ARE WE HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE BOXING NEWS ??

[TerribleTerry]

I recently renewed my subscription - a great read every week.

It still manages to stay relevant and unique even in this area of internet coverage: that is a big achievement on the part of the writing team.

[oliverfennell]

Last week though had some guy from America writing up the Mosley-Mora card that seemed to want to use an analogy for everything

Sounds better than Obermayer, anyway. "Jones landed a left. J lands a l, my notes said. Smith responded with a great body shot. S hits J with a r to the b, said my notes."

[McCannW14]

Not happy with it. Stopped buying it last week. Something is missing and too many errors in it for my liking. The other week they did a question and answer with some fighters, the question was who is the hardest puncher in Boxing and all the answers were clearly related to a totally different subject about Matthew Hatton. That is just one of several I have spotted since Claude hung up his pen.

[chinny]

Not happy with it. Stopped buying it last week. Something is missing and too many errors in it for my liking. The other week they did a question and answer with some fighters, the question was who is the hardest puncher in Boxing and all the answers were clearly related to a totally different subject about Matthew Hatton. That is just one of several I have spotted since Claude hung up his pen.

Yes that was sloppy and there have been some obvious errors, but overall I don't agree with you and think it is going in the right direction.

Any idea what the 'something' is, which you think is missing?

[dalcumly]

I started this debate off a few days ago and I'm delighted so many people have taken the time to read and respond . I'm a great fan of the magazine and I am pleased that others feel the same way .
To be a reporter and/or editor of the Boxing News is not as great job I suspect as some may believe . On the one hand you have to report on fights accurately and make comments according to your opinion . But if your opinion is clearly going to upset a promoter , manager , trainer or fighter then it will difficult and perhaps embarassing when you next need to speak to them . Of course a reporter has a primary duty to his readership - nothing else matters !!
In my opinion , for what its worth , Claude Abrams was absolutely superb in this role . He favoured no one and this led to several fallouts , but ultimately he gained everyones' respect if not their friendship . The reason he gained their respect was the fact that he couldn't be influenced in any way . He called it , as he saw it , and if you didn't like it - too bad .
Another previous editor , Gilbert Odd , was a stickler for proper grammar and spelling and would be turning in his grave if he saw some of the errors occuring recently .
The new staff members , and the Editor , are feeling their way , and that is the problem - as they say up here Scotland , they might feel that their jackets are on a " shoogly peg ", implying that they are still on trial in some way. Perhaps they don't want at this stage to have too strong an opinion on some matters . For instance , if the Ricky Burns v Matt Zegan contest is really going to take place would they come straight out and declare the match up to be a disgrace ?? I fear not , and that is what's missing .
Having said that I'll never stop buying it and wish the staff all the best .

[palooka]

I've read it week in week out since Haugen v Pazienza 1 in 1987; I could subscribe but want to buy it from the same bloke every week on Donny market. I'm happy with it BUT if they were to publish an obituary notice on Bob Arums' son (RIP), they should have done the same for the brilliant West Ham amateur Shaun Gray (7 national titles) who passed away recently.

[JamesH]

Enjoyed the piece with De Gale this week

[dbflex]

I've read it week in week out since Haugen v Pazienza 1 in 1987; I could subscribe but want to buy it from the same bloke every week on Donny market. I'm happy with it BUT if they were to publish an obituary notice on Bob Arums' son (RIP), they should have done the same for the brilliant West Ham amateur Shaun Gray (7 national titles) who passed away recently.

Shaun Gray was an amateur legend and his tribute should have gone in the amateurs section. I think the reason it did not was that we received the news so much later than when he actually died. It's possibly not too late to do this. I suggest you email Daniel Herbert or even send him a usable tribute piece.

[reggaereggae]

Surely given the audience is an educated boxing fan, lets focus on the interesting elements of the specific fighters life, either in or out of the ring. Not vacuous, generic nonsense about how good Scarface is.

I was interested to read this morning that Craig Lyon doesn't read books and his favourite film is Scarface.

YEs it seems most boxers don't read books and 50% of them have Scarface as their favourite film..... NExt we'll find out what their favourite chocolate bar is...

[chinny]

Claude Abrams was absolutely superb in this role . He favoured no one and this led to several fallouts , but ultimately he gained everyones' respect if not their friendship

I hope bennie doesn't see this DD

[earsjohn]

I consider myself fairly comms savvy and use internet and mobile computing to stay up to date with pretty much everything, yet I still subscribe and look forward to the mags arrival on a thursday (or like this week get disappointed if it doesn't arrive til friday). I like the format and I think there is a fine balance between news, previews, reviews and features.

