Boxing Monthly on the ropes

[MightyWarrior]

Hate to say it, I mean I've been buying it since day one, but stopped this year, as the quality has really dropped since dear old Glyn left us, even with an ace writer like Graham Houston at the helm. I stuck with it, but after a few pretty dull efforts my interest dropped away, especially after it didn't even bother to preview the first Frampton/Cruz fight, which was bizzare.

But lately, with the Josh fight, I bought it again, then the latest one too: with Brook on the cover. But guess what, a fantastic once in awhile UK fight is coming up in Davis/Walsh, and the mag fails to run a preview...what the hell ?! A golden chance to build the mag around two massive UK fights,within 7 days of each other: two Brits taking on 2 of the biggest prospects in US boxing, and BM misses an open goal.

There's a Lillis profile of Walsh, but no preview no build up. We get 8 pages of french amateur boxing and a lady who runs a drug testing company instead. Bizzare.

[boxingknockout]

I do hope boxing monthly survives

[JimJim2009]

There's a Lillis profile of Walsh, but no preview no build up. We get 8 pages of french amateur boxing and a lady who runs a drug testing company instead. Bizzare.[/quote]

[Boxing Prospect]

I like things like Rian's article on French boxing, nice to see things away from the norm.

[Supremo]

I used to love it but no longer by it. It suffers because social media covers news instantly so by the time you get BM the stuff it covers is out of date, or fights have fallen through.

I know he posts on here and I'm not saying this to offend him or "get a bite" but I can not read Graham Houston's work. It just reads like a rambling, unstructured steam of thoughts just thrown on the page.

[MightyWarrior]

Well I still think that when Graham Houston zeros in on a fight & previews it, there is no one better. But as an editor, I think that's not where his talents lie.

Of course I love boxing monthly and want to see it do well.

[Boxerbeetle]

I used to love it but no longer by it. It suffers because social media covers news instantly so by the time you get BM the stuff it covers is out of date, or fights have fallen through.

Fair point that magazines can't compete with social media / the internet for news coverage - I don't even think they should try.

My favourite pieces in BM are usually the ones where they get a few experts together to provide detailed analysis of a fight/event which has recently happened (think they starting calling it 'The Inquest' for a while, although not sure they still do?). I'd certainly like to see more of those types of articles.

Imo, the internet still has a long, long way to go before it can match BM in terms of proper fight analysis. Most of the boxing websites are terribly written and put together - I get the feeling that many of them only exist so the 'writers' can pass themselves off as journalists and get press passes to shows.

Anyway, I'm a long-standing and proud subscriber to Boxing Monthly, and hope that more boxing fans join me in this. If it fails, I can almost guarantee that it will never be replaced, and we'll all lament its passing.

[handsofstone]

Personally I still love it

[bb76]

Best boxing magazine by far!

[veriton]

im a long-time subscriber and ill be renewing as usual, although i agree that it has slipped.

there was a really strange piece in there about a qatari boxer, who hadnt done anything and never will. it was a puff piece, didnt have any merit and really made me wonder what the hell was going on.

ive said it before on here but houston's opening piece leaves me cold, he's just not interesting in the human aspect of boxing. he's great at previews, possibly the best there is, but i get the feeling you wouldnt want to be trapped in a lift with him. too dry, too obsessed with technicalities, too focused on obscure history. glyn always had a fresh take on the big talking point, which even though i had thought i had got it figured out i usually ended up agreeing with him. in short, it challenged me, but with houston it feels like being cornered by a trainspotter who may be able to reel off the facts but doesnt get much of the sense of what it all means.

the reasons ill keep buying are bunce, billy graham, lillis, houston's previews and some of the features are brilliant. the book reviews are really good too. there's enough to justify the price.

it cant be easy doing a monthly mag in the current climate and boxing monthly have been badly caught out in the last year by putting fights on the cover that have fallen through.

ive been reading it for years and will keep on doing so. im also a subscriber to when saturday comes, and i like the way that mag focuses on the fan experience so maybe there's a room for a few pages from that perspective in boxing monthy too.

[Graham Houston]

Just a reply to some of the comments about Boxing Monthly.

Re. stories that are a “waste of space”.

