BoxRec

Cyclops wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 05:24 I buy it most weeks but I do assume it will fold at some point, and when you have weeks when there really isn't any fights of note like there has been recently you do wonder what they have to write about? Monthly makes sense.

afcpaul wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 11:24 I’ve just started to read this weeks copy and…..
A bit devastated TBH.
Both magazines had strengths. Initially my thoughts, I will miss the weekly preview and review aspect. This can’t be replicated in a monthly. But I will love these monthly articles aspect.
I never really enjoyed BM reviews. Too outdated. I hope they bring back that vicious book reviewer

tony1234 wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 12:42

afcpaul wrote: ↑12 Nov 2025, 11:28 £10 per month for a magazine that looses it’s weekly relevance aspect???.

£11.99 in the shops is a shocker, can't see many paying that for a magazine

MightyWarrior wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 02:36 Boxing monthly towards the end I think was about £5… or maybe that was boxing news…

boxing news monthly sounds like they couldn’t decide on a title (consultei-consultio anyone? )

Anyway, it’s the last one standing, and I’m definitely gonna be buying it and I’m hoping for the best.

£10-£12 hasnt come up as a solution to making good money, more likely it’s how they will just about stay afloat.

The ring I wouldn’t even pick up to swat a fly with these days, with that little tyrant running it.

Anyway, I’m sure the boxing news staff are reading this, so we should try and be encouraging here, suggestions and whatnot.

I’d suggest articles by Steve Kim, Donald McRae, Bob Mee, Houston. Tris Dixon. Inevitable that Steve Bunce will pop up in there somewhere, even if he’s not invited, he’ll gate crash through the window at some point.

Back page sexiest ring announcer of the month which obviously has to be that mathroom doink with the dreadlocks, every month on a motorbike

Old bones Ian wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025, 16:56 Having brought Boxing News since 1987 I'm a gutted to see it basically finish.
Yes it's going monthly but it's going to have to be a completely different concept as previews and predictions won't have those last minute nuances and excitement.
I hope they keep the stories from boxers of the past , and really get good journalism in it.
It has a feeling of let's try it for a few months and call it a day, such a shame but I'm not the one trying to pay the bills.
I'm old and feel quite deflated by it all

oliverfennell wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 04:40 Hello all,

Oliver Fennell here. Thought I should chip in with some info, answers, etc.

First of all, thanks for all the comments and feedback so far. BoxRec is always a good gauge of the Boxing News readership or at least the kind of demographic that BN aims for or appeals to.

Those who do get the magazine may have read a bit more about the change in this week's mag, as I've provided a bit more background and context as to why it's happening and also why it's important that we keep Boxing News going as a printed product at any frequency.

To address some of the questions and comments...

Price: Yes, £11.99 newsstand / £9.99 subscription sounds a lot on first impression, and I know first impressions count for a lot. Personally, I wouldn't have gone over £9.99 newsstand, because there's a bit of psychological tipping point there. But the decision rests with the money men, and hopefully they have made the right one.

But thinking more deeply about it a value proposition, I don't think it's unfair. For a start, the existing weekly is £4.99, and surely most will agree that is excellent value for a 52-page glossy. Browsing the newsagents, you can't really get anything comparable for that price. It's also been a bit of business blunder in that the cover price (and especially the subscription price) should have risen long ago. It's not even kept up with inflation. I think if the weekly had continued, it could more than justify selling for £5.99, and could have done so long ago.

So, if you accept £5.99 as a fair price for a 52-pager, then £11.99 for 112 pages is improved VFM (I know it actually isn't £5.99, but I hope you get the logic). And it's a lower total monthly/yearly spend, too.

Also, The Ring is £9.99 for 100 pages that are smaller than A4, savvily designed to stretch the content over as many pages as possible, and it's about 20% advertising. You'll definitely get more for your money with us. And no, the old Boxing Monthly was nowhere near that price, but it was also nowhere near as big as this will be.

The weekly relevance aspect: Losing this is definitely regrettable and by far the biggest point that has been raised by regular readers.

There will still be reviews, but not as many, because we'll have to pick carefully based on the calendar and the ever-present possibility of late-notice cancellations (that exists even on a weekly format, so is even more of a concern on a monthly). Also, if there's a fight happening a few days after a monthly edition hits the shelves, is it worth previewing it when 3-3.5 weeks of the mag's shelf life comes after it?

