Page 2 of 2
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 06:49
by nickd
Frank Warrens column is utter garbage. I love the way he likes to dish out the criticism yet refuses to taken any in return.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 06:51
by kevin
Was it Boxing Weekly or something similar I am sure I have a few copies of it around somewhere.
There was also Boxing World back in the 70's, Harry Mullen and Ron Olver were involved in that too.
I liked the concept behind Uppercut, but I know it wasn't planned very well, they were definately not aiming to rival Boxing News, more your 442 of the boxing world!
Kev
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 06:55
by jamesmcdonnell
E wrote:KOJOE90 wrote:Whilst on the subject of magazines anyone else here remember Boxing Outlook?
Yes - I much preferred it to the sh1te that Boxing Monthly spews out (though this wasn't always the case - BM used to be a good mag until that Glyn Leach started editing.)
I quite liked Uppercut - I thought it had a nice angle......but the only publication definitely worth buying (globally) is Boxing News.
I would be gutted if this ever went under. My Fridays would be spoiled (although it would have been nice to be paid for my Amir Khan photos, including one that was used on the cover!
)
What was the name of that other weekly that was in a tabloid format when boxing News was still A4 size and Black and white?
I used to like that too and bought them both.
PS as an aside I don't agree with those that say boxing is dying in the newspapers - I think there was a time when reporting was poor, but it really seems to have picked up now - Metro (the free paper) had a whole page devoted to boxing every day last week, and has loads of coverage, The Sun (maybe because it is a Murdoch paper) had loads including a regular Friday column, N of the W has the admittedly dogsh1t FW column, the Evening Standard has a regular 'Talk in Boxing' column on wednesday...... I think it is great.
Yes, but boxing coverage, even for major events, tends to be buried inside the paper, it never makes the back pages these days, or at least very rarely. When it comes to indepth coverage, there's not that much, but it does seem to be picking up lately I must admit.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 07:10
by jamesmcdonnell
Wales wrote:i did ask about a month ago what was going on but nobody answered me; i put all my credit card details etc.. into the site, best check my statement then
I can assure you that wherever the money went, it was not anywhere in the vicinity of myself or Ian's pocket.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 08:53
by Wales
I dont know if it did go - I'll need to check.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 08:59
by stujones
What ever happend to the "2nd" boxing monthly (can't remember its name) that was out two weeks after the main mag. I never read it but I saw adverts for it in the back issues of Boxing Monthly that I later bought.
Ian and James, as you know I had problems getting uppercut (and I work in a petrol station/newsagents part time. However, I have viewed the online site (which was good). I was wandering, did Uppercut's design resemble the new BM.
For me its about the content of the mag, whilst I don't like the new design of BM (and its price) I will still keep subscribing.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 09:08
by PompeyScot
007 wrote:Shame I really enjoyed the 2 copies I read.
Uppercut website perhaps James??
Will bring 007's post back to the fore as I was wondering this myself. What's the feasability of doing an Uppercut dedicated website, so have an online magazine with the interviews and features etc?
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 09:09
by dondada
[quote="stujones"]
Ian and James, as you know I had problems getting uppercut (and I work in a petrol station/newsagents part time. However, I have viewed the online site (which was good). I was wandering, did Uppercut's design resemble the new BM.
quote]
From about as objective a perspective I can muster, I would say BM's new design was just slightly influenced by the look of uppercut. Not overly so, but the influence is apparent, IMO.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 09:43
by jamesmcdonnell
I've not seen it yet, it does seem strange timing that they decide right now to update their look.
Well, perhaps in our small way we've had an influence in improving another mag, if not actually improving our own pockets....I would rather be stinking rich myself.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 09:58
by Hardhitters11
Have you not considered producing the mag online James with a view of charging for it in the future once you have a big enough base of core readers?
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 10:05
by jamesmcdonnell
I thought about it, but it's such a time consuming venture, you need a big team of people to make a go of it, and it's not an easy thing to make money from. Uppercut was a decent brand, but the types of articles we were doing were suited to a monthly format, and you cannot run a website like that, you have to have constantly updated material.
The closest thing I've seen to uppercut on the net is cyberboxingzone, and they are absolutely stony broke.
Posted: 16 Dec 2004, 14:12
by stujones
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I've not seen it yet, it does seem strange timing that they decide right now to update their look.
Well, perhaps in our small way we've had an influence in improving another mag, if not actually improving our own pockets....I would rather be stinking rich myself.
They claimed that the decision was decided to "upgrade" a year ago.