Sometimes a story is offered to us in a way that makes it sound interesting only to disappoint. I really don’t like to hurt someone’s feelings by saying we will run a piece then telling the writer, in effect: “Sorry, it’s no good.” In these cases, I will try to shape the piece in such a way that it turns out as an interesting read even if not exactly what we expected.

We’ve reached the stage where, for new contributors who aren’t well-known to us, we often take a piece on spec only. (That is, if we don’t feel it is quite what we want, we are under no obligation to run it.)

Some stories are, I agree, on the esoteric side: The Namibian boxing promoter, the “slugging sheikh”, the deaf-mute novice boxer, the Thai fighter whose sponsor uses a viking logo.

The idea here is to create a mix of articles. Kind of, something for everyone.

One reader wrote to us saying he loves what he calls these “off-piste” stories. (I’d never heard that expression before.)

We all make errors of judgement. We just do. I regret not previewing the Frampton vs Santa Cruz rematch, for instance. One reason — not the main reason — for the preview not appearing was that we had had a spate of fights falling through after a preview had been published and, I have to hold my hands up, I was feeling somewhat snake-bit. But there were, obviously, other factors.

Sometimes a fight falls “awkwardly” into the publication-date schedule. With Frampton vs Santa Cruz II, the fight came on the heels of the festive-season/New Year holidays time frame. It was either preview the fight in the issue coming out two months before the bout or preview it in the issue published just days before the contest. In hindsight, sure, we should have run a preview. But we don’t have a re-set button in life.

On this topic, I remember, when Glyn was editor, we ran a preview of Tyson vs Ruddock II in the issue that came out maybe six or seven days before the fight. Not everyone picks up the magazine immediately on publication. So, inevitably, we heard the comment: “Why publish a preview after the fight has taken place?”

See where I’m coming from?

Re. no preview of Gervonta vs Walsh. Well, as has been pointed out, Steve Lillis did a nice, quite in-depth interview with Liam. I thought we could get away with that. It wasn’t as if we ignored the fight.

(Also, in the same issue, we had a Ron Borges piece on The Money Team in which Gervonta figured prominently. This all helped focus attention on the promotion, IMO.)

Try to bear in mind that we cannot get everything into the magazine each month. Additionally, I can't help thinking that if we had run an in-depth, maybe four-page, preview of Gervonta vs Walsh as well as the Steve Lillis interview, we would have been open to post-fight criticism on the lines of: “Six pages on a blowout? Brilliant thinking!” There’s always going to be a Monday morning quarterback out there.

The “French fighters” feature? I thought the French boxing revival was worthy of attention. A reader who posts on my Twitter timeline told me he loved the article but had one complaint: The writer lumped in Marcel Cerdan with past French world champions instead of “separating” Cerdan as an all-time great. I should have picked up on that. My bad.

The piece on VADA? Well, the banned-substances situation is a major issue in boxing (and indeed all sports) as we all know, and we thought readers might be interested to know how the VADA process works. Here again, sometimes you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I can imagine a criticism, at some point, on the lines of: “With all these drug cheats and verdicts being overturned due to positive drug tests, why are you just ignoring the PEDs situation?”

See what I mean?

It all comes back to striking a balance.

In some months, it’s possible to slot in a preview of a fight that might be interesting but not earth-shattering: We previewed Ruslan Chagaev vs Lucas Browne, for instance, because (A) we thought it was quite an intriguing match-up and (B) because it fell nicely within the constraints of publication schedules.

One thing we always try to do is to acknowledge the passing of a celebrated boxer or boxing personality. How much space is allotted to the tribute depends on the stage of magazine production.

If the magazine is near completion, even if it is as late as the day before the magazine goes to press, we will endeavour to get in at least a one-page tribute. It doesn’t mean we think more of one fighter than another if say, Bob Foster gets a one-page tribute but Gene Fullmer gets four pages. As I recall, Foster passed away right on publication deadline. Same with Aaron Pryor.

Conversely, we had plenty of lead-in time when the Canadian heavyweight, Earl Walls, passed. I believe we gave Earl Walls two pages. Imbalance? Perhaps, but I always thought Earl Walls was one of the most underrated and under-regarded Commonwealth fighters. At one time Walls was considered a real world championship prospect. So Glyn said: “Yeah, let’s give him two pages.”

