BoxRec

Where is that piece from? BM?

No mate, no idea where from or even why - think the fella just fancied previewing it

Bizarre....

I've been a little out of the loop so I'll grab a copy asap....see what all the fuss is about

Glyn Leach wrote:Veit rematch in Germany?

Cheers.

No worries bennie, good short preview otherwise

Wales wrote:What si the BEN deal stu, I assumed it was simply a one off. Have they repeated the fight(s) yet?

If i am correct BEN is an African channel. I imagine they picked this one up because of Peter being Nigerian. Now that's just speculation but i thought that is why it was on.

Think you are right steve, I've tuned in before when boxing's been advertised but they only seemed to show a couple of rounds from any fight. Did you see the Peter broadcast?

Glyn Leach wrote:According to George Orwell in 1984, "Ignorance is strength".

...or bliss depending on who you listen too

Glyn Leach wrote:Think you are right steve, I've tuned in before when boxing's been advertised but they only seemed to show a couple of rounds from any fight. Did you see the Peter broadcast?

I didn't Glyn but sometimes Boxing can be found in the strangest of avenues. I think Bravo occasionally show Guilty Promotions from the US. BEN may be one to look out for in future especially if Peter is defending his title soon as they may snap it up.

Interesting thought that a 'minor' African specialist network can outbid the likes of Sky and Setanta in Britain for a world heavyweight title fight - says something, that

Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting thought that a 'minor' African specialist network can outbid the likes of Sky and Setanta in Britain for a world heavyweight title fight - says something, that

They've shown Guilty promotions on BEN before - but as you said its usually a bit of a mis mash... They allocate an hour and I have seen it cut off mid fight.

I have asked them if they would consider revising their schedule - said they'd get back to me.. but nothing.

What about this "English boxing" I see advertised of the Fight Network (originally the wrestling channel)... anybody seen that. It often clashes with Eurosport and I don't have Sky plus.

I like the issue - good photos as usual. But again, and sorry to sound like a broken record but that Farhood makes my blood boil. His WWE style of writing is poor - it's always te same format...

1. Open up with some supposedly comedic but actually corny and facetious analogy.

2. Get to the meat of the issue but make sure you add a couple of weak jokes in it (and yes Steve I do think you are stupid)

3. Conclude with yet another facetious statement or analogy

4. a self-satisfied Farhood sits back in his chair, thinking that he's the second coming of Ernest HEmingway

Glyn - sorry for my criticism and it shows great courage for you to come online and read and respond to criticism (in fact now you have done this I feel real warmth when I read your Editor's piece) but (and I know it's horses for courses) Farhood got my goat even when I was 13, clueless and reading KO magazine or Ring...

I don't dislike him, he's just a rubbish writer

stujones wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting thought that a 'minor' African specialist network can outbid the likes of Sky and Setanta in Britain for a world heavyweight title fight - says something, that

They've shown Guilty promotions on BEN before - but as you said its usually a bit of a mis mash... They allocate an hour and I have seen it cut off mid fight.

I have asked them if they would consider revising their schedule - said they'd get back to me.. but nothing.

What about this "English boxing" I see advertised of the Fight Network (originally the wrestling channel)... anybody seen that. It often clashes with Eurosport and I don't have Sky plus.

They've been showing Sky broadcasts from around the late 90s, with the original Sky commentary. They showed Schwer-Dunne last week.

E wrote:Glyn - sorry for my criticism and it shows great courage for you to come online and read and respond to criticism (in fact now you have done this I feel real warmth when I read your Editor's piece) but (and I know it's horses for courses) Farhood got my goat even when I was 13, clueless and reading KO magazine or Ring...

I don't dislike him, he's just a rubbish writer

No worries E, glad to receive the feedback, even if I have a slightly higher opinion of our Steven than you do!

All the best

chesh wrote:

stujones wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Interesting thought that a 'minor' African specialist network can outbid the likes of Sky and Setanta in Britain for a world heavyweight title fight - says something, that

They've shown Guilty promotions on BEN before - but as you said its usually a bit of a mis mash... They allocate an hour and I have seen it cut off mid fight.

I have asked them if they would consider revising their schedule - said they'd get back to me.. but nothing.

