BoxRec

like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

Is there an argument that Gavin and Smith have mastered the Amatuer style but will struggle to adjust?

harrygreb wrote:like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

You do look at the pictures, though, don't you, Harry?

no point chesh, the web is stuffed with top w..k material for free

harrygreb wrote:no point chesh, the web is stuffed with top w..k material for free

Best comment in this thread by a mile

harrygreb wrote:like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

Please illustrate why my articles are "complete tosh" for any other reason than you disagree with my opinions.

I never put my opinions as facts. Any trained journalist knows not to do this. If you read my stuff again, you will see it is opinion using facts to illustrate my point.

As for Frankie Gavin; again some are missing the point. I am behind him 100% and he deserves all the accolades he's getting. But I'm just saying I predict that somewhere down the line, there will be a backlash. There almost always is.

For example, sure Audley's been "found out", but some of the people who are saying "I told you so" are the same who were pitching him for world titles earlier. Same with Khan. One minute he's British boxing's golden boy, the next he's been floored and now there's a significant chunk of fans rooting for him to get beaten because "they told us so".

It will happen with Gavin, mark my words.

This is NOT me saying anything negative against Frankie. I've already said - from the first post - I'm supporting him. I can just see the backlash coming one day.

big news playmates!!!! british sports fans like to knock down their heroes when they've made it!!!! ooooeeee!
knock me down with a feather.
"complete tosh" merely means that i think your opinions are "complete tosh" oliver.
i think youre a little obsessed with everyone on here knowing youre a "...trained journalist". let me tell you ollie, its no big deal. alot of the guys on here are too. and some write well enough and analyse so acutely that they could be even if they arent.
perhaps its a question of style. there are posters on this site that i always read and look forward to reading and others that i dont. no disrespect but you land in the latter section. is that good copy enough for you?

harrygreb wrote:big news playmates!!!! british sports fans like to knock down their heroes when they've made it!!!! ooooeeee!
knock me down with a feather.
"complete tosh" merely means that i think your opinions are "complete tosh" oliver.
i think youre a little obsessed with everyone on here knowing youre a "...trained journalist". let me tell you ollie, its no big deal. alot of the guys on here are too. and some write well enough and analyse so acutely that they could be even if they arent.
perhaps its a question of style. there are posters on this site that i always read and look forward to reading and others that i dont. no disrespect but you land in the latter section. is that good copy enough for you?

I've got nothing against you so I don't know why you are now trying to drive this into personal territory. All I can see is you've disagreed with some of my opinions. If you can't debate and respect others' opinions, you shouldn't be on an opinion board. I've never said anything to insult you; I don't even know who you are. As I don't know you, I'm not going to go down that road. Continue to throw stones if you like. I'll fight my own corner when necessary but I'm not going to get into name-calling or value judgements.

You disagree with my opinions. Fine. So do others, but they don't seek to antagonise me over it.

And yes, British sports fans knock down their heroes. Does that make it right? Does the fact it is a common occurrence mean those who do it are not hypocrites? I'm just saying it will probably happen to Gavin, and evidently, from the post above, you think so too. Why, then, do you take exception to me saying so? Are you one of the people I described?

And am I obsessed with people knowing I'm a journalist? I don't think so. Both instances I've mentioned in this thread have been within context.

oliverfennell wrote:

harrygreb wrote:like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

Please illustrate why my articles are "complete tosh" for any other reason than you disagree with my opinions.

I never put my opinions as facts. Any trained journalist knows not to do this. If you read my stuff again, you will see it is opinion using facts to illustrate my point.

As for Frankie Gavin; again some are missing the point. I am behind him 100% and he deserves all the accolades he's getting. But I'm just saying I predict that somewhere down the line, there will be a backlash. There almost always is.

For example, sure Audley's been "found out", but some of the people who are saying "I told you so" are the same who were pitching him for world titles earlier. Same with Khan. One minute he's British boxing's golden boy, the next he's been floored and now there's a significant chunk of fans rooting for him to get beaten because "they told us so".

It will happen with Gavin, mark my words.

This is NOT me saying anything negative against Frankie. I've already said - from the first post - I'm supporting him. I can just see the backlash coming one day.

Just an aside, but I think the 'backlash' only happens when the individual concerned does not enjoy popular support. In both the quoted examples, many people who might otherwise have continued to support them have been put off by a perceived arrogance (rightly or wrongly) and so they've gone from wanting them to succeed to wanting them to fail.
Both Amir and Audley have suffered in part because of their own brashness - proclaiming you're going to be world champ in x number of bouts or years is setting yourself up for this type of reaction.
If Gavin doesn't fall into this trap and consistently presents a humble, down-to-earth personna, I don't anticipate any backlash against him.

Deserter wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

harrygreb wrote:like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

Please illustrate why my articles are "complete tosh" for any other reason than you disagree with my opinions.

I never put my opinions as facts. Any trained journalist knows not to do this. If you read my stuff again, you will see it is opinion using facts to illustrate my point.

