon, Danny Flexen and Matt Christie deserve praise for doing a very difficult job. People that say "it's nowhere near as good as Harry Mullen/Claude Abrams did it" etc need to understand that it's a completely different task these days - a very difficult one that requires a broad skill set.

The Boxing Asylum mob make some excellent observations, if a little sweary and perhaps unkind on occasion, but you've gotta have ying and yang, and it acts as a counterbalance to the many cut and paste/wordy arse lick/PR stuff that makes up the majority of online (and even print, for that matter) content.

[Supremo]

This is the first time I have came on this thread, I used to religiously buy BM, BN and the Ring. Of the 3 BM was always my favourite and contained the most interesting and well researched and expressed articles. However, I fell out of love with boxing for 2 or 3 years because of the politics and other issues, I cancelled Sky sports, allegedly and didn't buy a magazine, I have recently just began buying BM again.

I didn't know Graham Houston posted on here and I am not posting this in order to try and be controversial but I had intended to make this point before I seen his name in the thread. I read his articles the other day and I thought they were quite poorly written. I thought the upcoming fight preview article jumped all over the place. At parts, I thought it just read like a disconnected assortment of random thoughts. I thought it came across a bit like a typical boxing blog from someone who had plenty to say but didn't really take the time to think about how he wanted to say it. I also don't really like that personal approach of writing in the 1st person unless it is a short column from a well known personality. I have no problems with the analysis of the fight, only with the way it was expressed.

No personal offence to GH, just my personal opinion, I am sure for every one person like me, there are three that love it...

P.S Just read the full thread and two of the articles I enjoyed most are two highlighted for criticism in here.
1. Blly Graham's was a brilliant article, I know it doesn't read like Shakespeare but he's a boxing trainer. I like it when people who are 'in the know' give you an insight into their way of thinking and approach, especially when it deviates from the normal clichés we all hear on a regular basis from commentators.
2. The article about the internet bloggers was spot on as well. 90% of the ones I have read seem to be motivated by a Katie Hopkins type need to be noticed. I think they have contributed towards or at least reflect the football fan type culture that now exists in boxing where fans and posters on message boards have no respect for the efforts of those who risk their health for our entertainment. I think boxing is worse off for this lack of respect.

As for the MGM article? Would MGM be as willing to co-operate with news in future if BM make unsubstantiated claims about their background? It is about maintaining relationships for the long term benefit, not launching character assassinations of everybody and anybody in the hope of achieving some rapid notoriety and short lived interest (another preserve of the boxing blogger...). MAN INVOLVED IN BOXING PROMOTION MADE HIS MONEY THROUGH CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE......what a surprising and original tale that would be eh?

[palooka]

I can understand that, Supremo and its a bit of a moral dilemma for those involved, the stuff going on isn't unsubstantiated though; theres been enough people connected killed, shot and banged up and writing a promotional piece with not a mention looks at best like self censorship.

[mickey1975]

The Irish press write about the men behind MGM without any censorship. The guys are famous over there! This isn't some small time crooks moving into boxing, they're huge.

[palooka]

The Irish press write about the men behind MGM without any censorship. The guys are famous over there! This isn't some small time crooks moving into boxing, they're huge.

You got any links Mickey?

[mickey1975]

The Irish press write about the men behind MGM without any censorship. The guys are famous over there! This isn't some small time crooks moving into boxing, they're huge.

You got any links Mickey?

Just google, it's all there. Funnily enough, I was sat in Costa in Lakeside when I wrote that...

[donal]

The Irish press write about the men behind MGM without any censorship. The guys are famous over there! This isn't some small time crooks moving into boxing, they're huge.

You got any links Mickey?

look at Sunday World website there a story up there from a shooting on friday night

sick of hearing these old school journos moaning.new media is here to stay and they are worried about there jobs. all they ever do is write fluff pieces or glorified press releases these days. no proper journalism.

thats why they writing about mgm and not mentioning the ugly side cause they are old tired and past there sell by date. listen to new media for the truth on boxing matters coz the corpses are too bus protecting their ass. absolute joke

[MightyWarrior]

Just reading the latest December boxing monthly.
Now I do love the mag, but I'm wondering how some of these stories are making it into print lately.
'Train wrecks' could have been a really interesting piece, but surely it should have been about the many great undefeated touted prospects, who crashed suddenly and alarmingly, always a hell of a story.
Instead, it becomes depressingly apparent, it's just a chance for one of The Great Bores Of Our Times, Colin Hart, to ramble on about his usual subjects: Mike Tyson Frank Bruno etc..god help us.
And you knew the article itself was going to be a train wreck when it starts with the story of Jackie Turpin, a supposed great prospect, who is shockingly beaten...we are told that before the bell "there was Stardust in the air"....., only for it to be mentioned later in the article he was actually knocked out in his previous fight !! WTF ?

And why is Chris Evans "Member of parliament for Islwyn" getting regular columns where he regales us with history stories we've all heard before ( and if we haven't, he's not exactly what you call an inspiring writer ) ? Is it because he's an MP ? because it mentions this twice in each of his articles. Bit strange... I mean I know the guy must have a lot of influence in this country, but surely not enough to get a regular gig writing in boxing monthly as well ??

