BoxRec

English Wizard wrote:I think trish needs to get real.

I'm quite stunned at some of the comments here, I think the magazine is still excellent and Matt Christe is a top writer, his recent Jonny Tapia piece was quality.

This reminds me of when we had Setanta and people moaned about certain things, then when we lost Setanta, everybody was all upset.

People should appreciate what they've got.

Ben_London wrote:I'm quite stunned at some of the comments here, I think the magazine is still excellent and Matt Christe is a top writer, his recent Jonny Tapia piece was quality.

This reminds me of when we had Setanta and people moaned about certain things, then when we lost Setanta, everybody was all upset.

People should appreciate what they've got.

Fukin 'A' mate!

The internet provides ample new news and articles on boxing almost everyday to read.

So the need for a boxing paper, such as BN, to inform us of recent fights isn`t as needed as previously.

What I subscribed to BN for is the great boxing articles that they have always produced. And still presently do I wish to add
Also. I like to keep them as a reference for the future. To look back at past careers etc.
So when the paper is more and more padded out with photos, and gets less in depth on the boxing side of things .. well thats when the paper loses its usefulness.
If the paper continually moves away from what the cover calls itself ... whats the point in it?
I just fail to see how it can be cheaper to add more photos, rather than the guy writing the article or fight report, adding more depth. It just seems a lazy way to fill the paper.

Yes. the adverts may be a necessary evil .. I can accept that
More amateur news pages. Yes again. The Olympics, and the future pro`s ... I don`t like it, but can accept it
Half the mag devoted to photos. No. Its taking the piss as far as I`m concerned.
Those that say, be gratefull just because we still got the BN. Well I say. maybe if you knew how it used to be - then you`d feel the same.

dbflex wrote: I'm sure this thread is being monitored and the views expressed considered.

... no matter how I look at it. I fail to see how anybody buying the paper would prefer to look at photos rather than read boxing news and related articles.
But if there are people out there who do prefer looking at photos .... then how long is this going to hold their interest and loyalty to the paper? not very long I would guess.

tonyevs wrote:I just fail to see how it can be cheaper to add more photos, rather than the guy writing the article or fight report, adding more depth. It just seems a lazy way to fill the paper.

I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of the ratio in BN. However, just to help you out on this one it's pretty straightforward - BN, like most mags, will be reliant on freelance writers to deliver fight reports beyond the core fights covered 'in-house', so there's obviously a budget consideration there. running more reports = more freelancers required = increased expense.
By contrast, most pic deals aren't done on a per pic basis, but by bulk deals with the likes of Getty Images e.g. a deal allowing you to use up to 100 images per month. Therefore, there's far less likelihood that using additional images is going to impact on your costbase.

Deserter wrote:

tonyevs wrote:I just fail to see how it can be cheaper to add more photos, rather than the guy writing the article or fight report, adding more depth. It just seems a lazy way to fill the paper.

I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of the ratio in BN. However, just to help you out on this one it's pretty straightforward - BN, like most mags, will be reliant on freelance writers to deliver fight reports beyond the core fights covered 'in-house', so there's obviously a budget consideration there. running more reports = more freelancers required = increased expense.
By contrast, most pic deals aren't done on a per pic basis, but by bulk deals with the likes of Getty Images e.g. a deal allowing you to use up to 100 images per month. Therefore, there's far less likelihood that using additional images is going to impact on your costbase.

... so it is cheaper to pad it out with photos then?

suggestion..
if the paper is now 46 pages ... why not drop it to 30 pages if they only have 30 pages worth of text?
And whats stopping the guys they employ writing longer articles? or giving more depth to their fight reports??

tonyevs wrote:

Deserter wrote:

tonyevs wrote:I just fail to see how it can be cheaper to add more photos, rather than the guy writing the article or fight report, adding more depth. It just seems a lazy way to fill the paper.

I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of the ratio in BN. However, just to help you out on this one it's pretty straightforward - BN, like most mags, will be reliant on freelance writers to deliver fight reports beyond the core fights covered 'in-house', so there's obviously a budget consideration there. running more reports = more freelancers required = increased expense.
By contrast, most pic deals aren't done on a per pic basis, but by bulk deals with the likes of Getty Images e.g. a deal allowing you to use up to 100 images per month. Therefore, there's far less likelihood that using additional images is going to impact on your costbase.