As for Frankie Gavin; again some are missing the point. I am behind him 100% and he deserves all the accolades he's getting. But I'm just saying I predict that somewhere down the line, there will be a backlash. There almost always is.

For example, sure Audley's been "found out", but some of the people who are saying "I told you so" are the same who were pitching him for world titles earlier. Same with Khan. One minute he's British boxing's golden boy, the next he's been floored and now there's a significant chunk of fans rooting for him to get beaten because "they told us so".

It will happen with Gavin, mark my words.

This is NOT me saying anything negative against Frankie. I've already said - from the first post - I'm supporting him. I can just see the backlash coming one day.

Just an aside, but I think the 'backlash' only happens when the individual concerned does not enjoy popular support. In both the quoted examples, many people who might otherwise have continued to support them have been put off by a perceived arrogance (rightly or wrongly) and so they've gone from wanting them to succeed to wanting them to fail.
Both Amir and Audley have suffered in part because of their own brashness - proclaiming you're going to be world champ in x number of bouts or years is setting yourself up for this type of reaction.
If Gavin doesn't fall into this trap and consistently presents a humble, down-to-earth personna, I don't anticipate any backlash against him.

You could be right there. Hatton and Bruno are two good examples. But still they have/had their detractors.

Audley always talked very highly of himself, which made him a natural target. Khan, though, I don't think is above-average when it comes to trash-talking or cockiness. His comments about Thaxton were a bit ill-informed, but other than that I don't see him as such a cocky character as to make people turn against him, but turn against him they have.

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Please illustrate why my articles are "complete tosh" for any other reason than you disagree with my opinions.

I never put my opinions as facts. Any trained journalist knows not to do this. If you read my stuff again, you will see it is opinion using facts to illustrate my point.

As for Frankie Gavin; again some are missing the point. I am behind him 100% and he deserves all the accolades he's getting. But I'm just saying I predict that somewhere down the line, there will be a backlash. There almost always is.

For example, sure Audley's been "found out", but some of the people who are saying "I told you so" are the same who were pitching him for world titles earlier. Same with Khan. One minute he's British boxing's golden boy, the next he's been floored and now there's a significant chunk of fans rooting for him to get beaten because "they told us so".

It will happen with Gavin, mark my words.

This is NOT me saying anything negative against Frankie. I've already said - from the first post - I'm supporting him. I can just see the backlash coming one day.

Just an aside, but I think the 'backlash' only happens when the individual concerned does not enjoy popular support. In both the quoted examples, many people who might otherwise have continued to support them have been put off by a perceived arrogance (rightly or wrongly) and so they've gone from wanting them to succeed to wanting them to fail.
Both Amir and Audley have suffered in part because of their own brashness - proclaiming you're going to be world champ in x number of bouts or years is setting yourself up for this type of reaction.
If Gavin doesn't fall into this trap and consistently presents a humble, down-to-earth personna, I don't anticipate any backlash against him.

You could be right there. Hatton and Bruno are two good examples. But still they have/had their detractors.

Audley always talked very highly of himself, which made him a natural target. Khan, though, I don't think is above-average when it comes to trash-talking or cockiness. His comments about Thaxton were a bit ill-informed, but other than that I don't see him as such a cocky character as to make people turn against him, but turn against him they have.

I think with Khan it's a combination of the cockiness (his comments about Thaxton, Earl etc) and things like his driving offences.
Can you imagine either Ricky or Bruno doing those things? Hence they've never had the detractors on the same scale...

Deserter wrote:I think with Khan it's a combination of the cockiness (his comments about Thaxton, Earl etc) and things like his driving offences.
Can you imagine either Ricky or Bruno doing those things? Hence they've never had the detractors on the same scale...

Yeah, good point. When Hatton and Bruno are/were confident, they talk about their own strengths rather than their opponents' limitations.

What is it about "cocky" fighters and driving offences? Khan, Naz, Eubank...

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:I think with Khan it's a combination of the cockiness (his comments about Thaxton, Earl etc) and things like his driving offences.
Can you imagine either Ricky or Bruno doing those things? Hence they've never had the detractors on the same scale...

Yeah, good point. When Hatton and Bruno are/were confident, they talk about their own strengths rather than their opponents' limitations.

What is it about "cocky" fighters and driving offences? Khan, Naz, Eubank...

At the risk of descending into pub psychology, it's the idea that they're above other people - not subject to the same laws, deserving of greater privileges etc. You see the same with many Premiership players.

a quick re-read of my post will prove that i'm not getting personal oliver.
a re-read of one of your posts on this thread states that you are able to take criticism. something that at present is in question, but lets stop sniping - we both dislike it. i apologise sincerely if i have hit a raw nerve, all i wanted to express was my opinion of your thread which i think i have done ad nauseum. i will continue to read your threads and posts, ollie, in the certainty of finding something really worth arguing about.
regards

Deserter wrote:I think with Khan it's a combination of the cockiness (his comments about Thaxton, Earl etc) and things like his driving offences.
Can you imagine either Ricky or Bruno doing those things? Hence they've never had the detractors on the same scale...