[reggaereggae]

Just reading the latest December boxing monthly.
Now I do love the mag, but I'm wondering how some of these stories are making it into print lately.
'Train wrecks' could have been a really interesting piece, but surely it should have been about the many great undefeated touted prospects, who crashed suddenly and alarmingly, always a hell of a story.
Instead, it becomes depressingly apparent, it's just a chance for one of The Great Bores Of Our Times, Colin Hart, to ramble on about his usual subjects: Mike Tyson Frank Bruno etc..god help us.
And you knew the article itself was going to be a train wreck when it starts with the story of Jackie Turpin, a supposed great prospect, who is shockingly beaten...we are told that before the bell "there was Stardust in the air"....., only for it to be mentioned later in the article he was actually knocked out in his previous fight !! WTF ?

And why is Chris Evans "Member of parliament for Islwyn" getting regular columns where he regales us with history stories we've all heard before ( and if we haven't, he's not exactly what you call an inspiring writer ) ? Is it because he's an MP ? because it mentions this twice in each of his articles. Bit strange... I mean I know the guy must have a lot of influence in this country, but surely not enough to get a regular gig writing in boxing monthly as well ??

I thought 'train wrecks' was a bad title, a bit distasteful. But I did like the article - especially the piece about Vernon Sollas, a guy I had never heard of. Afterwards I looked at some of his fights and he was really skilful, just chinny. Also I would like to know more about his background, his origins. In those days it was rare to be black and Scottish.

[veriton]

i liked the MPs piece on Johny Owen, thought it was a good read. The Eubank one was decent (still feel bad about going to watch the Jeter garbage), Lockett article was excellent but it had a really strange line in it about him not being passionate when he was a pro, yet he was one of the most exciting boxers around at that time. Etienne was a sad read but informative. rjj and di bella held the attention.
bunce and billy graham were pretty poor...bunce was just a run through of that amazing show in russia, no point reading it if you watched it all on tv as it didnt add ote. the billy graham piece is consistently poor and never says anothing of interest to me.
all in all another good issue, my subs renewal has come through and think im going to do two years this time. dont really want to be without it.

[Terry Dooley]

i liked the MPs piece on Johny Owen, thought it was a good read. The Eubank one was decent (still feel bad about going to watch the Jeter garbage), Lockett article was excellent but it had a really strange line in it about him not being passionate when he was a pro, yet he was one of the most exciting boxers around at that time. Etienne was a sad read but informative. rjj and di bella held the attention.
bunce and billy graham were pretty poor...bunce was just a run through of that amazing show in russia, no point reading it if you watched it all on tv as it didnt add ote. the billy graham piece is consistently poor and never says anothing of interest to me.
all in all another good issue, my subs renewal has come through and think im going to do two years this time. dont really want to be without it.

I wrote the Lockett article, Veriton, so thanks for the feedback. It was a reference to Gary’s first full BM piece as a trainer in which we discussed the build-up to Pavlick and the comments he made about the sport, particularly the fact he wasn’t obsessed with boxing and saw it first and foremost as a job. The fact he went into training raised a few eyebrows as these comments were widely publicised at the time, and were mentioned on here, so it was nothing to do with his in-ring exploits and all about his attitude to boxing when he was a pro.

On the other hand, he said he always had the “magic eye” so that it was inevitable he would make the transition to coaching. The purpose of the second piece was to build on the first one, I wrote that one too so was at pains not to be too repetitive.

Sorry you’re not into Preacher’s Corner. It gets a lot of love from fans, and unanimous praise within the trade so it’s here to stay unless Graham says otherwise. It was also praised by the legend known only as ‘Chris the sub’ so that’s good enough for me.

We did discuss the swearing issue again in relation to one poster asking what U.S. readers make of it all. Billy told me that when HBO came to film 24/7 a rather sheepish production person popped into the office at the end of the first day’s filming to ask why there wasn’t any swearing. They were all self-censoring that day only to find out that HBO wanted a natural, relaxed environment, effing and jeffing included.

[palooka]

Hey , Metal Fingers next time you see Gary say hello from me, he used to post here occasionally and was a good sport. He was a brilliant amateur and an excellent pro, in a few years he'll have a very good reputation as a coach and will have brought novice pros to very high levels.

[Terry Dooley]

Hey , Metal Fingers next time you see Gary say hello from me, he used to post here occasionally and was a good sport. He was a brilliant amateur and an excellent pro, in a few years he'll have a very good reputation as a coach and will have brought novice pros to very high levels.

Will do. I had to change username again as I got hit with an ISP ban. Hopefully it's the last one I'll get

[palooka]

Hey , Metal Fingers next time you see Gary say hello from me, he used to post here occasionally and was a good sport. He was a brilliant amateur and an excellent pro, in a few years he'll have a very good reputation as a coach and will have brought novice pros to very high levels.