Hope some of this is making sense?

It’s actually not the easiest thing in the world editing a monthly magazine in the internet age. I know it used to weigh heavily on Glyn at times. (Some of you may remember Glyn’s brutally honest, from-the-heart editorial in which he flat-out stated he wasn’t sure how much longer he could keep doing it.) But, hey, I’m not seeking sympathy: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Right?

At the end of the day, we know we are not going to please everyone. It’s just not possible.

I’m not sure it’s true that “everyone’s a critic” but I do agree with the adage: “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Re. the "First Bell" editorial, Glyn had a quirky writing style and was always a fun read. I'd never take that away from my hugely missed friend and colleague. I just go about it in a different way. If people preferred Glyn's editorials, that's totally OK with me. Glyn was Glyn; Graham is Graham.

I am always happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly with those who have genuine inquiries.

Bottom line:

We do our best to bring out a magazine each month that boxing aficionados will enjoy and indeed look forward to reading.

Readers’ comments are always helpful because they keep us on our toes.

As regards the, to be polite, "negative" remarks about one personally, it's sad, of course, but these days I just accept such remarks for what they are and move on.

[Boxerbeetle]

I enjoyed the VADA article. Would absolutely love it if we could get a similar piece on UKAD and unravel some of the mysteries of the ongoing Fury saga.

[Loynesy]

Nice reply Graham, and nice points.

I've bought the magazine forever, and probably always will. I like some of the more esoteric features, others less so, but like the fact they are there.

[crusader]

Nice response Graham

Personally, I am a big fan of the 'esoteric' pieces which explore fighters/issues that rarely get coverage. I'd actually rather have more of these articles than coverage of major fights which already get plenty of attention in forums like this and other print/online publications.

[girv]

Great response Graham.

It's an almost impossible task these days competing against the alternative options that people have for free news on any subject. I hate to say it but I don't see there being much of a newspaper and magazine industry in its current format still in existence in 5 years time.

[Graham Houston]

Great response Graham.

It's an almost impossible task these days competing against the alternative options that people have for free news on any subject. I hate to say it but I don't see there being much of a newspaper and magazine industry in its current format still in existence in 5 years time.

You could be right girv. The only chance print publications have is to give people something they can't get anywhere else. That can, IMO, come down to just one element. A writer someone really enjoys reading, a certain feature, whatever. One element can be the difference. How many times have you heard it said: "I only buy it for the... [fill in the blank]"?

[bruthead]

Very misleading headline. Makes it sounds like the magazine is in financial trouble when it's actually just that one person doesn't like it as much as he used to do.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Bottomline:

Graham rocks and his critics are a pox.

The End

[Deserter]

Just a reply to some of the comments about Boxing Monthly.

Re. stories that are a “waste of space”.

Sometimes a story is offered to us in a way that makes it sound interesting only to disappoint. I really don’t like to hurt someone’s feelings by saying we will run a piece then telling the writer, in effect: “Sorry, it’s no good.” In these cases, I will try to shape the piece in such a way that it turns out as an interesting read even if not exactly what we expected.

We’ve reached the stage where, for new contributors who aren’t well-known to us, we often take a piece on spec only. (That is, if we don’t feel it is quite what we want, we are under no obligation to run it.)

Some stories are, I agree, on the esoteric side: The Namibian boxing promoter, the “slugging sheikh”, the deaf-mute novice boxer, the Thai fighter whose sponsor uses a viking logo.

The idea here is to create a mix of articles. Kind of, something for everyone.

One reader wrote to us saying he loves what he calls these “off-piste” stories. (I’d never heard that expression before.)

We all make errors of judgement. We just do. I regret not previewing the Frampton vs Santa Cruz rematch, for instance. One reason — not the main reason — for the preview not appearing was that we had had a spate of fights falling through after a preview had been published and, I have to hold my hands up, I was feeling somewhat snake-bit. But there were, obviously, other factors.