I think Khan's personality is not tooooo bad (like EG hamed) - but he's making big boasts like Audley before having achieved much in the pros.

Also the backlash is because he is getting sooooooo built up by the press, and by ITV / McGuigan, FW allegedly etc and the real fan sees through this.

However this feeling is not yet reflected by the vaerage sports fans from what I hear from non-boxing friends and in puns etc.

Funtime Frankie

http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/ ... 194019.ece

harrygreb wrote:a quick re-read of my post will prove that i'm not getting personal oliver.
a re-read of one of your posts on this thread states that you are able to take criticism. something that at present is in question, but lets stop sniping - we both dislike it. i apologise sincerely if i have hit a raw nerve, all i wanted to express was my opinion of your thread which i think i have done ad nauseum. i will continue to read your threads and posts, ollie, in the certainty of finding something really worth arguing about.
regards

I'm able to take constructive criticism of my work and I'm more than happy for people to disagree with what I write. It would be boring if everybody thought the same as me.

Anyway, thanks for the above. One thing I do my best to avoid is online disputes, because they do nobody any favours. I'm glad we can both rise above it, agree to disagree, and start afresh.

As Audley himself would say: Peace!

does audley say that to his opponent after the refs instructions

Amir is cool, gets a little hyper in post-match interviews, but hey, which boxer hasn't.

his opponent however, (Earl i think), is hurling insults at Amir Khan left, right and centre.

will like to see Amir Smash Earl on the 8th.

observer1 wrote:Amir is cool, gets a little hyper in post-match interviews, but hey, which boxer hasn't.

his opponent however, (Earl i think), is hurling insults at Amir Khan left, right and centre.

will like to see Amir Smash Earl on the 8th.

That's a good point. Khan disses Thaxton, everybody says "boooo", then Earl disses Khan, and everybody cheers him on. It was a similar thing with Audley and Danny Williams. Audley called him a "cockroach" and everybody got up in arms, but Danny had been goading Audley from the day he turned pro. Why does one get lambasted for trash talk, but not the other?

If Frankie with his obvious talent comes over as a decent guy the fans will support him - If he can transfer well into the pro ranks he will be a very exciting prospect - I dont like negative journalism - Lets just wish him well.

WildWaylon wrote: I dont like negative journalism - Lets just wish him well.

A shame the majority of the popular press doesn't share your opinion.

Deserter wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

harrygreb wrote:like i said and stickandmove seconded, olivers ego (..is here to stay) compels him to write complete tosh in the belief that it's informed journalism. what an absolutely pointless thread about frankie gavin and his future detractors. ollie defends it all by saying that it is typical tabloid hackery and that type of hackery is heralded in fleet street/wapping/surrey quays as quality journalism because it achieves what it sets out to achieve. all i can say is razzle magazines do as well but i dont read them either.

Please illustrate why my articles are "complete tosh" for any other reason than you disagree with my opinions.

I never put my opinions as facts. Any trained journalist knows not to do this. If you read my stuff again, you will see it is opinion using facts to illustrate my point.

As for Frankie Gavin; again some are missing the point. I am behind him 100% and he deserves all the accolades he's getting. But I'm just saying I predict that somewhere down the line, there will be a backlash. There almost always is.

For example, sure Audley's been "found out", but some of the people who are saying "I told you so" are the same who were pitching him for world titles earlier. Same with Khan. One minute he's British boxing's golden boy, the next he's been floored and now there's a significant chunk of fans rooting for him to get beaten because "they told us so".

It will happen with Gavin, mark my words.

This is NOT me saying anything negative against Frankie. I've already said - from the first post - I'm supporting him. I can just see the backlash coming one day.

Just an aside, but I think the 'backlash' only happens when the individual concerned does not enjoy popular support. In both the quoted examples, many people who might otherwise have continued to support them have been put off by a perceived arrogance (rightly or wrongly) and so they've gone from wanting them to succeed to wanting them to fail.
Both Amir and Audley have suffered in part because of their own brashness - proclaiming you're going to be world champ in x number of bouts or years is setting yourself up for this type of reaction.
If Gavin doesn't fall into this trap and consistently presents a humble, down-to-earth personna, I don't anticipate any backlash against him.

Absolutely

oliverfennell wrote:

observer1 wrote:Amir is cool, gets a little hyper in post-match interviews, but hey, which boxer hasn't.

his opponent however, (Earl i think), is hurling insults at Amir Khan left, right and centre.

will like to see Amir Smash Earl on the 8th.

That's a good point. Khan disses Thaxton, everybody says "boooo", then Earl disses Khan, and everybody cheers him on. It was a similar thing with Audley and Danny Williams. Audley called him a "cockroach" and everybody got up in arms, but Danny had been goading Audley from the day he turned pro. Why does one get lambasted for trash talk, but not the other?

Khan is known for his cocky nature while Earl and Thaxton are not and the same applies to Harrison - Olympic ego maybe.