BoxRec

I was looking through Boxing News online the other day and was surprised by the tone of the paper. There is no criticism or analysis and the stories read like promo pieces. I felt as if I was browsing a boxing equivalent of Time Out. Perhaps the moder 'sport presented as marketing & propaganda' TV agenda has been absorbed by the Boxing News editors through some form of osmosis.

What a sad world we live in. Guys went out there dethroned a champion thats looked pretty much unbeatable. Big underdog...most peoples wrote him off...not just in this fight but in periods of his career. I include myself in that.

Instead of getting the credit he deserves. Since hes won it people are basically trying to diminish the achievement by saying wlad was 39. Wlads arm was injured. Wlads not been himself its not that tyson never shut him down its just that wlad was a pu ss y. It was a boring fight so it doesnt count as much. Trying to compare degales win is laughable...froch destroyed bute in about 5 rounds. Great win for degale but not quite nearly the same level as furys. To add to that....they re already trying to take a belt off fury. Trying to sign petitions to get him off the sports personality of the year awards. Getting summoned to the boxing board of control. All because the guy made a couple of tongue and cheek comments about g a y s.

People need to grow up and give the man the credit he deserves. Not seen boxing news yet...but should be about half the magazine dedicated to it. . I m all for doubting people thats what makes forums interesting. But at least give credit where its due.

bbjc wrote:What a sad world we live in. Guys went out there dethroned a champion thats looked pretty much unbeatable. Big underdog...most peoples wrote him off...not just in this fight but in periods of his career. I include myself in that.

Instead of getting the credit he deserves. Since hes won it people are basically trying to diminish the achievement by saying wlad was 39. Wlads arm was injured. Wlads not been himself its not that tyson never shut him down its just that wlad was a pu ss y. It was a boring fight so it doesnt count as much. Trying to compare degales win is laughable...froch destroyed bute in about 5 rounds. Great win for degale but not quite nearly the same level as furys. To add to that....they re already trying to take a belt off fury. Trying to sign petitions to get him off the sports personality of the year awards. Getting summoned to the boxing board of control. All because the guy made a couple of tongue and cheek comments about g a y s.

People need to grow up and give the man the credit he deserves. Not seen boxing news yet...but should be about half the magazine dedicated to it. . I m all for doubting people thats what makes forums interesting. But at least give credit where its due.

I thought it was a god-awful fight - and yes Wlad's performance was pathetic (and he was also looking his age) - but I still give Fury credit for becoming heavyweight champion of the world and dethroning a longstanding champion. Some people on here seem to think you have to be either a cheerleader or a denier of a mans glory, and that there's no in-between.

On the subject of P4P rankings... It's always tough rating heavyweights in the P4P rankings as a champ like Wlad has been dominating against guys far smaller than himself (for the most part) and there are size differentials at play which don't exist in other divisions. Fighters are not on a level footing as they are in other divisions.

Supremo wrote:They gave the fight at the weekend the same rating as the De Gale fight!?!? one round of the De Gale fight had more action than the full Fury fight.

Then they have Fury top of the British pound for pound ratings? Pound for pound, to me, means that if all fighters were equal then who would be the best boxer about. How can anyone seriously believe that if Fury was the same weight as Kell Brook or Amir Khan that he would stand a chance? Name an attribute or skills that Fury excels at compared to they 2?

The defensive approach adopted by boxing fans and now the boxing media of that fight at the weekend is utterly ridiculous. Folk are so worried about the state of boxing and desperate not to show the sport in a bad light that they are deluding themselves and adopting ridiculous stances that are more likely to alienate potential boxing fans rather than attract them.

Fair play to Fury for doing what he did and baffling Wlad with his movement but don't try and pretend that was entertaining.

Whether you believe the win makes Fury the top British P4P boxer is all down to personal opinion. We felt that the win over Klitschko - the most dominant divisional king of the last 10 years - was better than anything any other active British fighter has achieved in recent years. But arguments for Brook et al are all worthy.

And our star ratings are always decided by the reporter who was ringside, who experienced everything first hand from the build-up during fight week to the post-fight events. John, who I have nothing but respect for, found the whole experience, including the fight, absolutely fascinating. I merely watched from home so who am I to disagree with his assessment? The fight was no classic, but Fury did exactly what was required to win which was the point of the exercise, surely. If he'd gone in all guns blazing, we may well have had a better fight, but it's unlikely he'd now be world champion.

I truly believe that Fury's win should be celebrated. Britain has a world heavyweight champion and you can bet that the sport will attract new fans as a consequence. Why not celebrate that? Anyone who reads BN regularly will know that we don't shy away from reporting any negative aspects of the sport either, of which there are plenty.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read the magazine recently, and taken the time to comment about it. Your opinions, whether positive or negative, are always considered, and always welcome.