Sometimes a fight falls “awkwardly” into the publication-date schedule. With Frampton vs Santa Cruz II, the fight came on the heels of the festive-season/New Year holidays time frame. It was either preview the fight in the issue coming out two months before the bout or preview it in the issue published just days before the contest. In hindsight, sure, we should have run a preview. But we don’t have a re-set button in life.

On this topic, I remember, when Glyn was editor, we ran a preview of Tyson vs Ruddock II in the issue that came out maybe six or seven days before the fight. Not everyone picks up the magazine immediately on publication. So, inevitably, we heard the comment: “Why publish a preview after the fight has taken place?”

See where I’m coming from?

Re. no preview of Gervonta vs Walsh. Well, as has been pointed out, Steve Lillis did a nice, quite in-depth interview with Liam. I thought we could get away with that. It wasn’t as if we ignored the fight.

(Also, in the same issue, we had a Ron Borges piece on The Money Team in which Gervonta figured prominently. This all helped focus attention on the promotion, IMO.)

Try to bear in mind that we cannot get everything into the magazine each month. Additionally, I can't help thinking that if we had run an in-depth, maybe four-page, preview of Gervonta vs Walsh as well as the Steve Lillis interview, we would have been open to post-fight criticism on the lines of: “Six pages on a blowout? Brilliant thinking!” There’s always going to be a Monday morning quarterback out there.

The “French fighters” feature? I thought the French boxing revival was worthy of attention. A reader who posts on my Twitter timeline told me he loved the article but had one complaint: The writer lumped in Marcel Cerdan with past French world champions instead of “separating” Cerdan as an all-time great. I should have picked up on that. My bad.

The piece on VADA? Well, the banned-substances situation is a major issue in boxing (and indeed all sports) as we all know, and we thought readers might be interested to know how the VADA process works. Here again, sometimes you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I can imagine a criticism, at some point, on the lines of: “With all these drug cheats and verdicts being overturned due to positive drug tests, why are you just ignoring the PEDs situation?”

See what I mean?

It all comes back to striking a balance.

In some months, it’s possible to slot in a preview of a fight that might be interesting but not earth-shattering: We previewed Ruslan Chagaev vs Lucas Browne, for instance, because (A) we thought it was quite an intriguing match-up and (B) because it fell nicely within the constraints of publication schedules.

One thing we always try to do is to acknowledge the passing of a celebrated boxer or boxing personality. How much space is allotted to the tribute depends on the stage of magazine production.

If the magazine is near completion, even if it is as late as the day before the magazine goes to press, we will endeavour to get in at least a one-page tribute. It doesn’t mean we think more of one fighter than another if say, Bob Foster gets a one-page tribute but Gene Fullmer gets four pages. As I recall, Foster passed away right on publication deadline. Same with Aaron Pryor.

Conversely, we had plenty of lead-in time when the Canadian heavyweight, Earl Walls, passed. I believe we gave Earl Walls two pages. Imbalance? Perhaps, but I always thought Earl Walls was one of the most underrated and under-regarded Commonwealth fighters. At one time Walls was considered a real world championship prospect. So Glyn said: “Yeah, let’s give him two pages.”

Hope some of this is making sense?

It’s actually not the easiest thing in the world editing a monthly magazine in the internet age. I know it used to weigh heavily on Glyn at times. (Some of you may remember Glyn’s brutally honest, from-the-heart editorial in which he flat-out stated he wasn’t sure how much longer he could keep doing it.) But, hey, I’m not seeking sympathy: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Right?

At the end of the day, we know we are not going to please everyone. It’s just not possible.

I’m not sure it’s true that “everyone’s a critic” but I do agree with the adage: “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Re. the "First Bell" editorial, Glyn had a quirky writing style and was always a fun read. I'd never take that away from my hugely missed friend and colleague. I just go about it in a different way. If people preferred Glyn's editorials, that's totally OK with me. Glyn was Glyn; Graham is Graham.

I am always happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly with those who have genuine inquiries.

Bottom line:

We do our best to bring out a magazine each month that boxing aficionados will enjoy and indeed look forward to reading.

Readers’ comments are always helpful because they keep us on our toes.

As regards the, to be polite, "negative" remarks about one personally, it's sad, of course, but these days I just accept such remarks for what they are and move on.

Definition of a class act right there.