I certainly have the latest copy close at hand when watching fights on TV and I find the international stuff useful to raise my awareness of fights and fighters that have passed me by. We live in an ever shrinking world, so a bit of news about fights in Panama, Japan and Namibia is not a bad thing.

[Coco]

Apparently many boxers eat porridge for breakfast

[Deserter]

He favoured no one and this led to several fallouts , but ultimately he gained everyones' respect if not their friendship . The reason he gained their respect was the fact that he couldn't be influenced in any way . He called it , as he saw it , and if you didn't like it - too bad .

I've got no problem with Claude Abrams and he seems a nice guy, but this simply isn't true. He bottled it on several occasions when it really mattered.

[palooka]

I've read it week in week out since Haugen v Pazienza 1 in 1987; I could subscribe but want to buy it from the same bloke every week on Donny market. I'm happy with it BUT if they were to publish an obituary notice on Bob Arums' son (RIP), they should have done the same for the brilliant West Ham amateur Shaun Gray (7 national titles) who passed away recently.

Shaun Gray was an amateur legend and his tribute should have gone in the amateurs section. I think the reason it did not was that we received the news so much later than when he actually died. It's possibly not too late to do this. I suggest you email Daniel Herbert or even send him a usable tribute piece.

Thanks

I have emailed a member of Shauns' family. Hope we get to read a proper tribute to his and Patsys' accomplishments very soon.

[Spud]

He favoured no one and this led to several fallouts , but ultimately he gained everyones' respect if not their friendship . The reason he gained their respect was the fact that he couldn't be influenced in any way . He called it , as he saw it , and if you didn't like it - too bad .

I've got no problem with Claude Abrams and he seems a nice guy, but this simply isn't true. He bottled it on several occasions when it really mattered.

I have to agree.

[dbflex]

He favoured no one and this led to several fallouts , but ultimately he gained everyones' respect if not their friendship . The reason he gained their respect was the fact that he couldn't be influenced in any way . He called it , as he saw it , and if you didn't like it - too bad .

I've got no problem with Claude Abrams and he seems a nice guy, but this simply isn't true. He bottled it on several occasions when it really mattered.

I have to agree.

Knowing Claude as I do, if he did not focus on certain subjects you felt he should or took opposing opinions to some readers, it would not have been out of fear i.e. bottling it. He may just have been displaying the courage of his own convictions

[Deserter]

I've got no problem with Claude Abrams and he seems a nice guy, but this simply isn't true. He bottled it on several occasions when it really mattered.

I have to agree.

Knowing Claude as I do, if he did not focus on certain subjects you felt he should or took opposing opinions to some readers, it would not have been out of fear i.e. bottling it. He may just have been displaying the courage of his own convictions

Danny, sorry, but that's laughable. If you want the perfect example there was the 'interview' with FW a couple of years ago that read like one of the worst 'puff' pieces I've ever seen and served as the perfect example of how Sports Network were consistently given a 'pass' on contentious issues.
Or how about the time BN completely failed to pull Hatton up on his claims that he was doing the Lazcano fight "for the fans" only for it to end up on PPV?
I admire your loyalty to Claude, but the evidence doesn't support your assertion.

[dbflex]

I have to agree.

Knowing Claude as I do, if he did not focus on certain subjects you felt he should or took opposing opinions to some readers, it would not have been out of fear i.e. bottling it. He may just have been displaying the courage of his own convictions

Danny, sorry, but that's laughable. If you want the perfect example there was the 'interview' with FW a couple of years ago that read like one of the worst 'puff' pieces I've ever seen and served as the perfect example of how Sports Network were consistently given a 'pass' on contentious issues.
Or how about the time BN completely failed to pull Hatton up on his claims that he was doing the Lazcano fight "for the fans" only for it to end up on PPV?
I admire your loyalty to Claude, but the evidence doesn't support your assertion.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying these things were right - although Claude did not write the Warren piece which I felt was pretty insightful - just that perhaps Claude's reasons for not "pulling Hatton up" etc were not due to fear. Bear in mind the 'opinion' part of BN was then restricted to Claude's column alone, which generally featured one topic per week. That means prioritising. All I'm saying is Claude never appeared to us as someone who worried about upsetting anyone. He was banned by Warren famously and backed my right to state my opinion regarding several promoters both in print and online. He also stood by my right to say what I thought when the shit invariably hit the fan. He may not have dealt with things you feel he should have but Claude scared? Never