Matt

I actually thought the fight was decent. Its heavyweight boxing after all. Compare it to other fights haye v valuev. Silvestern v wilder. Klitchko v any one of the challengers over the years. These are big big guys. You cant afford to take many flush shots off the other. Thats what makes it exciting and always has. Knowing that either can go at any minute. When they did connect flush both wobbled a bit. Klitchko in the 11th and fury in the 12th.

The days of heavyweghts being as skilled or great to watch as the 70,s even 80,s, 90,s are over. They ve went for size over skill...their bigger men. If you want skill back and forth action go for the lighter weights. Heavy weights nowadays more about not taking shots. Its a chess match really. Otherwise you d have most fights over after 3 rounds.

Fury deserves every bit of credit he gets. It may have been a shit fight, but what he acheived is monumental in teems of British sporting accomplishments. When wqs the last time any person in Britian across all sports accomplished such a feat as Fury did last weekend?

It may be the hangover, but i'm struggling to come up with anything.

Naandrew wrote:The fight wasn't great but let's get real Tyson is our only proper world champion which there aren't many of anyway.

Exactly. Tyson is no 1 in the top weight, therefore technically he's the number 1 boxer in the world.

When Fenech drew with Nelson, the American press refused to rate Azumah above him in both their super feather and PFP rankings. Fenech leapfrogged him in the PFP rankings after the draw. They kept with the ratings until he got dominated in the rematch.

I thought Fenech won the first Nelson bout pretty easily, I was surprised at the outcome in the rematch and thought Fenech was top dog in the division - he was an handful for anyone at that time.

corker77 wrote:

Supremo wrote:They gave the fight at the weekend the same rating as the De Gale fight!?!? one round of the De Gale fight had more action than the full Fury fight.

Then they have Fury top of the British pound for pound ratings? Pound for pound, to me, means that if all fighters were equal then who would be the best boxer about. How can anyone seriously believe that if Fury was the same weight as Kell Brook or Amir Khan that he would stand a chance? Name an attribute or skills that Fury excels at compared to they 2?

The defensive approach adopted by boxing fans and now the boxing media of that fight at the weekend is utterly ridiculous. Folk are so worried about the state of boxing and desperate not to show the sport in a bad light that they are deluding themselves and adopting ridiculous stances that are more likely to alienate potential boxing fans rather than attract them.

Fair play to Fury for doing what he did and baffling Wlad with his movement but don't try and pretend that was entertaining.

Whether you believe the win makes Fury the top British P4P boxer is all down to personal opinion. We felt that the win over Klitschko - the most dominant divisional king of the last 10 years - was better than anything any other active British fighter has achieved in recent years. But arguments for Brook et al are all worthy.

And our star ratings are always decided by the reporter who was ringside, who experienced everything first hand from the build-up during fight week to the post-fight events. John, who I have nothing but respect for, found the whole experience, including the fight, absolutely fascinating. I merely watched from home so who am I to disagree with his assessment? The fight was no classic, but Fury did exactly what was required to win which was the point of the exercise, surely. If he'd gone in all guns blazing, we may well have had a better fight, but it's unlikely he'd now be world champion.

I truly believe that Fury's win should be celebrated. Britain has a world heavyweight champion and you can bet that the sport will attract new fans as a consequence. Why not celebrate that? Anyone who reads BN regularly will know that we don't shy away from reporting any negative aspects of the sport either, of which there are plenty.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read the magazine recently, and taken the time to comment about it. Your opinions, whether positive or negative, are always considered, and always welcome.

Matt

Fair doos, wasn't actually meant as a personal attack on the magazine as without wishing to sound like an 4rse licker, it is heads above the Ring and Boxing monthly in my opinion.
I agree with everyone that what Fury did was monumental and he deserves credit, and if he had fought any other way he would have been beaten but I just thought as a spectacle it was so disappointing and was like watching Junior Witter vs Junior Witter and I am quite surprised that not many people in boxing tend to agree with me.

Hopefuly it will be good for the HW division in the long term and injects a bit of interest though.

Supremo wrote:

corker77 wrote:

Supremo wrote:They gave the fight at the weekend the same rating as the De Gale fight!?!? one round of the De Gale fight had more action than the full Fury fight.

Then they have Fury top of the British pound for pound ratings? Pound for pound, to me, means that if all fighters were equal then who would be the best boxer about. How can anyone seriously believe that if Fury was the same weight as Kell Brook or Amir Khan that he would stand a chance? Name an attribute or skills that Fury excels at compared to they 2?

