BoxRec

princess wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:She always lowers the tone Mark

Mark I wouldnt lower the tone just Glyns Pants

Er, can someone close this thread down really bloody quickly please!

Glyn Leach wrote:

princess wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:She always lowers the tone Mark

Mark I wouldnt lower the tone just Glyns Pants

Er, can someone close this thread down really bloody quickly please!

Your all invited to the wedding Free T shirts Mugs and calandars will be given out by the vicar x

Can someone bring me up to date with this thread? All I wanted to know was what incentives I had to subscribe to boxing monthly and now i've been subjected to this online sex show. preposterous.

Jeff Thomas wrote: Can someone bring me up to date with this thread? All I wanted to know was what incentives I had to subscribe to boxing monthly and now i've been subjected to this online sex show. preposterous.

I'm not coming back on until she goes away Jeff

Glyn Leach wrote:

Jeff Thomas wrote: Can someone bring me up to date with this thread? All I wanted to know was what incentives I had to subscribe to boxing monthly and now i've been subjected to this online sex show. preposterous.

I'm not coming back on until she goes away Jeff

Its bad isnt it Jeff I only asked him for his hand in marriage He is playing hard to get

As long as the magazine complies with British Law on the matter of printed swear words then I think its fine.

I use to read KO Magazine when I was about 12 and though I can't remember if they published swear words (I think they did), even at that age I didn't expect a boxing magazine to read like a Beano.

You will always get complaints no matter what you do. Some people need to get out of their cotton wool wrapped world.

I like the swaearing its an adult read.

I find the editing of swear words quite bizarre. If you see f**k printed in a magazine, you quite clearly know the word, indeed you automatically think it. I'm not sure how it's less offensive than actually printing the offending word. Politeness, I suppose, but I don't really see the point. If anyone's offended by a sequence of letters, they shouldn't be less offended by a series of letters and symbols.

states wrote:I find the editing of swear words quite bizarre. If you see f**k printed in a magazine, you quite clearly know the word, indeed you automatically think it. I'm not sure how it's less offensive than actually printing the offending word. Politeness, I suppose, but I don't really see the point. If anyone's offended by a sequence of letters, they shouldn't be less offended by a series of letters and symbols.

I think it must be some law to do with age limits. A 3 year old can buy a boxing magazine just like they can buy a newspaper.

Suppose that's a question for Glyn and Graham, Would having swearwords with no censorship bring an age rating?

I help run a forum and we censor it there as thats what we feel is appropriate and never had a complaint about it.

Everyone still knows what f**k means but to me, a magazine printing it in that form shows a certain condemnation of the word being used. If it prints the word as it should be spelled, then the magazine could be considered to be condoning the language. Personally I'm ambivalent about it either way. Generally when commentators apologise for bad language it's because of Ofcom and mindful of the show being repeated the following morning. If someone can be offended about an apology for bad language on TV, you can be pretty sure someone else will be offended by the actual language!

oliverfennell wrote:

gasman wrote:

Matt W wrote:Something that really gets on my tits - apologies for my language - is when Adam Smith always apologises for swearing in the corner. I don't know about you but when I'm watching 2 men knocking shite - sorry about my language - out of each other my sensibilities aren't that easily offended.

Well said. That is a Sky policy (well I assume it is anyhow) that I wish they would change!

Whether or not you think it's unneccesary, it's hardly a problem, is it??

It's more of a pet hate. We are tuning into an evening of the most brutal sport of that lot, blood, guts and glory and it is past 9pm - so why the constant apologising for a swear words.

Glyn Leach wrote:Alright, I'll send you both bloody mugs. Bleeding me dry you are.

I got the tee-shirt in the mail today Glyn - many thanks. Been wearing it with pride today, until an hour ago when my wee 6 week old boy puked over it. :(

WelshDevil wrote:

states wrote:I find the editing of swear words quite bizarre. If you see f**k printed in a magazine, you quite clearly know the word, indeed you automatically think it. I'm not sure how it's less offensive than actually printing the offending word. Politeness, I suppose, but I don't really see the point. If anyone's offended by a sequence of letters, they shouldn't be less offended by a series of letters and symbols.

I think it must be some law to do with age limits. A 3 year old can buy a boxing magazine just like they can buy a newspaper.

Suppose that's a question for Glyn and Graham, Would having swearwords with no censorship bring an age rating?

I help run a forum and we censor it there as thats what we feel is appropriate and never had a complaint about it.

The only age-restricted magazines I can think of are pornographic. Some, like Bizarre or Viz, may advise "for mature readers", or such like, but it's not legally binding. A kid could even buy the Daily Sport. As for swear words, most of the broadsheet newspapers will print them verbatim, and they of course are not age-restricted at all, so BM's policy has nothing to do with the law.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Buncey wrote:Ten f****** years and not so much as a baseball cap or coffee mug!
By the way, on tonight's BBC London 94.9 boxing hour I will, by using the BM's world ratings, officially announce the top five Boxing Nations in the world (five points for being number one down to one point for being number five)...It will become the only Ratings that matter.

Adios.

You are already a mug and your mum should have used a dutch cap - but thanks for the ratings plug.

I think this is just a jest but it's still fvcking funny (this may be the wrong thread for swearing.)

Anyway here's my two pence - I think Glyn and BM are fvcking out of order for fvcking using the word 'fvck' or fvcking swearing in their print.

Swearing in the fvcking recourse of a man who can't fornicating express himself adequately.

oliverfennell wrote:

WelshDevil wrote:

states wrote:I find the editing of swear words quite bizarre. If you see f**k printed in a magazine, you quite clearly know the word, indeed you automatically think it. I'm not sure how it's less offensive than actually printing the offending word. Politeness, I suppose, but I don't really see the point. If anyone's offended by a sequence of letters, they shouldn't be less offended by a series of letters and symbols.