But yes, I know how the BN previews are a cherished tradition and is a big part of many people's weekly routines, so while we can't replicate that in a printed monthly, one thing we are considering is offering a complementary weekly online or emailed preview section for subscribers.

Small halls: These will still be covered, though in more of a "round up" fashion. We will still publish all British results, and then give write-ups to the best of the rest. The debate over small hall coverage has been going on for some time, even before thought was given to reducing the print frequency. So, there will no longer be "a ringside seat at every fight", as was once our tagline, because in all honestly do we really need someone present for every 40-36/60-54 across the land?

I know there will be some who argue we do, but I think the consensus is otherwise. The way we will present small halls now will be to, yes, still be a paper of record in carrying results, but more of a "highlight" type approach may incentivise better matchmaking and new ideas. Maybe a small hall show/promoter of the month too. This is still taking shape but those are the working ideas.


There is a draft page plan in place and there's not long really until the first deadline, especially with Christmas and New Year in the middle of then and now, but I'll take on board and suggestions or comments.

Thanks all.

TheGoods wrote: ↑16 Nov 2025, 09:45 I’m gutted. The old mag has been a constant all through my life. Big fight week won’t be the same without reading the BN preview. Feels almost inevitable however.

Newspapers used to earn huge revenue from ads. Now advertisers prefer:
• Google
• Facebook
• Targeted ads that follow you around the internet

Paper ads like Boxing News can’t compete with algorithms that know your shoe size and favourite snack. Print ads? Cute. Retro. Ineffective.

Long-form reading now competes with podcasts, streaming and YouTube.

Why buy a paper when your phone updates you every 12 seconds—with videos, alerts, and arguments you didn’t ask for? We may have lost Harry Mullan (and be losing Graham Houston) but I suppose we will still have Charlie P and Koogs firing out content about how “rascal” Hearn’s trousers are.

RIP Boxing News. You will be missed.

JamesPhilips wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 08:58 1. Will there still be an amateur section?
2. Will you be putting more vids up on the YouTube channel? Surely with the brand there is potential for a channel as big as IFLTV?

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15 I have wondered, though, whether a switch to fortnightly would have been viable as a step to keep it timely while cutting down the frequency to save costs, or maybe a jump straight to monthly was the only way.

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15 Everyone reads BN in a different way, and personally I have little interest in the small hall reports (I scan them to see if anything worth reading and rarely is) and I skip past the amateurs too. A highlight style round-up would appeal to me more.

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15 I'd order the mag in a different way - I love Graham Houston's knowledge but I'm not sure kicking off the mag with 2000 words on an intricacy of a fight between two Peruvian flyweights in 1971 is very accessible. I used to like Glyn Leach's talking point style and his take was always fresh and worth reading. I think it needs something like that to open it up. Good writers with something different to say basically. Elliot Worsell was pretty fearless in this regard. Bunce has to be front and centre too. Claude Abrams' fight reports really used to get into the psychology of it all, and I love that deep thinking style.

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15 BN used to run sidebars from fights of little bits the reporters had seen at the events that would only be spotted by someone there. I liked them as it felt like a real inside look. Wouldnt mind seeing them again as a way to pull out talking points.

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15 I've said on here before that the new Ring is a pretty decent read (9.99 from Smiths) and had a big standalone poster of Hatton in the last one which was a nice touch. Any chance of posters in the new BNM?

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15"Where are they now" is brilliant and hope to see more of them but only if they have a photo of what the person looks like now. Miles Templeton's history pieces are beautifully written and his genuine love for the sport shines through so hope that continues too.

veriton wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 09:15I hope the 60 second interview returns, it was a good, quickfire way to end the mag.

How about a hero/villain of the month, top 10s again, short panel answers on a big subject, and definitely more from the archives (in this month XXX years ago etc),

Tarquin Tarpaulin IV wrote: ↑30 Nov 2025, 10:12 News stand magazines have always survived on a mixture of cover price and advertising revenue.

Although only an occasional advertiser I've not received a single sales call from the publishers of BN for many years.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Dec 2025, 15:22 BN hasn't been the same since it stopped being black and white (with a little bit of red on the cover)

Coco wrote: ↑04 Dec 2025, 18:09

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑04 Dec 2025, 15:22 BN hasn't been the same since it stopped being black and white (with a little bit of red on the cover)

I loved the old toilet paper