BoxRec

oliverfennell wrote:
Before you did the piece, did I know that the title wasn't available? Well, in the absence of any news of Chisora vacating, yes I did.

I know there have been a number of instances in the past when a boxer has voluntarily vacated to help his promoter and stablemates get title status for a fight (such as Moore allowing Woolcombe and Portman to go for his British LMW belt), but I'm pretty sure the relinquishing of the title was done before the approach to the BBBC was made.

Again, no offence was intended, and I spelled out that much. I'm sorry that you still took it.

So, because you had heard no news about Chisora not vacating, you KNEW the title was unavailable. Yet Dean Powell, who works with the title holder, went and asked the CBC to sanction Larry v John? Oliver, behave yourself, FFS.

And how would the news of Chisora vacating have come about, pray tell? 'Trust me' as my London equivalent would say, the last couple of days have been very interesting. Everything was happening at warp speed.

The first you would have found out about it is if the CBC said 'Aye, go on then, we'll sanction the fight if Big Del gives it up'. I don't think Dean P would have been asking about it otherwise. We confirmed that wasn't going to happen.

Saying 'no offence intended' doesn't always work me old pal when the criticism was genuine and unfounded, as I've explained - don't backtrack on me now

However, I will now try and relax.

I liked the analogy personally.

Moving on, it wouldn't hurt if Sky could bend a bit on there usual theme now and again. Why not show some undercard bouts in full :??

THEBUTCH wrote:I liked the analogy personally.

Moving on, it wouldn't hurt if Sky could bend a bit on there usual theme now and again. Why not sure some undercard bouts in full :??

They would rather bore me to death with studio chat.

'Over to so and so, whose role is to go "ding ding" at the beginning and end of rounds'

oliverfennell wrote:Well, even if I do, there may well have been non-professionals, or more casual fans, reading the site too, and then the background will have been even less known to them.

It may sometimes feel as though the whole of British boxing - both professionals and fans - is encompassed by this board, but Ian, you are a publishing professional and the golden rule is to assume that for any story, publication or website, there will always be somebody reading it for the first time. So if I, as someone pretty clued up about British boxing - even from a foreign country - missed the point, then others will have done too.

The article said this:

"Presumably the approach was made in order that the proposed York Hall card would fulfil Sky Sports' criteria that their broadcasts must be headlined by a match contested for a 'major' title.

At the time of writing, no announcement has been made as to whether the bill will still be televised or not."

Whilst not being the full context, this would have been enough for most of our readership to grasp the point - I hope. I can't be blamed if some of the f**kers are thick

But yes, granted, it is easy to lose focus. Yes, if we had more time I might have regurgitated previous stories to offer a bit more context but as I said, things were moving fast.

We're part-timers at BoxRec News and look at the exclusives we've had this week. And I have to put up with getting lectured by you on journalistic standards now? F**k right off.

Im of the view that just because a fight has fallen through that doesnt mean we should upgrade a southern area title fight to a commonwealth title fight.Thats the kind of thing thats wrong with boxing but hey we all know its far from a perfect sport in that regard!

I don't bash Sky that much, but while we are on the subject;

If you are going to focus on the weekends fights on Ringside, please don't repeat these sections in the actual broadcast!

'Over to Piers and Tarquin, who will read the boxers' weights ...'

(Has anyone noticed my attempts to lighten the air during this foul-tempered to-do between our chums?)

Glyn Leach wrote:'Over to Piers and Tarquin, who will read the boxers' weights ...'

(Has anyone noticed my attempts to lighten the air during this foul-tempered to-do between our chums?)

tarquin

King Geedorah wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:'Over to Piers and Tarquin, who will read the boxers' weights ...'

(Has anyone noticed my attempts to lighten the air during this foul-tempered to-do between our chums?)

I was planning to offer my services on the MC side of things.

“In the turning the air blue corner, he was born in Darlington but decided to move to the promise land only to get stuck in Sheffield en route. He’s mean, his press photo is lean and he don’t toke on the green. Ian ‘The Other Big Mac’ Neilllllllllllllllllllllllly. In the red corner, from Thailand, he refuses to speak English in person because that’s so, like, for tourists. He spends his days relaxining, maxing out, cooling and throwing lady boys onto the bar-b-que. Oliver ‘Feral’ Fennell AKA ‘He’s so dangerous we lock him in the kennel’.”

Someone called me a ‘bell end’ earlier today so I’ll sound the gong.

Shakespeare trash talk, anyone?

'Percy, what colour shorts is that fighter wearing?'

'They're blue Adam.'

'Thanks, here's £500.'

King Geedorah wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:'Over to Piers and Tarquin, who will read the boxers' weights ...'