[olij999]

I still enjoy it - have bought it since the very first issue. There are occasionally feature articles that are rather overwritten, but that kind of thing has afflicted parts of UK sportswriting for at least the last decade, so I just skim those (on the basis that if the writer is writing more for himself than his readers, I leave him to it). But I usually get a lot out of most of the magazine, particularly the fight reports, columns and the editorial.

[MightyWarrior]

I've always thought Graham Houston is a class act, and he of course shows that in his reply.
I think the criticism was fair in this instance and so is the right of reply, and I really hope boxing monthly goes on and gets better, and I will try to keep buying it. More previews of the serious fights and more profiles of serious fighters also where are they now features would be great, Minter, Green, jimmy Flint..

[dirk2686]

Funnily enough one of the best things about the magazine in my opinion are the left field articles, which in this thread just goes to show that pleasing everyone in the boxing world isn't just thankless but impossible.

I've read it for years and the pieces I remember aren't the Mayweather Pacquiao previews but the likes of the last 'fight to the finish' and an article about Tommy Morrison's post-HIV comeback. Long may the magazine continue.

[J]

Some good chat here guys and thanks Graham for providing an insight into the workings and challenges of running a magazine, for me I still subscribe, its my birthday present from my mother in law, so I am grateful for it both sides, like anything sometimes I devour it, other times not so much, as you say you cant please all the people all the time, the fact I have subscribed for my now 10th year shows you must be something right guys!
Equally so some valid points made and some answered...question to the fans what would you really like to see there? I get the impression Graham would take it into consideration so now is the chance....

I will kick off, perhaps a boxers of the past or a where are they now? Segment from time to time...very broad I know but then that gives plenty of choice!

Thanks Graham for your kind consideration.

[Gnome]

Just a reply to some of the comments about Boxing Monthly.

Re. stories that are a “waste of space”.

Sometimes a story is offered to us in a way that makes it sound interesting only to disappoint. I really don’t like to hurt someone’s feelings by saying we will run a piece then telling the writer, in effect: “Sorry, it’s no good.” In these cases, I will try to shape the piece in such a way that it turns out as an interesting read even if not exactly what we expected.

We’ve reached the stage where, for new contributors who aren’t well-known to us, we often take a piece on spec only. (That is, if we don’t feel it is quite what we want, we are under no obligation to run it.)

Some stories are, I agree, on the esoteric side: The Namibian boxing promoter, the “slugging sheikh”, the deaf-mute novice boxer, the Thai fighter whose sponsor uses a viking logo.

The idea here is to create a mix of articles. Kind of, something for everyone.

One reader wrote to us saying he loves what he calls these “off-piste” stories. (I’d never heard that expression before.)

We all make errors of judgement. We just do. I regret not previewing the Frampton vs Santa Cruz rematch, for instance. One reason — not the main reason — for the preview not appearing was that we had had a spate of fights falling through after a preview had been published and, I have to hold my hands up, I was feeling somewhat snake-bit. But there were, obviously, other factors.

Sometimes a fight falls “awkwardly” into the publication-date schedule. With Frampton vs Santa Cruz II, the fight came on the heels of the festive-season/New Year holidays time frame. It was either preview the fight in the issue coming out two months before the bout or preview it in the issue published just days before the contest. In hindsight, sure, we should have run a preview. But we don’t have a re-set button in life.

On this topic, I remember, when Glyn was editor, we ran a preview of Tyson vs Ruddock II in the issue that came out maybe six or seven days before the fight. Not everyone picks up the magazine immediately on publication. So, inevitably, we heard the comment: “Why publish a preview after the fight has taken place?”

See where I’m coming from?

Re. no preview of Gervonta vs Walsh. Well, as has been pointed out, Steve Lillis did a nice, quite in-depth interview with Liam. I thought we could get away with that. It wasn’t as if we ignored the fight.

(Also, in the same issue, we had a Ron Borges piece on The Money Team in which Gervonta figured prominently. This all helped focus attention on the promotion, IMO.)

Try to bear in mind that we cannot get everything into the magazine each month. Additionally, I can't help thinking that if we had run an in-depth, maybe four-page, preview of Gervonta vs Walsh as well as the Steve Lillis interview, we would have been open to post-fight criticism on the lines of: “Six pages on a blowout? Brilliant thinking!” There’s always going to be a Monday morning quarterback out there.