I think it must be some law to do with age limits. A 3 year old can buy a boxing magazine just like they can buy a newspaper.

Suppose that's a question for Glyn and Graham, Would having swearwords with no censorship bring an age rating?

I help run a forum and we censor it there as thats what we feel is appropriate and never had a complaint about it.

The only age-restricted magazines I can think of are pornographic. Some, like Bizarre or Viz, may advise "for mature readers", or such like, but it's not legally binding. A kid could even buy the Daily Sport. As for swear words, most of the broadsheet newspapers will print them verbatim, and they of course are not age-restricted at all, so BM's policy has nothing to do with the law.

Kob Khun Kap,

That's cleared that up for me. I was thinking of Viz and whether it had an age rating, never really bought it.

Been a subscriber to Boxing Monthly (and Boxing News & The Ring too) for years.

What I especially like about boxing magazines as opposed to the websites is the quality of the journalism.
In the magazines you get an actual story, well written and well researched.
Most of the stuff on the net are more like editorials by some hack.

I also like how the magazines get access to people behind the scenes, like TV-excecutives, promotors, etc.
Some websites to this too, but then it's rarely anything more than a comment or two at a wigh-in or press conference.
Articles with real substance, not just hype, go a long way in my book.

I've just renewed my subscription...... Vitali Klitschko still at #1

What the f**k....

LeedsLad wrote:I've just renewed my subscription...... Vitali Klitschko still at #1

What the f**k....

They're pretty much equal, but we give Vitali the edge because he tends to be more destructive than Wlad. Nothing between them really, but we don't think Wlad has done enough to overtake him.

Do you think he'd beat Wlad? Personally, I do.

Glyn Leach wrote:

LeedsLad wrote:I've just renewed my subscription...... Vitali Klitschko still at #1

What the f**k....

They're pretty much equal, but we give Vitali the edge because he tends to be more destructive than Wlad. Nothing between them really, but we don't think Wlad has done enough to overtake him.

Do you think he'd beat Wlad? Personally, I do.

Not now.

The Vitali of the Lewis fight would probably beat the current Wlad, but I think Wlad probably wins 119-109 x 3 if they were to fight now.

I wouldn't expect Wlad to go the full 12 with Johnson and Briggs..... though on the other hand Vitali might have gotten rid of Ibragimov.

I just don't rate him as highly as so many people do.... might just be me.

I do like BM rankings, usually a fighter has to do something excellent to oust the number #1 in the devision (without fighting him). I disagreed with them for moving Lewis above Holyfield after Lewis beat Golota (outstanding performance, but then Holyfield was scheduled to avenge the #3 in the devision a few weeks later). I would have waited for Holyfield vs Moorer 2 before fiddling with the rankings - Holyfield impressed and I feel should have been classed as the #1 Heavyweight going into their 1999 bouts.

I do think however, given that in recent times Wlad impressed beating possibly the then #3 in the devision in Chagaev, partially unified the title (albeit in a stinker) against Ibragimov, and, possibly more importantly, beat Peter equally as emphatically as big broth - he deserve to be #1. That really was Vitali's most impressive performance in his comeback, he's not match it since - Wlad matched it, and more, in his last fight and has a better recent resume.

Wlad has definitely been moving towards the point where he can justifiably overtake Vitali, but he's not quite there yet in our opinion. A big statement vs Sam Peter might have done the job, but the comparative results favour Vitali — and Wlad fought Peter (2nd time) after he'd been 'softened up' by Vitali. There's very little between the brothers though, if BM had a '1st equal' ranking they might well get it.

Interesting point.

Can't say I disagree with too many of the ratings..... there aren't any fighters in daft positions either high or low, and it's all subjective.

I don't rate Vitali as highly as many people do, and I rate Wlad higher than most people do too.

At least your magazine wasn't one of those insane publications ranking Chad Dawson in the top 5 P4P

Just bought this month’s copy based on this thread.

Don’t mind swearing being quoted but don’t think the writers should use it to convey their opinions etc…

More than swearing, though, what bothers me is if a writer or TV presenter (as in KOTV on C4) describe boxers who are not stars as “punch bags” or “bums”….etc.…

I want, if not demand, criticism of the superstars who avoid the best match ups or who renege on deals (as we’ve seen with Dirrell pulling out of Super 6) but I don’t want honest boxers ridiculed just because they lose more than they win. Someone has to have a losing record. These guys should be given their dignity and are very important to the sport.

I agree Ezzard, though I've been guilty of it myself. Seems to me that foreign fighters get it more than most, which has always struck me as ignorant — literally, because some of these fighters might well be the Johnny Greaveses of their countries, but those who slag them off wouldn't know that, they just look at their records.

BIGMARK wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:I agree Ezzard, though I've been guilty of it myself. Seems to me that foreign fighters get it more than most, which has always struck me as ignorant — literally, because some of these fighters might well be the Johnny Greaveses of their countries, but those who slag them off wouldn't know that, they just look at their records.

I found the JOhnny Greaves piece really interesting and i have the asked the question in the past: if these sort of guys had the right backing or had been full time pros you have to wonder what some of could of done?

I agree with Leeds lad that ratings are all subjective but for my money BM gets it about right and doesnt show bias towards home fighters. The Rings rankings are sometimes well off especially the P4P, i remember once they even had Jeff Lacy in the top 10 P4P after beating Robin Reid.

Loved the Johnny Greaves piece, seems like a great chap. I'm a Canning Town inhabitant too so am gonna keep an eye out for him, would love to buy him a pint (or mineral water) if I ever bumped into him - does he post on here?

With BM, as with BN, I flick through on the tube to work first of all, but then love sitting down and getting tuck into the articles. I love both mags.