BoxRec

stujones wrote:without a shadow of a doubt.

Sorry to say this but there is a whiff of sour grapes in this thread.

Bunce may well be all of the things you lot suggest - but he also the most VISIBLE and well-known of all the UK boxing scribes.

Passion and genuine opinion (right or wrong - it was most amusing to see you all listing his "failed predictions" - because of course you lot have never made any howlers or got one wrong! ) are what have got him in the position he is in - and it does occur to me that its a position we'd ALL love to be in.

So what's the deal guys?

I don't want some grey (but knowledgeable and accurate) non-entity to talk to me about boxing (I do that here!) on TV - I want passion, enthusaism, excitement AND accurate facts - 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

Would we prefer to have Jim Neilly doing the studio stuff.

I didn't think so.

Lugh wrote:Sorry to say this but there is a whiff of sour grapes in this thread.

Bunce may well be all of the things you lot suggest - but he also the most VISIBLE and well-known of all the UK boxing scribes.

Passion and genuine opinion (right or wrong - it was most amusing to see you all listing his "failed predictions" - because of course you lot have never made any howlers or got one wrong! ) are what have got him in the position he is in - and it does occur to me that its a position we'd ALL love to be in.

So what's the deal guys?

I don't want some grey (but knowledgeable and accurate) non-entity to talk to me about boxing (I do that here!) on TV - I want passion, enthusaism, excitement AND accurate facts - 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

Would we prefer to have Jim Neilly doing the studio stuff.

I didn't think so.

I think you make some great points, Lugh.

As I said, I think he is good for TV, but I think you do need someone like Claude to provide the more insightful and calming influence, to prevent bunce acting like a hyperactive puppy.

However, I must say, his writing is bloody awful, I am pretty surprised that he gets stuff in the newspapers, when there are so many other better working writers around who know their boxing, I could probably rattle off 20 names of people who are boxing writers who would do a better job.

The thing is Bunce is on the gravy train now, he's got his foot in the door with the BBC and so being the most visible face, he will get all the gigs now, he has the right mug for TV.

However, I am of the belief that the commentators shouldn't be celebrities, people like Harry Carpenter and Reg Gutterdige were seldom seen, but they contributed a tremendous amount to the atmopshere of a fight. I guess Bunce is doing a different job, they didn't really have studio pundits back in Reg and Harry's day.

I have never been impressed by Bunces work either written or on TV I find him extremely irritating on the whole.

HH

What's wrong with Bunce's writing?? I think he's good. Dont forget that the broadsheet readers know relatively jack about Boxing so Bunce has to explain things to them.

I like Bunce on TV. I love people with energy, passion and enthusiasm. He loves the sport - that's what I want to see. When Bunce came on the old SO forum he came across as a really disrespctful tit and I saw a side to him that I didn't like.

However, when Bunce pipes up on the box I listen. He entertains me.

Can't argue with Bunce on the box - he does his job admirably and even non-boxing friends remember/comment on him.

His monthly spot in BM is very poor though. Seems disjointed and ill thought out. (like many of my posts...) Its as though he rights it on the back of a fag packet in the pub and faxes it through as some sort of stream of conscious bo11ocks.

TerribleTerry wrote:Can't argue with Bunce on the box - he does his job admirably and even non-boxing friends remember/comment on him.

His monthly spot in BM is very poor though. Seems disjointed and ill thought out. (like many of my posts...) Its as though he rights it on the back of a fag packet in the pub and faxes it through as some sort of stream of conscious bo11ocks.

Agreed the Big Daddy section is generally more of a Rant than an article - this month's offering started with "look out some ones slipped him an E" - funny I am sure but not my cup of tea in a boxing mag!

Add to that some of the DRIVEL that (apparently well-respected) Steve Farhood churns out and I am left wondering "why did I get a years subscription to this?"

Now if you want to get me going - lets have a Steve BLOODY Farhood thread.

Lugh wrote:Now if you want to get me going - lets have a Steve BLOODY Farhood thread.

Remember when that berk was interviewed by Sky before Naz v Barrera he said something like: "Barrera constantly comes forward and has a big head, while Naz is the hardest punching featherweight in history. End of analysis."

Now, I know quite a few of us fancied the Prince in that one but c'mon, that was just plain stupid.

The main problem with his writing is that he cannot write, his grasp of the english language is pretty awful....compared to proper journalists he's a virtual illiterate.

It depends whether you think the purpose of writing about boxing is to produce superficial sensationalist bollocks, or to write an indepth

if you read newspapers like the scum regularly, then you would probably think that Bunce is a witty genius, however, I think boxing deserves a bit better than to be sensationalised and demeaned by writing complete cobblers. Compare someone like Hugh McIlvanney to Steve Bunce, and you'll see what I mean. There's just no depth to what Bunce writes.

There's a place for that kind of journalism, but not in the broadsheets that's for sure.

I don't mind Buncy. Though not a refined writer who bleeds out line upon line of flowing prose of the quality of McIlvanneys he ain't (or should one say, is not), he's got character and has made a career out of his line of schtick.

