BoxRec

stujones wrote:You don't think the editors have any idea what will sell papers??? You don't think editors tell the journos where to go?

If there is a footie/rugby game clashing with a boxing match....... the editor will tell them to go to the footie - simple as.

Please!!!!!!!

Old old excuse - I am not stating boxing should replace football or rugby!!!

In addition to turn this a tadge perhaps if TV demanded a little more in regards to "quality control" - then the journalists would be given an ideal excuse to cover a show!!!

Spud wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Spud wrote:With regards to your comments concerning Mr W arren - I am stunned you have yet again bent over to take one up your rather fat ar*e from the internet "bullies" in that you feel compelled to fall into line with the slatings Mr W arren gets on here - he is this countries and Europe's leading promoter by a country mile

But I've lost count of the number of times over the years that you've slated W arren Spud... can't help but feel there's a lot of hypocrisy in your statement.

Absolutely!!!

Never say never in boxing - I am now stating Mr W arren is fabulous!!!

Its not an excuse though.... why should journo's need "excuses" to report on a show. Yes, they can have an imput - but ultimately they are essentially the workers for the editor.

That also means that even if they work 24 hours a day and go to shows of their own back - then it might not get accepted.

You say you're not expecting boxing to over take Football...... what sports do you think it should replace? You joked "fishing" and "tiddlywinks"..... Aside from Football, Rugby, Cricket the Horses and special events (like Summer, Winter Olympics) - boxing gets more coverage than the rest.

Yep your right about the quality of the boxing...... but as I said, Hatton promotions are showing fantastic bills (domestic level), its the Chisora's vs Bakers of this world being labelled two of Britains best heavies is the problem.

Spud wrote: Mr Deserter!!!

Lets deal with the journalist issue - I have always argued if a journalist decides to write something then all he needs to do is get approval for the article from his Editor. It is the publications like newspapers which create public interest - the public do not necessarily always demand certain types of article their interest is generated or fuelled by the journalist writing the article in the first place - thus why cant the journalist do that for boxing???

I will state again - its the newspaper that creates the interest in the first place - that is why promoters fall over themselves to court favour with the journalists to write nice things about them and to continue to write about their fighters in their paper. If I am wrong why do journalist continually get invited to posh lunches and posh meals the night before a major championship fight?

A very simplistic argument - but a very true one!!!

But the big problem Spud is that you're overlooking two fundamental facts:
1) Any newspaper has finite space, not unlimited space. So, if you've got six pages of sport to fill, for example, you need to feature the things that matter most to your target audience and to feature as many of them as possible. This inevitably means some things get left out or reduced in size, because they aren't considered as important or as popular.
2) In relation to the above, every single niche interest person is lobbying on behalf of own chosen sport or pastime, whether it's football or fishing, athletics or bowls.

Newspapers are also smaller in pagination due to the declines in advertising revenues, so there is less space to play with.

Wow, almost a whole thread of Spud talking about himself

Lenny & BigMark,

There you go again - rather predictable, boring and juvenille posts from the both of you in the desperate attempt to "fit in". If you do not like the thread - why the need to contribute to it?

A number of topics have cropped up in this particular thread and you have both failed to contribute to anything other than come out with sh*t.

TV
Jorunalists
Show in Sheffield
Liam Cameron

Do you have anything to mention about the above 4 subjects or is it simply a FACT you would rather be in the "Internet Bullies" Club ??

Spud wrote: Do you have anything to mention about the above 4 subjects or is it simply a FACT you would rather be in the "Internet Bullies" Club ??

Internet Bullies Club! hahahahaha!

I would love to see the membership requirements for that club!

I have shit myself laughing at that one spud!

Deserter wrote:

Spud wrote: Mr Deserter!!!

Lets deal with the journalist issue - I have always argued if a journalist decides to write something then all he needs to do is get approval for the article from his Editor. It is the publications like newspapers which create public interest - the public do not necessarily always demand certain types of article their interest is generated or fuelled by the journalist writing the article in the first place - thus why cant the journalist do that for boxing???

I will state again - its the newspaper that creates the interest in the first place - that is why promoters fall over themselves to court favour with the journalists to write nice things about them and to continue to write about their fighters in their paper. If I am wrong why do journalist continually get invited to posh lunches and posh meals the night before a major championship fight?

A very simplistic argument - but a very true one!!!

But the big problem Spud is that you're overlooking two fundamental facts:
1) Any newspaper has finite space, not unlimited space. So, if you've got six pages of sport to fill, for example, you need to feature the things that matter most to your target audience and to feature as many of them as possible. This inevitably means some things get left out or reduced in size, because they aren't considered as important or as popular.
2) In relation to the above, every single niche interest person is lobbying on behalf of own chosen sport or pastime, whether it's football or fishing, athletics or bowls.