Will do. I had to change username again as I got hit with an ISP ban. Hopefully it's the last one I'll get

Is that you, Terry? You've more aliases than a Soviet spy.

[Terry Dooley]

Hey , Metal Fingers next time you see Gary say hello from me, he used to post here occasionally and was a good sport. He was a brilliant amateur and an excellent pro, in a few years he'll have a very good reputation as a coach and will have brought novice pros to very high levels.

Will do. I had to change username again as I got hit with an ISP ban. Hopefully it's the last one I'll get

Is that you, Terry? You've more aliases than a Soviet spy.

It’s me. As I said, I’m a sh*t Doctor Who. Doctor No Clue

It was a technical glitch, The Law fixed it.

[palooka]

Glad you're still around and that things are going well with the journalism, you're good at it and some of those you're talking too have great stories to tell. When you see Billy Graham ask him about some of the brilliant amateur he's seen who didn't go pro for one reason or another, I really enjoy reading that sort of thing

[orbtastic]

Metal Fingers=MF [Doom]

[Terry Dooley]

Metal Fingers=MF [Doom]

Running out of options, mind.

Glad you're still around and that things are going well with the journalism, you're good at it and some of those you're talking too have great stories to tell. When you see Billy Graham ask him about some of the brilliant amateur he's seen who didn't go pro for one reason or another, I really enjoy reading that sort of thing

Cheers. I’ve a few names lined up. At least one of them has the surname ‘Fury’. I’ll ask Billy, that will be a good topic for a column. We’ll try to sort it out for the one after next and we'll look at names beyond the NW.

[orbtastic]

ha, yeah. Guess you could go back in time to Dumile or KMD etc.

[veriton]

i liked the MPs piece on Johny Owen, thought it was a good read. The Eubank one was decent (still feel bad about going to watch the Jeter garbage), Lockett article was excellent but it had a really strange line in it about him not being passionate when he was a pro, yet he was one of the most exciting boxers around at that time. Etienne was a sad read but informative. rjj and di bella held the attention.
bunce and billy graham were pretty poor...bunce was just a run through of that amazing show in russia, no point reading it if you watched it all on tv as it didnt add ote. the billy graham piece is consistently poor and never says anothing of interest to me.
all in all another good issue, my subs renewal has come through and think im going to do two years this time. dont really want to be without it.

I wrote the Lockett article, Veriton, so thanks for the feedback. It was a reference to Gary’s first full BM piece as a trainer in which we discussed the build-up to Pavlick and the comments he made about the sport, particularly the fact he wasn’t obsessed with boxing and saw it first and foremost as a job. The fact he went into training raised a few eyebrows as these comments were widely publicised at the time, and were mentioned on here, so it was nothing to do with his in-ring exploits and all about his attitude to boxing when he was a pro.

On the other hand, he said he always had the “magic eye” so that it was inevitable he would make the transition to coaching. The purpose of the second piece was to build on the first one, I wrote that one too so was at pains not to be too repetitive.

Sorry you’re not into Preacher’s Corner. It gets a lot of love from fans, and unanimous praise within the trade so it’s here to stay unless Graham says otherwise. It was also praised by the legend known only as ‘Chris the sub’ so that’s good enough for me.

We did discuss the swearing issue again in relation to one poster asking what U.S. readers make of it all. Billy told me that when HBO came to film 24/7 a rather sheepish production person popped into the office at the end of the first day’s filming to ask why there wasn’t any swearing. They were all self-censoring that day only to find out that HBO wanted a natural, relaxed environment, effing and jeffing included.

lockett was one of my favourite fighters when he was boxing, he's a good talker on tv now and i always look forward to hearing what he has to say (though ive never met him in person). that article was superb, really enjoyed it and thought it was the best piece in there this month but that line did jar a bit. if it fitted in with the earlier piece fair enough, because it seemed at odds with his style as a fighter.

sorry, i just cant get into billy graham's column. bunce is excellent most of the time, though not this month, but graham just leaves me cold. why not have sanigar or someone like that doing it? i bet he's got a few stories to tell. still if lots of people love it then i guess its here to stay.

mind you it was offset by the social media piece being decent this month, a pleasant surprise. if you guys are taking orders how about jamie cox, erkan teper, olan duradola and mitchell smith in next month...

[Boxerbeetle]

I suspect that if anyone else on here brings up the occasional swearing in Billy's column, the next Preacher's Corner will be an epic, expletive-ridden, meandering rant at 'the idiots on that fvcking forum'.

[palooka]

I suspect that if anyone else on here brings up the occasional swearing in Billy's column, the next Preacher's Corner will be an epic, expletive-ridden, meandering rant at 'the idiots on that fvcking forum'.

I like how Billy comes across and he was an excellent trainer, very tactical as well - I was pleased he did well and disappointed he was dumped and shit on. If he swears a bit, so what? Most of us do and boxing is a rough sport, I agree with most of boxerbeetle's posts but think if Billy did refer to the idiots on this forum it'd be tongue in cheek though it'd be good of Bunce apologised, he's sulked long enough.