... so it is cheaper to pad it out with photos then?

suggestion..
if the paper is now 46 pages ... why not drop it to 30 pages if they only have 30 pages worth of text?
And whats stopping the guys they employ writing longer articles? or giving more depth to their fight reports??

I won't bore you with too much detail, but you have to print in certain sections - 8s and/or 16s. It could drop to 32, but perception is a powerful thing and it will feel a far more flimsy product and you'll see a loss of sale by virtue of people feeling they're not getting as much bang for their buck (even if the word count remains the same). As for the guys they employ I actually agree re. more depth etc, but I assume their riposte will be only having x amount of hours in the day etc.

Tony one last time - the balance is not due to laziness, and its not a budgetary measure. The team clearly feel it is an attractive balance for readers - very few people have criticised this since the redesign. The mag is NOT half photos, it's less than that and images are also important. I understand you and others may not like the balance and if enough people express that view perhaps they'll change it - there is no budgetary or labour-related reason not to.

dbflex wrote:Tony one last time - The mag is NOT half photos, it's less than that and images are also important - there is no budgetary or labour-related reason not to.

The mag (the good old days it was refered to as a paper :( ) is ONLY half text (without sounding too David Brent) .. FACT
I understand the importance of having some photos ... just not as many

And if - as you claim - there is no labour or budget related reason not to have more text and less photos .... then who the f^#k came up with the bright idea to cut back on text to make room for photos in the first place

As said - who would really want less text to make room for more photos??

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:Tony one last time - The mag is NOT half photos, it's less than that and images are also important - there is no budgetary or labour-related reason not to.

The mag (the good old days it was refered to as a paper :( ) is ONLY half text (without sounding too David Brent) .. FACT
I understand the importance of having some photos ... just not as many

And if - as you claim - there is no labour or budget related reason not to have more text and less photos .... then who the f^#k came up with the bright idea to cut back on text to make room for photos in the first place

As said - who would really want less text to make room for more photos??

but to put it another way, only one person has said they have a serious problem with it... You. Some people consider photos to be an important complement to text, some don't. You seem particularly passionate about this one point.

dbflex wrote: but to put it another way, only one person has said they have a serious problem with it... You. Some people consider photos to be an important complement to text, some don't. You seem particularly passionate about this one point.

I`m not sure passionate would be the best description. But I do feel its losing its usefulness and thus shortening the shelf life of this magazine. And it would be a shame if that happened.

but ..

I understand that I may be in the minority with this opinion as far as your concerned. The direct debit has been cancelled. Things seem to be falling on deaf ears.
So I shall spend my money elsewhere .. no big deal to me.
Way I see it. The magazine needs me more than I need it at the moment .. sad days :(

English Wizard wrote:

the truth wrote:Abrams passion shone thru the mag. These new guys seem to think they k ow better then everyone else and are pompous. Not my cup of tea

I agree Trish Dixon is too self obsessed, big picture of himself and more and more giving his views on ringside, I mean what does he know ? he has never fought iin his life, sat alongside former world champions, the new mag does nothing for me, big coverage for subjects not worthy and not enough for interesting subjects, biased reports on local shows towards home fighters, they have local papers for that, I think trish needs to get real.

Sorry mate. Can`t agree with your comments there. There was a jokey thread some months ago on the bad picture Tris had put up of himself .. it did make him look rather pompous (and silly) .. it was soon after changed

But I have always enjoyed his pieces. Both editors letter and his various articles.
And as for him never fought .. I can`t comment either way on that, except to say ... what difference does that make?
His calls on alot of fights are better than average - so he knows a thing or two on the subject.

MachoMan09 wrote:

English Wizard wrote:Trish Dixon is too self obsessed, big picture of himself and more and more giving his views on ringside, I mean what does he know ? he has never fought iin his life, sat alongside former world champions...

Albert Einstein never went above the stratosphere.

That's great

I think it's better than ever to be honest. I was never a fan of the berliner format they used between 2000 and 2005 and magazine is a lot thicker now than it was in the 1990s (I have copies going back to 1994 so can easily compare).