Newspapers are also smaller in pagination due to the declines in advertising revenues, so there is less space to play with.

Mr Deserter,

Very aware of the above - however it is you who is missing my point - perhaps I am not making it clear enough - my honest opinion is - most of the time it is papers and journalists who create the "public interest" in the first place - they print a story and the public either latch onto it and thus the journo or paper print more about it.

To put a boxing theme on this - it is a promoters job to enhance his fighters reputation by feeding his name to the local rags, posters etc etc - it is seeing photos and articles in those local papers which gets "Joe Public" talking about a particular fighter.

Steve Lillis and Steve Bunce manage to get their articles into the "Sundays" so why cant more be done ??

Frank W arren seems to get his weekly article in and Colin Hart seems to get his weekly in to - are you saying those articles are top quality and generate a lot of interest?

Too be honest, I think we should be quite greatful for 4 regular articles/pages in weekly's. Not many other sports get that. Especially with the lacklusture bills........ and its not all the boxing/promoters fault. Sky feels "lacklusture" when it comes to their presentation, the leisure centres are not filling. As I repeatedly say, Hatton's promotions have brought some very exciting bills - but Sky's hyping of them has been crap, and its not just Hatton promotions - Cook vs Daws was intriguing as has Rendall Munroe's story.

Things are not that much different to the glory days...... not domestically anyway. Well I know older generation would mention the glory days as the 60's.... but we also talk about the Early 90's as a glory days. How much space would British nationals to say.... Gary Mason, owner of the Lonsdale belt in that period - not much, and all of it was relating to "star" names - like Tyson and Bruno. How much was given to Gary Jacobs at that time, I would argue even less than has been given to his 2010 counterpart - Kell Brook.

Its individual fighters that editors think the British public is interested. Hatton vs Khan would make front and back pages - Haye vs Harrison would be the same. Just like in the glory days - Ian Botham would attract more media attention than 99% of our boxers during this period, but - stories about Bruno and Tyson would be picked over Botham..... why, cause they were stars - why don't we have the stars now....... cause we don't have it on terrestial TV, and I aint talking just about British stars. Who was the most talked about Boxer of that generation in the UK..... Mike Tyson. Why? Cause he was exciting but he was also shown on ITV and hyped on the channel. I mean, Leonard vs Hagler (a delayed) showing was the front cover of the TV times... that means it was the most talked about TV programme in the UK for the week. Could Pacquiao vs Mayweather reach the same hype? probably a bit too late cause Terrestial TV has missed their previous fights, but I think the potential was there.

So I actually think in relation to the TV coverage... Boxing is doing well in the press.

I think i got lost some where??

So did Dennis Tell Spud to fornicate off and did someone take over the whip duties?

I read that then it disolves into something else entirely.

stujones wrote:Too be honest, I think we should be quite greatful for 4 regular articles/pages in weekly's. Not many other sports get that. Especially with the lacklusture bills........ and its not all the boxing/promoters fault. Sky feels "lacklusture" when it comes to their presentation, the leisure centres are not filling. As I repeatedly say, Hatton's promotions have brought some very exciting bills - but Sky's hyping of them has been crap, and its not just Hatton promotions - Cook vs Daws was intriguing as has Rendall Munroe's story.

Things are not that much different to the glory days...... not domestically anyway. Well I know older generation would mention the glory days as the 60's.... but we also talk about the Early 90's as a glory days. How much space would British nationals to say.... Gary Mason, owner of the Lonsdale belt in that period - not much, and all of it was relating to "star" names - like Tyson and Bruno. How much was given to Gary Jacobs at that time, I would argue even less than has been given to his 2010 counterpart - Kell Brook.

Its individual fighters that editors think the British public is interested. Hatton vs Khan would make front and back pages - Haye vs Harrison would be the same. Just like in the glory days - Ian Botham would attract more media attention than 99% of our boxers during this period, but - stories about Bruno and Tyson would be picked over Botham..... why, cause they were stars - why don't we have the stars now....... cause we don't have it on terrestial TV, and I aint talking just about British stars. Who was the most talked about Boxer of that generation in the UK..... Mike Tyson. Why? Cause he was exciting but he was also shown on ITV and hyped on the channel. I mean, Leonard vs Hagler (a delayed) showing was the front cover of the TV times... that means it was the most talked about TV programme in the UK for the week. Could Pacquiao vs Mayweather reach the same hype? probably a bit too late cause Terrestial TV has missed their previous fights, but I think the potential was there.

So I actually think in relation to the TV coverage... Boxing is doing well in the press.

Good points Stu and a good post. Boxing works on many levels but it could be put into two categories for me.

At the top are the elite fighters and fights. Look at the coverage Haye/ Valuev got in the UK and Globally. The fight and build up dominated front and back pages alike.

Then there is everything else as far as the media is concerned.