Did not like his last column in Boxing Monthly though. Came over as full of himself but there you go I think that's what it is with Buncy, you either love him or hate him or love him and hate him at the same time. He has an enthusiasm for the sport that one can't deny and that comes over in his writing and when he's on television and I bet there are a load of us posters who wouldn't mind having his job. I am looking forward to reading his book on Michael Watson.

Oh, but I've caught the side of Buncy someone mentioned earlier when I was a sub-editor on a local newspaper and phoned him for some family info on a fighter who'd been put inside and he was very rude. So on a personal level I found him to be a bit of a git but hey, he might have just been in a bad mood.

Adios.

You say that DIRT, but I'll bet you have heard the same stories about Claude Abrams that I have.

Every one seems (no disrespect intended) to have a "............was nasty to me at a show/in an interview/etc" tale and we all have off nights.

One other thing - DIRT has mentioned a "love him or hate him" split.

You'll notice noobody is struggling to remember him - now whats the name of the big black bloke? (I alwasy refer to him as Lurch "YOUUUUUUUUUU RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRANG!")

Again - Case rests - no further questions.

Mmmm, no what you mean Lugh because I've been at shows and sat next to Claude on several occasions and found him to be a nice bloke and engaging company.

DIRT SUGAR wrote:Mmmm, no what you mean Lugh because I've been at shows and sat next to Claude on several occasions and found him to be a nice bloke and engaging company.

Exactly, whereas I have read more than a few "who does that Abrams bloke think he is ......." type comments.


Interesting to see that in this months BM that the writers are starting to refer to the dotcom writers as "fans" who finance their boxing viewing by writing their opinions in exchange for a seat.

The tone of the article was pretty derogatory and implied that they had no business being there. For me it's the likes of Colin Fart at the Sun who have no business being there - boring people sh!tless in his dull monotone on TV and publishing "boxing for 6 year olds" type articles in the nationals. I bet he'd struggle to tell you who Froch fought last - come to think of it - I bet he'd struggle naming Lennox's last opponent.

Oh..... and someone tell him Richie Benaud wants his hair back.

Bunce is made for TV - anyone notice he's even got his own catchphrase?

" And I'll tell you one thing!!" said while pointing his finger, and just before he launches into one of his "exclusives"

And I'll tell you one thing... these 'fans' may do it for a seat, but they then go and pen 1000+ words about the show and it's put up for all to see on the web, whereas three paragraphs from the likes of Hart and Sheehan get jammed at the bottom of the sports section and it's yesterdays news before you know it, whereas you can read a web story and then comment on it.

I've seen the national journos ringside and lording it and read a recent post about Sheehan being at a show recently and he even had his missus there (in a working capacity I wonder?).
I mean, he writes for th Sun! Huge paper, yes, but respected for it's intellectual offerings... Errrrm.... well just read Bizarre.

If it wasn't for Dotcom writers boxing wouldn't get as much press as it is doing now, that's why I wish promoters and fighters would embrace this media and use it in a positive manner.

If I was a manager I'd really be keeping an eye on forums to see what people who I consider my punters have to say and how they feel about the sport and my and other promoters' shows and fighters.

I think it's called keeping your finger on the pulse and boxing websites are a living, breathing organism from which you can get more good out of than bad.

DIRT SUGAR wrote:And I'll tell you one thing... these 'fans' may do it for a seat, but they then go and pen 1000+ words about the show and it's put up for all to see on the web, whereas three paragraphs from the likes of Hart and Sheehan get jammed at the bottom of the sports section and it's yesterdays news before you know it, whereas you can read a web story and then comment on it.

I've seen the national journos ringside and lording it and read a recent post about Sheehan being at a show recently and he even had his missus there (in a working capacity I wonder?).
I mean, he writes for th Sun! Huge paper, yes, but respected for it's intellectual offerings... Errrrm.... well just read Bizarre.

If it wasn't for Dotcom writers boxing wouldn't get as much press as it is doing now, that's why I wish promoters and fighters would embrace this media and use it in a positive manner.

If I was a manager I'd really be keeping an eye on forums to see what people who I consider my punters have to say and how they feel about the sport and my and other promoters' shows and fighters.

I think it's called keeping your finger on the pulse and boxing websites are a living, breathing organism from which you can get more good out of than bad.

Got to agree completely with that Dirt.

Good post

DIRT SUGAR wrote:I've seen the national journos ringside and lording it and read a recent post about Sheehan being at a show recently and he even had his missus there (in a working capacity I wonder?).

Are you implying that the wife of a well-known Journo is a "working" girl?

Not Phil Tuffnell's Ex-wife I hope?

This is the incedent when the aforementioned took objection to GITR travelling hundres of miles with his Dad to cover a show for the experience and love of it - AND taking up a press seat (as a working - if 16year old) member of the press.

Presumably GITR took up the space required for the fella's missus to get her "work" done! - very indiscreet if you ask me - whatever happened to motel rooms!?

And his 'column' was still very small the next day apparently!

'Let's get it right, John,' -Steve's an idiot.