What about this "English boxing" I see advertised of the Fight Network (originally the wrestling channel)... anybody seen that. It often clashes with Eurosport and I don't have Sky plus.

They've been showing Sky broadcasts from around the late 90s, with the original Sky commentary. They showed Schwer-Dunne last week.

Wow, is that full Sky shows with undercards or just the main event.

Glyn,

Just wondering is this a new direction the Mag is going to go through... focus extensively on like the big action (like this months Calzaghe vs Hopkins... last month Enzo vs Haye etc) and kind of neglect, sorry harsh word to use cause I am sure you would like to cover everything in depth if you had the time and space, some of the other fights.

Just wondering if this going to be the approach in the future.... I don't know when the Hopkins interview was done -but from a personal percpective I think an extensive fight preview, a Hopkins interview, a BM staff predictions page and a other fight figures prediction page just was a bit of overkill - given how busy boxing is domestically and abroad at the moment.

I would have liked to have read more on Rees vs Kotelnik (think it could be a fascinating contest), maybe even bulked up the Gomez vs Cotto preview... I think an Alfonso Gomez interview might have been a great scoop.

Just wondering how close were you in deciding to put Haye vs Maccarinelli as the main picture... and then would that have been a first in having the same two fighters on the front cover 3 months in a row.

The Hopkins interview was a great read, but I think (personally) could have been put in the month before if it was ready.

Oh yeah, and appologies for me being late with my subscription this year and cheers for popping the two mags in the post... appreciated.

Stu

There is no new direction as such but our aim is always to move with the trends in the sport as and when the need arises - for instance, Joe Calzaghe draws a 50,000 crowd therefore it is safe to assume that his fights and those of Ricky Hatton are of greater interest to more people than Rees vs Kotelnik, for instance. We are not nor have we ever been a paper of record, like BN, which has a responsibility to cover everything.

Similarly, 20,000 people got off their backsides and paid big money to attend Haye-Maccarinelli in the early hours of the morning - and we were wrong to feature that fight on the cover three months running (there was a pic of Haye top left on this month's cover)? The popularity of that fight with boxing fans suggests not.

While I would like to feature the likes of Joan Guzman on the cover, as we did, the fact is that such covers bomb. People buy stars and BM is a business, above all. If we don't sell, we don't continue, end of. Therefore if there is a big event - and these days we have been fortunate to have some massive events - we will get on it, big time, because that is what the majority of fight fans want.

Basically, as a magazine we cannot afford to indulge our purist side in the face of massive, massive popular interest in the sport. It would be plain stupid. What extra profit we make now is war chest money to last us through the bad times, which history tells us will not be too far away.

We're making hay while the sun shines cos it won't shine forever.

No worries re the mags, all the best

Yep completely understand the stars on the cover selling angle, no getting away from it - I imagine even the American mags will feature Haye on the cover in the next few months too. He's got the looks & charisma to pull a few more fans in as well.

Re missing the Campbell fight - you wont go far wrong if one of your team grabs an interview with him - he's got an interesting background story, and he's probably an even better talker than Hopkins. There's no stopping him once he gets started, and he's pretty fearless in what he has to say. Ask him why he's ducking Amir Khan, that should get a good response, ho ho

I perfectly understand - just thought it might have been better from a purist and the masses of non purist fight fans to have seen the Hopkins vs Calzaghe stuff done over two editions.... sort of as you done with the Haye vs Maccarinelli stuff, and with other big fights years gone by (like Bowe vs Gonzalez).

So when a fan who might not know his Darren Dorringtons of this world will say "this edition has a preview of Haye vs Macc AND an Interview with Hopkins" for March and then for April "this edition has a preview of Calzaghe vs Hopkins and a review of Haye vs Macc". Especially given your editorial in March... it would have been the perfect tonic to have the interview in that edition IMO.

Only if the interview was ready in time of course, I am not trying to say you shouldn't have included the Hopkins interview - cause it was a great read.... and certainly made me more hyped for the fight. Just thought it made the mag maybe suffer a bit of "overkill" - but, rather include it in April than not at all.

Your front covers are great and I understand... I was just asking if you would have selected Haye/Macc as your MAIN picture - would that have been a first (one fight as the main picture for 3 months running).... and how close were you in chosing that. Personally, I think you've made the right decision with the current pic.

stujones wrote:

chesh wrote:

stujones wrote: They've shown Guilty promotions on BEN before - but as you said its usually a bit of a mis mash... They allocate an hour and I have seen it cut off mid fight.