Problem is boxing fans know and understand that fighters such as Froch are better than 'everything else' and should be treated as such with more media coverage and recognition than most others.

At the end of the day boxing is more business than sport in my opinion, but that is another debate/ discussion.

Nice report Ian btw, good little venue the City hall ballroom.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/cannonball-run-iii

A report for those interested in the boxing rather than that ballacks.

Good stuff Ian - I enjoyed that report

thanks for all coments i been in with some good tough fighters,about the power side every oponent i hit cleen after that they have just gone into a shell so in the gym be workin on gettin there hands down i will be fightin on the skysports 23rd april randell munroe bill lookin forward to it.its all learning for me and gettin use to the pro game

mccauley last fight boxed someone who had 11,won11 he lost to him by 1point then he beat broc cotto who had 5won5

stujones wrote:Okay, Lawton got smashed - but look how many people tipped him to win (including Boxing News).

Did they? Have only had the occasional copy over the last few months. Blimey.

Deserter - Do you think football is in imminent danger of some sort of self-destructive overload in terms of coverage?

I used to absolutely love the sport but I'm pretty ambivalent these days. The saturation point tipped for me a long time ago.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

stujones wrote:Okay, Lawton got smashed - but look how many people tipped him to win (including Boxing News).

Did they? Have only had the occasional copy over the last few months. Blimey.

Yeah,Boxrec's dbflex had him to win on points

mickey1975 wrote:
Did they? Have only had the occasional copy over the last few months. Blimey.

Yeah,Boxrec's dbflex had him to win on points[/quote]

hahaha. the phrase 'consider the source' comes to mind

Counter-puncher wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:
Did they? Have only had the occasional copy over the last few months. Blimey.

Yeah,Boxrec's dbflex had him to win on points

hahaha. the phrase 'consider the source' comes to mind [/quote]

Not quite as bad as his McIntyre to beat Brook on points (KO1 Brook). We all get it wrong sometimes though.

oh, we do indeed. unpredictability is definitely one of the good points of boxing for me

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Deserter - Do you think football is in imminent danger of some sort of self-destructive overload in terms of coverage?

I used to absolutely love the sport but I'm pretty ambivalent these days. The saturation point tipped for me a long time ago.

God yes, front page headlines about who they are sleeping with, page after page in the back page of made up transfer gossip revolving around the same 4 or 5 players and whether Chelsea/Man City will buy them, Sky hyping every weekends coverage like it's the biggest game of all time, the players themselves having no likable features/personality, celebrity managers, celebrity chairmen, sky high ticket prices, divers, whingers

I could go on for the rest of the day...

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Deserter - Do you think football is in imminent danger of some sort of self-destructive overload in terms of coverage?

I used to absolutely love the sport but I'm pretty ambivalent these days. The saturation point tipped for me a long time ago.

The sport itself is in danger of self destructive overland in my opinion, Ian.

All the premiership and most of the first division are operating on a false economy with TV money - all that has to happen is for Sky to go bust or for Rupert Murdoch to go - you know what - sod it - I am pulling out - and there is a load of clubs going to go bust.

I remember the times when an English team signed a 'quality foreigner' It was always some over the hill Dane or Dutchman, who remembers the Brazilian international Miradihna signing for Newcastle? It was so rare for an English club to sign foreign talent of that calibre that it made front page news everywhere.

Traditionally - English clubs could never compete with moneybags teams from Spain, Italy and to a lesser degree Germany but now they can - if it goes horribly wrong then it a lot of teams are going to be wiped off the face of sport.

As for football, I am sick of it also, mind you - boxing is not that far behind either - I am getting pretty pissed off with that also.

I agree with all of that, Carlos.

Most successful club in Britain? Manchester United.

Most debt-ridden club in Britain, if not the world? Manchester United.

Economics of the mad house. I'd love to see it all implode so we could all start again, jumpers for goalposts, etc.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I agree with all of that, Carlos.

Most successful club in Britain? Manchester United.

Most debt-ridden club in Britain, if not the world? Manchester United.

Economics of the mad house. I'd love to see it all implode so we could all start again, jumpers for goalposts, etc.

Yay! Somebody who agrees with my viewpoint

MachoMan09 wrote:Are the kids at school still as mad for football as back in the day, Ian?

I've taught in a girls' school for the past five years but some of them are mad keen.

It's about playing...kids will miss a game for the team they support any time if it means them having a kickabout themselves.

MachoMan09 wrote:
I just worry about the games consoles keeping the kids indoors rather than going out for a game of footy or whatever.

You're right to be worried - but there are other more important factors:

- parents not letting kids out from fear
- schools and councils selling off parks and playing fields
- volunteer groups being shut by red tape

Then politicians wonder why there are so many fat, lazy little bastards about.

A load of kids come to school knackered these days...none of them want to be out of the loop with each other so they're texting each other in the wee small hours, etc.