Boxing monthly piece on this forum

[Spud]

Lillis and myself are perfectly aware that some posters believe some posters are someone or other, but without proof what can you write? Remember, a magazine is not the internet and rumours that cannot be stood up are treated differently in journalism. Without question, we can be sued for the sort of allegations that you are at liberty to make on here risk free, if John Shep's reading of the situation is correct. Anonymity is a luxury that you can enjoy whereas we put our names to things and so leave ourselves open to accountability. Our choice, your choice, but you can't judge us by the same rules you choose to operate under. It isn't realistic.

I am very aware how difficult it is with the so called phrase freedom of speech - whether it be a magazine, paper, or articles on the various sites - however it only seems to be in boxing where peoples "spines" are tested when the threat of legal action comes through the letter box - and whats more its got f*ck all to do with anominity of the offending poster as it seems time and time again the owner of the website gets threaten with closure if a grovelling apology is not printed.

I have seen legal letters and the pathetic complaints - I even saw one complaining about the speculation on a forum concerning a high profile boxer's future opponents!!! - how come newspapers dont get taken to court when the various tabloids start speculating on players being transferred here and there???

I honestly thought the threat of legal actions had quietened down from the heights it was when the forums etc etc first got really popular - I find it utterly staggering how so many people in boxing are bullies when boxing forums are concerned - its a sport where you would think the various people in it can take a few knocks here and there.

As for Lillis and yourself Glynn - and as a point many many other journalists who write on the sport - I also find it staggering how you find it so easy to criticise certain promoters shows and its fighters and yet a certain other promoter is still and in my opinion is virtually void of any criticism whatsoever!!! - I am not on about slaggings here - I am on about minor criticisms of shows or of a fight!!!

[Glyn Leach]

Nothing to do with spines and what you seem to imply is lack of such Spud. Everything to do with not wanting to waste hard earned money on fighting the kind of stupid actions that you correctly indentify. Why would anyone choose to do that? Why would anyone invite such wank into their lives? I certainly cannot find a reason enough to satisfy me. Perhaps you have different expectations of journalists, but I am not here to fight your battles. If you have issues with certain people, get stuck in mate. That's what I do when I have issues. And I think if you were to look at my track record I have made my displeasure clear irrespective of who might be concerned, this isn't a problem for me. If you, for your own reasons, take issue with actions or events, that is your prerogative. But it would be unrealistic of you to expect me, a journalist, to have the same issues as someone who works within the sport. I represent me, no one else.

[iamasadlittleboy]

Is the threat of losing passes to certain promoters a reason why some promoters get off lightly for a crap show?

[Spud]

Nothing to do with spines and what you seem to imply is lack of such Spud. Everything to do with not wanting to waste hard earned money on fighting the kind of stupid actions that you correctly indentify. Why would anyone choose to do that? Why would anyone invite such wank into their lives? I certainly cannot find a reason enough to satisfy me. Perhaps you have different expectations of journalists, but I am not here to fight your battles. If you have issues with certain people, get stuck in mate. That's what I do when I have issues. And I think if you were to look at my track record I have made my displeasure clear irrespective of who might be concerned, this isn't a problem for me. If you, for your own reasons, take issue with actions or events, that is your prerogative. But it would be unrealistic of you to expect me, a journalist, to have the same issues as someone who works within the sport. I represent me, no one else.

Glyn,

I find your post a rather strange response - I do not get anyone nor want anyone to fight my own battles concerning my forthright opinions on the sport or individuals or fights within it - time and time again over the years I have had either the balls or stupidity to express those opinions and whats more everyone knows my screen-name, its the same name I have used during the time I have worked within the sport - as such I dont get anyone to express what are my opinions.

With regards to criticisms concerning a certain promoter, his shows, his fights, or his fighters - time and time again "journalists" seem reluctant to make a fair assessment of the topic in hand whether it be a fight or a particular fighter - you say its "unrealistic" to have the same issues - you maybe correct on that - however as a paying customer of your excellent magazine I would expect to see "impartial" comment throughout and as such if a fight is bad or a fighter is not as good as the promoter is hyping him then the reports/articles should reflect that - saying that I think your magazine is absolutely excellent - but if its true concerning the drop in sales of Boxing Monthly and Boxing News - could that be because that on places like this - you get more of an honest report on a fight and a more reflective discussion on the forums??

