BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

bennie wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:Come on Bennie, you may not rate him, you may hark back to the halcyon days of Mullan and all - don't we all - but cut the lad some slack, part of the reason fresh blood was brought in was to develop web presence for the brand and the mag. They've not sold out by going 100% on line, they've tried to build a younger audience via the net, social sites all that. Granted its not to everyone taste but they have a commitment to keep the BoxingNews relevant for another 100 years, and to do that they need to position it to sensibly reach a wider, crucially younger, audience.

At times this has meant crossing boundaries laid down by history and those who went before them, only time will tell whether it was the right path but dbflex is just trying to play the hand he's been dealt and while he's not as seasoned, knowledgeable or skilled as his predeccesors, he's earnest, keen and trying hard.

He's also shown a maturity in dealing with all the bitterness sent his way.

And the boxing world is different now, promoters are not dependent on the Boxing News to get their message to fans. The advent of the net weakens the hand of the BN editor and the it could be argued the hardball stance taken by HM in the past would be hard to replicate now. After all, how relevant would the BN be if they were not ringside or couldn't access 30% of the top line fighters?

I'm just saddened, David, that a once great magazine, that advertised itself, that used to care for its readers, that is approaching its centenary, now has to be repeatedly 'plugged' like this.

This from a man who has been writing off Boxing News for the last 25 years. You're right to some extent, the mag is finished. The typos, the errors (so Roman Greenberg can challenge for a British title can he?), the Nat Loubet of editors, the 'fans' in there who think they can write...
It never ends.

PS: doctorboxing, I have better things to do than expose the typos and mistakes in every week's issue of BN because I don't buy comics and I haven't got the stomach. Others mention the obvious mistakes, mostly Tony's sub-editor mates who used to admire the mag, too, and still buy it for a bit of training, no doubt. They have an eye for crap.

first the lads at the BBN now BN who next Bennie you sour little man.

J wrote:first the lads at the BBN now BN who next Bennie you sour little man.

That's the boxing game. Haven't you learned that yet?

good reply.

I guess, its part of the reason I dont write anymore yeah, well that getting married, kids and moving countries

Well that and I was crap. DD

J wrote:good reply.

I guess, its part of the reason I dont write anymore yeah, well that getting married, kids and moving countries

Well that and I was crap. DD

You were good. Boxing, sadly, is a rat-infested sport where the nastier you are the more you succeed. Look at Mickey Duff! He never even spoke to his own father.

bennie wrote:

J wrote:good reply.

I guess, its part of the reason I dont write anymore yeah, well that getting married, kids and moving countries

Well that and I was crap. DD

You were good. Boxing, sadly, is a rat-infested sport where the nastier you are the more you succeed. Look at Mickey Duff! He never even spoke to his own father.

Def the most true thing you have said all day

yup on that we agree .

Can't see what Duff's relationship with his Dad has to do with boxing but hey ho.

Coco wrote:

bennie wrote:

J wrote:good reply.

I guess, its part of the reason I dont write anymore yeah, well that getting married, kids and moving countries

Well that and I was crap. DD

You were good. Boxing, sadly, is a rat-infested sport where the nastier you are the more you succeed. Look at Mickey Duff! He never even spoke to his own father.

Def the most true thing you have said all day

Ta. As you will know, the big promoters are only in it to make money. They are pure businessmen. They don't care about their employees, who come and go, their dreams shattered, their bodies often broken. The promoters simply turn to much younger stock, to more money. I had to laugh at Barry Hearn's comment when Dear old Frank Bruno signed for Terry Lawless again after the first Tyson fight (instead of Hearn, who was close to a deal with the out-of-contract Bruno in the days when Matchroom played a much bigger part in promoting). Hearn, usually so jolly and jovial, labelled Frank "thick as two short planks." Money, you see.

DavidPayne wrote:Can't see what Duff's relationship with his Dad has to do with boxing but hey ho.