The defensive approach adopted by boxing fans and now the boxing media of that fight at the weekend is utterly ridiculous. Folk are so worried about the state of boxing and desperate not to show the sport in a bad light that they are deluding themselves and adopting ridiculous stances that are more likely to alienate potential boxing fans rather than attract them.

Fair play to Fury for doing what he did and baffling Wlad with his movement but don't try and pretend that was entertaining.

Whether you believe the win makes Fury the top British P4P boxer is all down to personal opinion. We felt that the win over Klitschko - the most dominant divisional king of the last 10 years - was better than anything any other active British fighter has achieved in recent years. But arguments for Brook et al are all worthy.

And our star ratings are always decided by the reporter who was ringside, who experienced everything first hand from the build-up during fight week to the post-fight events. John, who I have nothing but respect for, found the whole experience, including the fight, absolutely fascinating. I merely watched from home so who am I to disagree with his assessment? The fight was no classic, but Fury did exactly what was required to win which was the point of the exercise, surely. If he'd gone in all guns blazing, we may well have had a better fight, but it's unlikely he'd now be world champion.

I truly believe that Fury's win should be celebrated. Britain has a world heavyweight champion and you can bet that the sport will attract new fans as a consequence. Why not celebrate that? Anyone who reads BN regularly will know that we don't shy away from reporting any negative aspects of the sport either, of which there are plenty.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to read the magazine recently, and taken the time to comment about it. Your opinions, whether positive or negative, are always considered, and always welcome.

Matt

Fair doos, wasn't actually meant as a personal attack on the magazine as without wishing to sound like an 4rse licker, it is heads above the Ring and Boxing monthly in my opinion.
I agree with everyone that what Fury did was monumental and he deserves credit, and if he had fought any other way he would have been beaten but I just thought as a spectacle it was so disappointing and was like watching Junior Witter vs Junior Witter and I am quite surprised that not many people in boxing tend to agree with me.

Hopefuly it will be good for the HW division in the long term and injects a bit of interest though.

I think as someone else has said the fight was to intriguing to be boring and it was a great to see a new era in boxing evolve.

Brook is a fine man, a world champ and can get some big wins but a win over Porter does not (cannot) make him British P4P king.

finally got my boxing news in the post today and must say i was impressed with the way the fury fight was described. was a decent, fair report with plenty of little snippets about what was going on on the sidelines. they did the fight justice, unlike their coverage of pac v may in the mag which was bog standard. at least we got a bit more in the annual about that one. but for me the value is in the sideline stuff, because ive already seen the fights so i dont need a blow by blow account, i want the things i didnt see. ron lewis report in the times on monday was superb, the description of fury taking a ferry home was a gem and really added something new.

The report was By John Dennen I think in BN.
He's really improved this year and is probably my fave written journo alongside Flexen and Lewis.

Also the fact he has had some great predictions and has somehow started the Whyte-Joshua beef.

The McRae specials have also been impressive this year.

For whatever it's worth, I reckon Jamie McDonnell has a damn good shout for being the P4P #1 in the UK. A couple of wins over Tomoki Kameda and a win over Julio Ceja are, in recent years at least, 3 of the most impressive British wins.

Fury's big win over Wlad was impressive, Brook beating Porter was impressive and DeGale is on a roll but I still struggle to rate any of them as being better in recent years that McDonnell, who also has a win over Hall as well.

I'd probably give Mcdonnell fighter of the year.

Beating Kameda twice on foreign soil was a huge achievement. People underestimate how highly thought of Kameda was in Japan and stateside.

For me Kameda x2 is a better yearly resume than Hammer and Wlad. But only just.

Supremo wrote:Fury has one impressive win in his career, that does not equal a resume. Upsets happen, he hasn't proven himself beyond dispute as the greatest heavyweight on the planet. Brook's resume isn't great either I will concede but pound for pound he hits harder, his timing is far better, his footwork is far better, his balance is far better, his speed is better, every aspect you can think of Brook is far superior to Fury if all things were equal.

Apart from Kel Brook didn't beat Floyd Mayweather in his own back yard.

PredatorHayds wrote:The report was By John Dennen I think in BN.
He's really improved this year and is probably my fave written journo alongside Flexen and Lewis.

Also the fact he has had some great predictions and has somehow started the Whyte-Joshua beef.

The McRae specials have also been impressive this year.

agreed, dennen has really started to get some teeth now and writes with authority, i can remember him picking scott lawton to beat kirakosyan but he seems to have finally regained his senses.