[Deserter]

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying these things were right - although Claude did not write the Warren piece which I felt was pretty insightful - just that perhaps Claude's reasons for not "pulling Hatton up" etc were not due to fear. Bear in mind the 'opinion' part of BN was then restricted to Claude's column alone, which generally featured one topic per week. That means prioritising. All I'm saying is Claude never appeared to us as someone who worried about upsetting anyone. He was banned by Warren famously and backed my right to state my opinion regarding several promoters both in print and online. He also stood by my right to say what I thought when the poop invariably hit the fan. He may not have dealt with things you feel he should have but Claude scared? Never

I don't misunderstand it at all. You're missing some pretty crucial things in your response. Claude was the editor. That means:
1) Of course I'm aware he didn't write the Warren piece, but as the editor he will have been (or should have been) involved in setting the parameters for the interview and ensuring that it tackled all the relevant issues. Danny, if you feel that interview was insightful then I really don't mean this to sound patronising, but there's still clearly a lot you have to learn.
2) You say the opinion part of BN was restricted to Claude's column alone... well, who's the one man who could have changed that? Yep, the editor. He wasn't a staff writer, operating to orders, the flatplan and running order were his call. He therefore consciously chose to avoid allowing more opinion in the publication.
You worked with him and clearly feel that "scared" isn't an appropriate way to describe him, which I'm happy to accept as you've got the first-hand evidence. However, the inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that he just wasn't that good an editor therefore, as he still failed to tackle issues of key interest and relevance to readers regardless of motive.
And I have to say that the improvements in the mag I've seen since he departed appear to substantiate that.

[dbflex]

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying these things were right - although Claude did not write the Warren piece which I felt was pretty insightful - just that perhaps Claude's reasons for not "pulling Hatton up" etc were not due to fear. Bear in mind the 'opinion' part of BN was then restricted to Claude's column alone, which generally featured one topic per week. That means prioritising. All I'm saying is Claude never appeared to us as someone who worried about upsetting anyone. He was banned by Warren famously and backed my right to state my opinion regarding several promoters both in print and online. He also stood by my right to say what I thought when the poop invariably hit the fan. He may not have dealt with things you feel he should have but Claude scared? Never

I don't misunderstand it at all. You're missing some pretty crucial things in your response. Claude was the editor. That means:
1) Of course I'm aware he didn't write the Warren piece, but as the editor he will have been (or should have been) involved in setting the parameters for the interview and ensuring that it tackled all the relevant issues. Danny, if you feel that interview was insightful then I really don't mean this to sound patronising, but there's still clearly a lot you have to learn.
2) You say the opinion part of BN was restricted to Claude's column alone... well, who's the one man who could have changed that? Yep, the editor. He wasn't a staff writer, operating to orders, the flatplan and running order were his call. He therefore consciously chose to avoid allowing more opinion in the publication.
You worked with him and clearly feel that "scared" isn't an appropriate way to describe him, which I'm happy to accept as you've got the first-hand evidence. However, the inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that he just wasn't that good an editor therefore, as he still failed to tackle issues of key interest and relevance to readers regardless of motive.
And I have to say that the improvements in the mag I've seen since he departed appear to substantiate that.

I will address these points briefly as I feel ultimately we will have to agree to disagree. Claude was an editor who encouraged his writers to be creative and work, beyond the necessary, without boundaries. He would not dictate to a writer what he wanted tackled in an interview. Instead he would trust the writer and indeed encourage them to write the article they envisaged. The piece you reference was intended more as a retrospective on Warren's career from his perspective not an article taking Frank to task. As for the small amount of opinion, yes he could have changed the magazine's format. Tris obviously has. But it's all about priorities and the editorial direction the incumbent wants. Tris felt more opinion and features would meet readers' needs, perhaps Claude prioritised other areas - longer previews, more action reports etc. But I do not believe his keeping the opinion content to a minimum was due to fear of comebacks as he always encouraged us to speak our minds without fear or favour.

But as I said we shall agree to disagree. You seem to prefer the magazine now and I can't complain about that.

[Deserter]

Claude was an editor who encouraged his writers to be creative and work, beyond the necessary, without boundaries. He would not dictate to a writer what he wanted tackled in an interview. Instead he would trust the writer and indeed encourage them to write the article they envisaged. The piece you reference was intended more as a retrospective on Warren's career from his perspective not an article taking Frank to task.