If you don't get on with your own family, what chance does the man in the street have? Duff's book (now pulped, courtesy of Barney Eastwood) is rather revealing of the man's nature. Anyone who stood up to him (Frank, Eddie Thomas, Jim Wicks, etc, is a bad guy in Duff's eyes) and anyone he has in his pocket is also a bad guy. He despises everyone.

bennie wrote:Ta. As you will know, the big promoters are only in it to make money. They are pure businessmen. They don't care about their employees, who come and go, their dreams shattered, their bodies often broken. The promoters simply turn to much younger stock, to more money. I had to laugh at Barry Hearn's comment when Dear old Frank Bruno signed for Terry Lawless again after the first Tyson fight (instead of Hearn, who was close to a deal with the out-of-contract Bruno in the days when Matchroom played a much bigger part in promoting). Hearn, usually so jolly and jovial, labelled Frank "thick as two short planks." Money, you see.

Anyone think Bennie sounds like the grandad off the Werthers ad? In fact I can almost hear the music from the ad playing in the background everytime I read one of his posts.

fatton wrote:

bennie wrote:Ta. As you will know, the big promoters are only in it to make money. They are pure businessmen. They don't care about their employees, who come and go, their dreams shattered, their bodies often broken. The promoters simply turn to much younger stock, to more money. I had to laugh at Barry Hearn's comment when Dear old Frank Bruno signed for Terry Lawless again after the first Tyson fight (instead of Hearn, who was close to a deal with the out-of-contract Bruno in the days when Matchroom played a much bigger part in promoting). Hearn, usually so jolly and jovial, labelled Frank "thick as two short planks." Money, you see.

Anyone think Bennie sounds like the grandad off the Werthers ad? In fact I can almost hear the music from the ad playing in the background everytime I read one of his posts.

It is usually Hovis.

bennie wrote:

fatton wrote:

bennie wrote:Ta. As you will know, the big promoters are only in it to make money. They are pure businessmen. They don't care about their employees, who come and go, their dreams shattered, their bodies often broken. The promoters simply turn to much younger stock, to more money. I had to laugh at Barry Hearn's comment when Dear old Frank Bruno signed for Terry Lawless again after the first Tyson fight (instead of Hearn, who was close to a deal with the out-of-contract Bruno in the days when Matchroom played a much bigger part in promoting). Hearn, usually so jolly and jovial, labelled Frank "thick as two short planks." Money, you see.

Anyone think Bennie sounds like the grandad off the Werthers ad? In fact I can almost hear the music from the ad playing in the background everytime I read one of his posts.

It is usually Hovis.

Maybe that's the one.

bennie wrote: PS: doctorboxing, I have better things to do than expose the typos and mistakes in every week's issue of BN because I don't buy comics and I haven't got the stomach. Others mention the obvious mistakes, mostly Tony's sub-editor mates who used to admire the mag, too, and still buy it for a bit of training, no doubt. They have an eye for crap.

Fair enough and I agree there are plenty of mistakes in the mag some weeks, which would bother some people more than others.

I don't however think there is any problem posting a link to an online only interview that many boxing fans would be interested in.

100% agree with the unsavoury characters doing well in the sport, although I don't see Claude Abrams et al as being part of that group.

doctorboxing wrote:

bennie wrote: PS: doctorboxing, I have better things to do than expose the typos and mistakes in every week's issue of BN because I don't buy comics and I haven't got the stomach. Others mention the obvious mistakes, mostly Tony's sub-editor mates who used to admire the mag, too, and still buy it for a bit of training, no doubt. They have an eye for crap.

Fair enough and I agree there are plenty of mistakes in the mag some weeks, which would bother some people more than others.

I don't however think there is any problem posting a link to an online only interview that many boxing fans would be interested in.

100% agree with the unsavoury characters doing well in the sport, although I don't see Claude Abrams et al as being part of that group.

Jesus, doctor, don't get me started on his symptoms!

Proof reading is a dying art across the industry, it's certainly not just BN

Lenny wrote:Proof reading is a dying art across the industry, it's certainly not just BN

You are so right, and not just subbing. They are even making journalists snap their own photos now, as opposed to trained newspaper photographers. The difference in the quality of regional newspapers is there for all to see.

bennie wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

bennie wrote: PS: doctorboxing, I have better things to do than expose the typos and mistakes in every week's issue of BN because I don't buy comics and I haven't got the stomach. Others mention the obvious mistakes, mostly Tony's sub-editor mates who used to admire the mag, too, and still buy it for a bit of training, no doubt. They have an eye for crap.