Glyn - nobody absolutely nobody - would want you to fight legal actions that are un-necessary - I will state again your magazine is excellent on the whole except in my opinion where criticisms or honest comment is due concerning a particular promoter or his fighters - I dont just make that comment in your direction it seems it is justified concerning most reporting on boxing where-ever you read it - however it seems boxrec have adopted a more forthright approach in its reporting of fights and topics the lads right on.

[TheCobra]

All I have to say on this article in Boxing Monthly is: Welcome to 2010 guys.

You see, a few years ago, something called 'the internet' came out and now there are forums for just about everything under the sun, where everyday joes can spout their opinions, rumours, bullshits, truths. That is the pleasure and the pain of the internet, anyone can write anything, same with footballers, cricketers, celebrities.

The only difference I see here is that boxing is quite an insular little world, with people like Warren traditionally having been able to throw his weight round and taking a heavy handed approach to shut people up. I will say it again, welcome to the internet, the old ways are for the dinosaurs. Evolve or die.

Might I add, I do really enjoy Boxing Monthly (close seond to Boxing News in my eyes), it's a cracking read, but really, criticising online forums is pointless. They exist, they have now existed for years and people chat bollocks, it can't be helped. The joy of being any sort of 'celebrity' or public figure in this internet age is that people are going to talk about you. The only people 'under threat' here would appear to be those people who have something to hide.

Look at guys like warmachine who come on here and make intelligent posts and I for one now follow Larry's fights much more closely for having read his posts on here and for respsecting how he comes across and what he writes. The internet in 2010 is abut people, expressing their opinion to their friends and social group. Look at facebook. You can't stop people having an opinion. The best thing you can do is what Maloney does, come on here and put your side across, people will always respect and appreciate that.

[orbtastic]

Internet message boards have been around for at least 15 years, what's the big deal?

[Glyn Leach]

Spud - fair play mate, I do understand what you are saying, believe me — you know you're stuff and you're painting a pretty accurate picture. However, as regards magazine sales (and I can't speak for BN here, obviously), there's been no drop to speak of, indeed last year's sales of BM were the best for five years and as I've stated before on here, we were one of the few magazines of any kind (as in all magazines, not just boxing) to actually show an increase in sales, very marginal though it was, last year. Also we've got more subscribers than at any point in the magazine's history. Over the past few months we've had a slight dip, but that's always the case over a summer when England are in a World Cup or European Championships final — as we all know, boxing pretty much shuts down for a few months because football dominates the TV schedules. But this is nothing new, we're used to it. However, it would help if someone would stage a few big fights, obviously — any magazine needs a selling point. To be honest I don't think the internet has hurt us. Indeed, I view it as a plus because it creates more knowledgeable boxing fans, which can only be a good thing.

And little boy — no mate, press passes aren't a concern. If we didn't get them, we'd either cover the shows from TV or not cover them at all — you'd be surprised how much people like to see their names in print and how upset they get when you stop doing it.

[Poncey]

Lillis and myself are perfectly aware that some posters believe some posters are someone or other, but without proof what can you write?

If he wanted proof Glyn, Steve could've asked me. I would happily provide the facts. Something to bear in mind in future.

[Glyn Leach]

Appreciated Poncey

[Glyn Leach]

As a matter of interest regarding the boxrec piece in BM, Lillis has forwarded me an email from John Shep, the site's owner, saying "Cheers Steve, good article :)". Can't have been that bad then.

[T.M.K]

Mr Spud,

may I make a suggestion? I have no hidden agenda or meaning here and I don't wish to argue, but for some of us who only briefly follow(ed) your various angst of the past, I am not sure who you are referring to half the time. Surely it is not so bad that you cannot refer to Mr Warren, Mr Maloney etc? Often is not the point you make, but how you make it, as I am sure you are more than aware - and two people can basically say the same thing: one will get action taken, one will not.

As for BM, one thing which should be very clear if you read the Editorial comment at the front of each issue, is that a spade gets called a spade. We have all seen Glyn absolutely castrate Sky, the BBBofC, boxers and promoters for making huge blunders - but true to form, the very same person/people/company can get very highly praised in following issues if they do something good, or correct previous failings. No matter your opinion of Glyn or BM, I find it strange that ANYONE could accuse him, or the production, of shying away.

As I say, all written in kindness and with a smile - I don't care enough to argue :)

Colin "T.M.K" Harris

[dondada]

As a matter of interest regarding the boxrec piece in BM, Lillis has forwarded me an email from John Shep, the site's owner, saying "Cheers Steve, good article :)". Can't have been that bad then.

Aye, John's so laidback the bastard's horizontal half the time.