I have asked them if they would consider revising their schedule - said they'd get back to me.. but nothing.

What about this "English boxing" I see advertised of the Fight Network (originally the wrestling channel)... anybody seen that. It often clashes with Eurosport and I don't have Sky plus.

They've been showing Sky broadcasts from around the late 90s, with the original Sky commentary. They showed Schwer-Dunne last week.

Wow, is that full Sky shows with undercards or just the main event.

Full shows - or at least the full 2-hour broadcast.

Glyn Leach wrote:Stu

There is no new direction as such but our aim is always to move with the trends in the sport as and when the need arises - for instance, Joe Calzaghe draws a 50,000 crowd therefore it is safe to assume that his fights and those of Ricky Hatton are of greater interest to more people than Rees vs Kotelnik, for instance. We are not nor have we ever been a paper of record, like BN, which has a responsibility to cover everything.

Similarly, 20,000 people got off their backsides and paid big money to attend Haye-Maccarinelli in the early hours of the morning - and we were wrong to feature that fight on the cover three months running (there was a pic of Haye top left on this month's cover)? The popularity of that fight with boxing fans suggests not.

While I would like to feature the likes of Joan Guzman on the cover, as we did, the fact is that such covers bomb. People buy stars and BM is a business, above all. If we don't sell, we don't continue, end of. Therefore if there is a big event - and these days we have been fortunate to have some massive events - we will get on it, big time, because that is what the majority of fight fans want.

Basically, as a magazine we cannot afford to indulge our purist side in the face of massive, massive popular interest in the sport. It would be plain stupid. What extra profit we make now is war chest money to last us through the bad times, which history tells us will not be too far away.

We're making hay while the sun shines cos it won't shine forever.

No worries re the mags, all the best

No pun intended there, Glyn?

Stu - Take your point and would love the opportunity to be a little less "commercial" at times, but reality is reality, sadly. The hope, always, is that any new readers we might draw on the back of big events may turn into more committed fans and that one day we'll have a PAUL WEIR: WHAT WENT WRONG? cover line. (NOTE: I will NOT be held to my word on this occasion.) It's worth taking note, however, that while Calzaghe might have gone from 6,000 at Cardiff Ice Rink or wherever to 50,000, the rise in BM's sales in no way reflects that - we're talking about an extra 1000-1500 on a good issue (a very good issue at that), and such a figure while exceptional by today's standards, would have been average for us five years ago. A lot of damage was done to the sport, by the sport, leading up to and following the turn of the century (I'm referring to the hideous intergalactic title era) and as Barry Hearn implied, after 10 years of taking the pee it will take at least 10 years to put it right. I think Barry may be being optimistic, frankly, but things are going the right way at last, at least. However, from BM's perspective, no chickens are being counted just yet.

And re Hopkins, the interview wasn't ready in time for the previous issue, Borges grabbed him after the Calzaghe-Hopkins media tour was over, in order to try and get a fresher perspective than the interviews that appeared at that time. Must say, I enjoyed the interview. I like Borges a lot and am pleased to have him on board.

Warrior - you never know mate.

Chesh - sssshhhhh lol

All the best chaps, hope you're having a good break

E wrote:I like the issue - good photos as usual. But again, and sorry to sound like a broken record but that Farhood makes my blood boil. His WWE style of writing is poor - it's always te same format...

1. Open up with some supposedly comedic but actually corny and facetious analogy.

2. Get to the meat of the issue but make sure you add a couple of weak jokes in it (and yes Steve I do think you are stupid)

3. Conclude with yet another facetious statement or analogy

4. a self-satisfied Farhood sits back in his chair, thinking that he's the second coming of Ernest HEmingway

Glyn - sorry for my criticism and it shows great courage for you to come online and read and respond to criticism (in fact now you have done this I feel real warmth when I read your Editor's piece) but (and I know it's horses for courses) Farhood got my goat even when I was 13, clueless and reading KO magazine or Ring...

I don't dislike him, he's just a rubbish writer

Yes, it really is horses for courses. Steve Farhood is perhaps my favourite writer. I must share the same sense of humour!