The “French fighters” feature? I thought the French boxing revival was worthy of attention. A reader who posts on my Twitter timeline told me he loved the article but had one complaint: The writer lumped in Marcel Cerdan with past French world champions instead of “separating” Cerdan as an all-time great. I should have picked up on that. My bad.

The piece on VADA? Well, the banned-substances situation is a major issue in boxing (and indeed all sports) as we all know, and we thought readers might be interested to know how the VADA process works. Here again, sometimes you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I can imagine a criticism, at some point, on the lines of: “With all these drug cheats and verdicts being overturned due to positive drug tests, why are you just ignoring the PEDs situation?”

See what I mean?

It all comes back to striking a balance.

In some months, it’s possible to slot in a preview of a fight that might be interesting but not earth-shattering: We previewed Ruslan Chagaev vs Lucas Browne, for instance, because (A) we thought it was quite an intriguing match-up and (B) because it fell nicely within the constraints of publication schedules.

One thing we always try to do is to acknowledge the passing of a celebrated boxer or boxing personality. How much space is allotted to the tribute depends on the stage of magazine production.

If the magazine is near completion, even if it is as late as the day before the magazine goes to press, we will endeavour to get in at least a one-page tribute. It doesn’t mean we think more of one fighter than another if say, Bob Foster gets a one-page tribute but Gene Fullmer gets four pages. As I recall, Foster passed away right on publication deadline. Same with Aaron Pryor.

Conversely, we had plenty of lead-in time when the Canadian heavyweight, Earl Walls, passed. I believe we gave Earl Walls two pages. Imbalance? Perhaps, but I always thought Earl Walls was one of the most underrated and under-regarded Commonwealth fighters. At one time Walls was considered a real world championship prospect. So Glyn said: “Yeah, let’s give him two pages.”

Hope some of this is making sense?

It’s actually not the easiest thing in the world editing a monthly magazine in the internet age. I know it used to weigh heavily on Glyn at times. (Some of you may remember Glyn’s brutally honest, from-the-heart editorial in which he flat-out stated he wasn’t sure how much longer he could keep doing it.) But, hey, I’m not seeking sympathy: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Right?

At the end of the day, we know we are not going to please everyone. It’s just not possible.

I’m not sure it’s true that “everyone’s a critic” but I do agree with the adage: “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

Re. the "First Bell" editorial, Glyn had a quirky writing style and was always a fun read. I'd never take that away from my hugely missed friend and colleague. I just go about it in a different way. If people preferred Glyn's editorials, that's totally OK with me. Glyn was Glyn; Graham is Graham.

I am always happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly with those who have genuine inquiries.

Bottom line:

We do our best to bring out a magazine each month that boxing aficionados will enjoy and indeed look forward to reading.

Readers’ comments are always helpful because they keep us on our toes.

As regards the, to be polite, "negative" remarks about one personally, it's sad, of course, but these days I just accept such remarks for what they are and move on.

Thank you for your reply, Graham. My subscription lapsed a couple of months ago but I will be sure to renew it. It's still a great magazine.

Your book reviewer is awfully harsh, I have to say!

[Graham Houston]

Some good chat here guys and thanks Graham for providing an insight into the workings and challenges of running a magazine, for me I still subscribe, its my birthday present from my mother in law, so I am grateful for it both sides, like anything sometimes I devour it, other times not so much, as you say you cant please all the people all the time, the fact I have subscribed for my now 10th year shows you must be something right guys!
Equally so some valid points made and some answered...question to the fans what would you really like to see there? I get the impression Graham would take it into consideration so now is the chance....

I will kick off, perhaps a boxers of the past or a where are they now? Segment from time to time...very broad I know but then that gives plenty of choice!

Thanks Graham for your kind consideration.

Thanks so much for the kind words. Truly much appreciated. I must have read your mind because we have a Q&A with Michael Spinks in the current (June) issue. We have had pieces in the recent past on former fighters of merit: Carl Thompson, Clinton Woods, Jamie Moore come to mind. We have a couple in the pipeline that I think you might enjoy.