He keeps telling me I shouldn't rage against the machine

[Adamj1987]

they should of done a best of peice on posters - i dont mean a stupid quote like "your mum" or whatever but an actual smart and well thought out post which there are plenty of on here to show that we are not all nuthugging idiots

[Glyn Leach]

Erm, who outside the posters do you think would have been interested in that adam? The site and the legal situation was the story, not the every day comings and goings. That's only of interest to those who regularly use the site.

[Adamj1987]

Erm, who outside the posters do you think would have been interested in that adam? The site and the legal situation was the story, not the every day comings and goings. That's only of interest to those who regularly use the site.

people who dont know about the site until they read that article

[Glyn Leach]

The article said there were some good posters, that covered that. To have gone into individual posts and posters would not have been in keeping with the theme of the article, which was specific to one aspect concerning the site, and in my opinion would not have been of interest to anyone outside of the posters.

[Deserter]

The article said there were some good posters, that covered that. To have gone into individual posts and posters would not have been in keeping with the theme of the article, which was specific to one aspect concerning the site, and in my opinion would not have been of interest to anyone outside of the posters.

I think you're probably right Glyn, but I think as a separate piece it would be interesting to get a 'snapshot' of who comprises boxing's current fanbase, as there are always fascinating back-stories in any sport, and fans can play a part there, just in the same way officials and managers can. For example, on this forum alone you've got everyone from an Oxbridge-educated partner in a US law firm (Loynesy) through to a teacher in South Korea (Carlos), as well as ex-boxers like Coco and young teenage amateur boxers like Alex Paterson.
Those types of human interest stories are potentially engaging to anyone, regardless of whether they're an active participant on the forum or not.
As a related aside, the forum is an incredible 'melting pot' and a really healthy democratic 'talking shop' in many respects once you get past the odd 'troll' - just about everyone has the right to an opinion regardless of age, nationality, colour etc, and in most cases everyone's opinion is given equal weight.
PS. Apologies if I've inadvertently misrepresented anyone's background

[Glyn Leach]

Agreed Deserter, there's definitely room for a piece on the makeup of a boxing forum. As you say, the cross section of users is interesting and I'm positive that there's a tale behind every poster. A good idea mate.

[orbtastic]

"keboard warrior of the month"

[gasman]

"keboard warrior of the month"

Bad idea - that would only encourage more attention whoring....

[Loynesy]

Erm, who outside the posters do you think would have been interested in that adam? The site and the legal situation was the story, not the every day comings and goings. That's only of interest to those who regularly use the site.

Glyn, some constructive criticism if I may. Two points:

1. If one of the main aims of the article was to focus on the legal situation re: Boxrec - or indeed any other website, it was flawed, as there was no attempt to set out what the legal position actually is, or indeed those areas where it is still developing. We had John Shep's point of view - which was actually pretty close to where the line is, drawing the analogy of a postbox (he must have spoken to a decent lawyer...) and what certain promoters would like the law to be i.e. that the owners of internet forums should be subject to the same scrutiny as, for example the publishers of The Sun - which in my personal (and current judicial) opinion is ludicrous, but,as I say, nothing to say which of those contrasting views was legally correct.

2. Secondly, certain people quoted in the article made in sound as though Boxrec was an outlaw forum where outrageous libels were allowed to linger. That is grossly unfair as there are a number of mods, who for no personal gain whatsover, actively police and moniter the site to make sure that doesn't happen, or if it does happen, it is removed as quickly as possible. I've certainly been asked, and have willingly helped to vet articles to see if they were fair comment and not libellous and similalry have pointed out to Ian or others if I see anything that I believe crosses the line.

If John Shep liked the article, and he owns this site, fair enough to him, but because of the two points above, it seemed to me a little unfair.

Regards

Loynsey

[WelshDevil]

I need to go and buy a copy of Boxing Monthly to see what was written in the article. On a plus Boxrec has just helped increase sales of the magazine. (Ok, maybe, only by one = me)

I do need to sort out a new subscription for BM as I've been slacking and while I love reading posters opinions and debates on fights, it is always great to read quality articles as provided by Boxing Monthly.

[hitman_hatton1]

warren just hates any kind of criticism.

that's why he'll always hate places like this.

[T.M.K]

Regards

Loynsey

Loynsey you old hound! How the devil are you!? No matter your position, salary, expertise or anything else, I still think back to beer and curry with you and Galveston Jack, bloody wonderful chat about boxing along with beer flowing

Any mates who may fight a custody battle for me on an "I owe you" basis?

Hope you are well bud

Col/T.M.K

[Counter-puncher]

"keboard warrior of the month"