Fair enough and I agree there are plenty of mistakes in the mag some weeks, which would bother some people more than others.

I don't however think there is any problem posting a link to an online only interview that many boxing fans would be interested in.

100% agree with the unsavoury characters doing well in the sport, although I don't see Claude Abrams et al as being part of that group.

Jesus, doctor, don't get me started on his symptoms!

I added that bit at the end just to see if you would bite, I have seen your previous posts and I know you aren't his biggest fan

I know nothing about him to be honest, so I couldn't comment on him at all.

There is nothing to know. He does not speak, he does not smile... To sit next to him on a TransAtlantic flight would be something out of Quatermass and the Pit.

bennie wrote:There is nothing to know. He does not speak, he does not smile... To sit next to him on a TransAtlantic flight would be something out of Quatermass and the Pit.

He does know his boxing though

bennie wrote:

Lenny wrote:. They are even making journalists snap their own photos now, as opposed to trained newspaper photographers. .

I am a videoman, yet I take pics for Boxing news, are they ok?

dbflex wrote:http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/BN08/detail.asp?id=1145

Hornchurch's forgotten man tips MBaye to beat McCloskey and tells Flex about his own future.

All feedback appreciated.

I'll give you this feedback - don't refer to yourself in the third person as you do in this quote or you risk ridicule.

bennie wrote:I'm just saddened, David, that a once great magazine, that advertised itself, that used to care for its readers, that is approaching its centenary, now has to be repeatedly 'plugged' like this.

[/quote]

This from a man who has been writing off Boxing News for the last 25 years. You're right to some extent, the mag is finished. The typos, the errors (so Roman Greenberg can challenge for a British title can he?), the Nat Loubet of editors, the 'fans' in there who think they can write...
It never ends.

PS: doctorboxing, I have better things to do than expose the typos and mistakes in every week's issue of BN because I don't buy comics and I haven't got the stomach. Others mention the obvious mistakes, mostly Tony's sub-editor mates who used to admire the mag, too, and still buy it for a bit of training, no doubt. They have an eye for crap.[/quote]

Bennie, my roll of the eyes is because while I share some of your thoughts re. Boxing News, particuarly in relation to the editor, I think you're letting yourself down by being perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be sticking the knife into a young guy who's clearly doing his best for a title he feels passionately about. He's showing initiative in terms of trying to use digital mediums to spread the word and in his own way, he obviously loves the magazine as much as you did when in was under different stewardship.
As for a mag selling itself, the reality is that the mag has to be 'plugged' or marketed to ensure its survival in increasingly competitive and challenging times. I can barely think of a single title in the world now that can claim to 'advertise itself', bar the likes of Private Eye. And the fact that Danny (who I don't know at all) is going above and beyond his remit in a bid to do so can only be applauded from where I'm sitting.
I suspect I'm not alone in just wishing you'd let go of the most vitriolic elements of your BN obsession as the irony is that when you're not on your BN vendetta you add so much value to this forum with your insights and consequently you've always been one of its most respected posters.

Deserter wrote:I think you're letting yourself down by being perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be sticking the knife into a young guy who's clearly doing his best for a title he feels passionately about. He's showing initiative in terms of trying to use digital mediums to spread the word and in his own way, he obviously loves the magazine as much as you did when in was under different stewardship.
As for a mag selling itself, the reality is that the mag has to be 'plugged' or marketed to ensure its survival in increasingly competitive and challenging times. I can barely think of a single title in the world now that can claim to 'advertise itself', bar the likes of Private Eye. And the fact that Danny (who I don't know at all) is going above and beyond his remit in a bid to do so can only be applauded from where I'm sitting.
I suspect I'm not alone in just wishing you'd let go of the most vitriolic elements of your BN obsession as the irony is that when you're not on your BN vendetta you add so much value to this forum with your insights and consequently you've always been one of its most respected posters.

x2

Great post.

Flex (or anybody)

So is Olusugun now eligable to fight for the British title or not.... if yes, take note Horse.