Jeff Thomas wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

English Wizard wrote:Trish Dixon is too self obsessed, big picture of himself and more and more giving his views on ringside, I mean what does he know ? he has never fought iin his life, sat alongside former world champions...

Albert Einstein never went above the stratosphere.

That's great

"I am the astronaut of boxing. Joe Louis and Dempsey were just jet pilots. I'm in a world of my own!"

Muhammad Ali

dbflex wrote:

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:How many people tops? 10, max 20? BN consistently sells thousands of copies. It's not necessarily representative

Then again though. How many subscribers visit this site? And how many of those feel its worth commenting on??
I'm pretty sure if the readers were given the choice between more boxing news/boxing related articles or more boxing photographs, it would be a clear win for more news/articles..

It wouldn't mean more articles, just slightly longer ones unless you are intent on binning photos altogether. Even if every subscriber visits this site, a minute amount have complained about the text-image balance. Maybe everyone hates it but there's no evidence of that. A popular magazine cannot base their decisions on a small minority of people one one or two forums. That's not a consensus. Any sensible mag would conduct a reader survey, put it in the mag AND online and link to it on forums so boxing fans who don't read can say why, and also contact any lapsed subscriber
from the last 2 years. Then the target market are reached plus you get far more of a consensus view.

One thing I will say is, the front cover this week was very clever.

English Wizard wrote:Trish Dixon is too self obsessed, big picture of himself and more and more giving his views on ringside, I mean what does he know ? he has never fought iin his life, sat alongside former world champions...

Don't know who Trish Dixon is but Tris Dixon has fought. At least be accurate if you're going to make irrelevant comments.

I immediately ignore anyone who's sole premise of criticism is "but he never fought".

Being a fighter proves someone has bollacks the size of space-hoppers. A good judge, scorer, trainer, manager, predictor, observer or other, it doesn't necessarily make.

Maradona wasn't much of a manager.

Wenger wasn't much of a player.

DavidPayne wrote:I immediately ignore anyone who's sole premise of criticism is "but he never fought".

Being a fighter proves someone has bollacks the size of space-hoppers. A good judge, scorer, trainer, manager, predictor, observer or other, it doesn't necessarily make.

Maradona wasn't much of a manager.

Wenger wasn't much of a player.

Nor Mourinho

dbflex wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:I immediately ignore anyone who's sole premise of criticism is "but he never fought".

Being a fighter proves someone has bollacks the size of space-hoppers. A good judge, scorer, trainer, manager, predictor, observer or other, it doesn't necessarily make.

Maradona wasn't much of a manager.

Wenger wasn't much of a player.

Nor Mourinho

Nor Yank Durham, and countless others.

On another note, Boxing News seriously needs to update its Ranking lists on its website - some of them are ridiculously out of date. If you are going to put them on your website, they need to be right.

Otherwise, Boxing News' No.1 fan Jon Saxon might start to bleat about Kell Brook still being British Welterweight Champion, or some such bollocks.

Dan Dares wrote:On another note, Boxing News seriously needs to update its Ranking lists on its website - some of them are ridiculously out of date. If you are going to put them on your website, they need to be right.

Otherwise, Boxing News' No.1 fan Jon Saxon might start to bleat about Kell Brook still being British Welterweight Champion, or some such bollocks.

Oi Dan Douche, If you aint Boxing New's Number one fan you aint a real boxing fan.

PS You love it...say you love it D

Dan Dares wrote:On another note, Boxing News seriously needs to update its Ranking lists on its website - some of them are ridiculously out of date. If you are going to put them on your website, they need to be right.

Otherwise, Boxing News' No.1 fan Jon Saxon might start to bleat about Kell Brook still being British Welterweight Champion, or some such bollocks.

They tend to get updated when they are printed in the mag but I'll have a word

Ketchel wrote:I like the new format however I think the fight previews could be improved considerably. I have always looked forward to reading the previews but recently the quality has dipped. Claude Abrams used to give a thoroughly detailed breakdown of both fighters before giving his verdict which usually was how the fight would eventually pan out.

Claude success rate was great, but he picked the favourites without fail. It would have been more impressive if even occasionally he'd go for an underdog.