(Has anyone noticed my attempts to lighten the air during this foul-tempered to-do between our chums?)

I was planning to offer my services on the MC side of things.

“In the turning the air blue corner, he was born in Darlington but decided to move to the promise land only to get stuck in Sheffield en route. He’s mean, his press photo is lean and he don’t toke on the green. Ian ‘The Other Big Mac’ Neilllllllllllllllllllllllly. In the red corner, from Thailand, he refuses to speak English in person because that’s so, like, for tourists. He spends his days relaxining, maxing out, cooling and throwing lady boys onto the bar-b-que. Oliver ‘Feral’ Fennell AKA ‘He’s so dangerous we lock him in the kennel’.”

Someone called me a ‘bell end’ earlier today so I’ll sound the gong.

Shakespeare trash talk, anyone?

Terry, that was bazzing, mate. Also, you managed to come up with better nicknames than 90% of genuine boxers.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Well, even if I do, there may well have been non-professionals, or more casual fans, reading the site too, and then the background will have been even less known to them.

It may sometimes feel as though the whole of British boxing - both professionals and fans - is encompassed by this board, but Ian, you are a publishing professional and the golden rule is to assume that for any story, publication or website, there will always be somebody reading it for the first time. So if I, as someone pretty clued up about British boxing - even from a foreign country - missed the point, then others will have done too.

The article said this:

"Presumably the approach was made in order that the proposed York Hall card would fulfil Sky Sports' criteria that their broadcasts must be headlined by a match contested for a 'major' title.

At the time of writing, no announcement has been made as to whether the bill will still be televised or not."

Whilst not being the full context, this would have been enough for most of our readership to grasp the point - I hope. I can't be blamed if some of the f**kers are thick

But yes, granted, it is easy to lose focus. Yes, if we had more time I might have regurgitated previous stories to offer a bit more context but as I said, things were moving fast.

We're part-timers at BoxRec News and look at the exclusives we've had this week. And I have to put up with getting lectured by you on journalistic standards now? F**k right off.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. But I'm pretty sure good "journalistic standards" don't tend to include editors swearing at their staff on public record, even if they think they're wrong.

I've stated it was not intended to be taken seriously, that no offence was intended, and apologised if you nevertheless did take offence. I also apologised for corresponding via this board rather than in private.

In the following posts, I explained my reasoning and made valid points from one professional to another. However I understand the restrictions of time and staffing. That being said, it was not a "lecture" and it didn't warrant you telling me to "f*ck off" or insinuating that I'm "thick".

King Geedorah wrote:
Someone called me a ‘bell end’ earlier today

Saves me doing it, I suppose

oliverfennell wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Well, even if I do, there may well have been non-professionals, or more casual fans, reading the site too, and then the background will have been even less known to them.

It may sometimes feel as though the whole of British boxing - both professionals and fans - is encompassed by this board, but Ian, you are a publishing professional and the golden rule is to assume that for any story, publication or website, there will always be somebody reading it for the first time. So if I, as someone pretty clued up about British boxing - even from a foreign country - missed the point, then others will have done too.

The article said this:

"Presumably the approach was made in order that the proposed York Hall card would fulfil Sky Sports' criteria that their broadcasts must be headlined by a match contested for a 'major' title.

At the time of writing, no announcement has been made as to whether the bill will still be televised or not."

Whilst not being the full context, this would have been enough for most of our readership to grasp the point - I hope. I can't be blamed if some of the f**kers are thick

But yes, granted, it is easy to lose focus. Yes, if we had more time I might have regurgitated previous stories to offer a bit more context but as I said, things were moving fast.

We're part-timers at BoxRec News and look at the exclusives we've had this week. And I have to put up with getting lectured by you on journalistic standards now? F**k right off.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. But I'm pretty sure good "journalistic standards" don't tend to include editors swearing at their staff on public record, even if they think they're wrong.

I've stated it was not intended to be taken seriously, that no offence was intended, and apologised if you nevertheless did take offence. I also apologised for corresponding via this board rather than in private.

In the following posts, I explained my reasoning and made valid points from one professional to another. However I understand the restrictions of time and staffing. That being said, it was not a "lecture" and it didn't warrant you telling me to "f*ck off" or insinuating that I'm "thick".

Two heavyweights going at it,not something you see everyday.Its normally me against spud

'Stick that microphone cable down my trousers Felicity.'

Glyn Leach wrote:'Stick that microphone cable down my trousers Felicity.'

You're not Andy gray in disguise are you?

oliverfennell wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. But I'm pretty sure good "journalistic standards" don't tend to include editors swearing at their staff on public record, even if they think they're wrong.