I agree it's pretty much run its course, but there's one thing you need to understand - giving direction is not the same as dictating. All the best editors supply strong direction within boundaries - you have to have boundaries to have a framework and consistent 'voice' for your publication. That's accepted as best practice in the industry.
And again, any editor who believes that the average reader would prefer a six-page reverential piece on Warren's career over a balanced article that also tackled the questions many readers wanted answered or even gave fresh insights on the man is an editor out of touch with his readership. Look at the likes of Four-Four-Two to see how it should be done.

[dbflex]

Claude was an editor who encouraged his writers to be creative and work, beyond the necessary, without boundaries. He would not dictate to a writer what he wanted tackled in an interview. Instead he would trust the writer and indeed encourage them to write the article they envisaged. The piece you reference was intended more as a retrospective on Warren's career from his perspective not an article taking Frank to task.

I agree it's pretty much run its course, but there's one thing you need to understand - giving direction is not the same as dictating. All the best editors supply strong direction within boundaries - you have to have boundaries to have a framework and consistent 'voice' for your publication. That's accepted as best practice in the industry.
And again, any editor who believes that the average reader would prefer a six-page reverential piece on Warren's career over a balanced article that also tackled the questions many readers wanted answered or even gave fresh insights on the man is an editor out of touch with his readership. Look at the likes of Four-Four-Two to see how it should be done.

you are entitled to your opinion and have expressed it eloquently. I just do not agree with it. But no hard feelings.

[Deserter]

[you are entitled to your opinion and have expressed it eloquently. I just do not agree with it. But no hard feelings.

No hard feelings at any point - as you know, I've been overt in terms of my positive sentiments towards the magazine in its latest incarnation and regarding some of your own individual articles.
However, the inevitable question I have to ask is what in my latest post you don't agree with given they pretty much represent magazine publishing 'benchmarks' in terms of the function of the editor and the servicing of reader interests?

[dalcumly]

When Claude Abrams was the editor , the Boxing News' Scottish correspondent , John Morrison , wrote a report on a Tommy Gilmour show at the St Andrews' Sporting Club in which he briefly mentioned a 'sectarian ' component . Tommy Gilmour complained to the Editor and told him that Morrison would not be allowed back to any of his shows . The result - if Morrison's banned , then the Boxing News is banned . Results only - but no fight reports . I seem to remember another Boxing News reporter being refused his ringside credentials at a allegedly show because of something he wrote , and the result was that the bill was reported from a public seat , and the Editor quite rightly made a great play on this the following week . I suppose Claude could have simply reported the results only from this huge allegedly show but he was in a real difficult position . He had a duty to his readership on that occasion which with respect to the St Andrews Sporting Club events, had a much wider fan base .
The point is , as Editor of a relatively small magazine and in the 'goldfish bowl ' of professional boxing where everyone knows everybody else , the Editor has to be totally independent and fearless . Claude was , and I suggest you ask allegedly if there is any doubts , but is Tris ?
His time will come when he will know he has major decisions to make , and all his loyal readers will be watching closely . Good luck , son !!!
But in the meantime he has the best job in sports journalism in the UK - doing a job he clearly loves .

[m1kee50]

Some interesting comments above...

The recent new addition to the American write-ups - I forget the exact name but he has already been mentioned above - is awful, his first report spent more time on why the Mayweather-Pacman fight would not happen, not on the fight he supposedly sat through. Some of us might have wanted to know how the fight went, not just the result, which to be honest you can come on here for, BN is supposed to tell us why it was the way it was.

The 60 Secs bit at the back IMO is good, but maybe could do with being turned into more of a prose piece rather than identical Q's every week, anyone else sick of hearing that a boxer doesnt really read many books?

Amatuer section is grand but could the shows not be publicised more than one week in advance, like the pro ones?

Some of the recent proof-reading and so on has been terrible too, its as if no-one reads it before they print it.

As for the emphasis on overseas results, I think that its about right... its easy as it were to get reports and results on domestic fights from more than one source, but overseas not so much so you need to know - and this is why: our boxers are in their little pond, this british scene, and the other countries have their ponds, and when the boxers get to play in the Champions League, to brutally hammer some analogies together, its nice to know a bit the other man, so we can properly evaluate the performance.

And more Terry D stuff pls, he's a very good writer and should have had more space than the couple of bits you gave him.