I've stated it was not intended to be taken seriously, that no offence was intended, and apologised if you nevertheless did take offence. I also apologised for corresponding via this board rather than in private.

In the following posts, I explained my reasoning and made valid points from one professional to another. However I understand the restrictions of time and staffing. That being said, it was not a "lecture" and it didn't warrant you telling me to "f*ck off" or insinuating that I'm "thick".

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Firstly, I don't need to employ journalistic standards on here - I'm on a forum and it's an issue which you brought up here.

Secondly, if you regard yourself as my 'staff', probably best not to go on to a public forum calling a colleague's decent work a 'non-story' (and never mind the caveats - you meant it - if I thought you didn't, I wouldn't have even replied. You've also undermined the 'not to be taken seriously' angle but actually explaining - in your terms - the flaws in it).

I've been on this board for a long time now and this type of reaction is very unusual from me - that's because it matters.

Unlike you, I actually used an emoticon re 'thick' to reflect I was having a laugh! So you can't have it both ways.

Anyway, like you say, let's agree to disagree before this f**king laptop gets smashed up.

'Ian, would you take 49, 48% to get the fight on?'

Glyn Leach wrote:'Ian, would you take 49, 48% to get the fight on?'

You can f**k off an' all

King Geedorah wrote:
The missus called me worse last week. My New Year’s resolution is to live my life by the slogan, ‘Never apologise, never explain’.

I'm sure the wisdom of this slogan will comfort you when Queen G has - quite rightly - left you on your own with only your unfeasibly large collection of Marlon Starling VHS tapes to amuse you.

laters King x

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:When you're in a hole, stop digging. Firstly, I don't need to employ journalistic standards on here - I'm on a forum and it's an issue which you brought up here.

I don't feel I'm in a hole. But whatever. Yes, you're on a forum, but I was referring to a news story, not a forum post.

Secondly, if you regard yourself as my 'staff', probably best not to go on to a public forum calling a colleague's decent work a 'non-story'

OK, fair point. And I did apologise for bringing it up in public. Just a thought though - as you are the editor of the site, you are its figurehead. Would I be wrong to suggest a figurehead's conduct should be better than that of his staff? I could come or go, you could say I'm not welcome anymore, so be it. But whatever other people do, it's your name that's associated with the site. Now, before you give me any more grief for inappropriate analogies, I'm not for one minute comparing you with these people, but I'm just using them as examples of websites being associated with their editors. BBN and Kevin Taylor, BoxingTalk and Greg Leon, UKBP and Spud (I know Ben was the top guy there but Spud had a control capacity). Again, that's not to say you're anything like them. Your record speaks for itself and you command - and have earned - respect. But it's just a pre-emptive line in case you might counter that what you say here is not important to the site. I'm just some guy who occasionally writes about boxing, but you are someone in an important role on one of the most important boxing websites. You are a good bloke and cussing people out doesn't behoove you.

As for the "caveats", they weren't written to suggest I didn't mean it, but they were meant to soften the tone, and I never did intend the tone to be anything other than soft. It was hardly an important point anyway. It was ribbing at most, and while ribbing usually has its grounds in truth, that doesn't mean it can't be done in fun. And my expanding on the point does not dilute my claim that it was not to be taken seriously. You turned it serious by using offensive language. That the language was offensive showed you you were upset so my expanding of the point was an attempt to explain why I said what I said, and I couldn't very well do that without it being what you called a "lecture".

Unlike you, I actually used an emoticon re 'thick' to reflect I was having a laugh! So you can't have it both ways.

Exactly what I was thinking re. having it both ways. You get upset when I didn't intend for that, then say I can't get upset with your words because you didn't intend for that. I used Zelenoff for comic relief, you used an emoticon. Neither one served its purpose. But if you can take offence, then so can I. That's not having it both ways. And what's more offensive - the opinion that something has little news value (and whether you consider the opinion valid or not, I expressed my reasons), or calling someone a "cock", telling them to "fck right off" or insinuating they're "thick"?

Sorry too lazy to read through the whole thread, but if the fight goes ahead - Come on Larry.

oliverfennell wrote: And what's more offensive - the opinion that something has little news value (and whether you consider the opinion valid or not, I expressed my reasons), or calling someone a "cock", telling them to "fck right off" or insinuating they're "thick"?

For me, the former. For everyone else in the world, the latter

You're still saying the piece had little news value - but you've already said elsewhere you didn't understand the value of the story because you had been out of the loop. 'Trust me', for about 18 minutes and for the 13 people in the country who were in that loop, it was hot stuff!

Anyway, yes, let's agree to disagree.