BoxRec

gobbles wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

gobbles wrote: Because some of the Irish journalists there weren't out of order, were they?

What do you mean by "out of order"?

Even if they were T-Bagging the ringcard girls does that mean that the Boxing News editorial should read like it was written by Asif Vali??

Out of order for press: cheering in the press seats, jumping out of their seats at the press conference to point and shout at the people on the top table.
I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey, who butted in every time Khan or De La Hoya spoke.
Some of the press even butted in when Roach spoke, not allowing him to give even an opening statement because, according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch.
I have been to hundreds of of boxing press conferences and I have never seen such a partisan section. The only thing I can compare it to was when Luis Collazo's wife tried to take over the press conference after his loss to Hatton.
And you might say, so what? Who cares if Khan's team were badgered, people like De La Hoya should not be able to get away with saying some things unchallenged, but sections of the Irish press (and this was about 4 of them, I don't want to tar the whole Irish press as behaving like this) were disrespectful to their colleagues there who wanted to ask different questions or even ask questions that they might get some quotes from (which, after all, is the point of a press conference, the point is not to have it descent into chaos, without the chance for one-on-one interviews with the winning side, which is what happened).

Lets break this bullshit down shall we -

1. "cheering in the press seats" - one guy was shouting "go on wee man"! not all the Irish journalists, one guy. He was a local journalist from the Derry Journal that has problably known Dudey all his life. I was at Sykes-Morris in Huddersfield and there was some guy from the Dewsbury Express (or whatever his local paper is) jumping up and down on his seat cheering Sykes on - I didnt think to myself "I know what I am going to do, I'll show that guy and write a completely lobsided article against Sykes, that'll show the Tyke!"

2. "I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey" - I should fuckin hope so to. Team McCloskey are COMPLETELY biased towards McCloskey, I think with a statement like that that you acknowledge that Herbert was biased towards Khan. Boxing News is supposed to be a trade magazine, calling it down the line, not some fanboy blog blowing smoke up Khans arse.

3. "according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch." - funny that because "according to some members of the British press, the only issue was Khan's next fight with Bradley.

If you think his editorial isnt written with complete bias then you are burying your head in the sand and engaging in "whataboutery"

Like I said, even if ALL the Irish press were wiping the bronzer off Buffers cheeks with baby wipes why would that be cause for Herbert to write a completely biased editorial - and fight report.

I dont buy the Derry Journal, I dont bu the Irish Times, I buy Boxing News and I dont expect to read complete arselicking bollocks like that in the editorial. Whinging that Oscar had to witness this unseemly mess but skirting over why there was a mess and then giving Roach the next page to reinforce Herberts view. I found it a truly embarrassing piece of journalism to be honest.

Here is some of the reaction from Irish journalists - obviously you wont take their opinions on an equal par as if they were British journalists, who would eh!? But ask yourself why would these normally mild mannered creature stir like this -

A. "It was a disgracfully biased editorial. It's funny the same guy who would have gloried in Harry Carpenter's "go on get it there Frank" remark at Bruno-Tyson 1, but heaven forbid an Irish journalist showing favouritism and getting behind his fellow countryman. Most likely the same Irish journalist would have followed Paul throughout most of his amateur career and all through his pro career, and would most likely have a emotional attachment to the lad.

Boxing News then gave Freddie [Khan will stop McCloskey in 4rds] Roach his pennies worth, and we heard the same bull from him. Herbert let himself down with that piece, it was very disappointing and decidely one sided. If this is part of "the new look" Boxing News, then they can keep it. "

B. "arent these the same lads who picked munroe to beat nishioka?"

C. "I just knew it would be a biased piece. Not a mention of the shit value for money for the PPV viewer or punter who bought a ticket. Not a mention of the crap under card. Or long intervals between each fight. The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. Why was there three English judges on duty for a world title fighter involving Khan? Why didnt Team McCloskey get a microphone during the post-presser? It was predictable that not a word would be posited on any of that. Just like in the aftermath of the shambolic Haye-Harrison - they tried to spin the shit out of it, and ultimately took the side of the promoter.

I have cancelled my BN subs, it has went downhill. There is very little that I read in it now. I can access anything on the fights off the net and it is packed with filler that is largely rehashed from websites. The editorials are poor, always looking to cover for the promoter. In the fight report, they gave the show 3 stars (good) and the main event 2 stars (disappointing). In the final line of the editorial, Herbert offers his own warped view on McCloskey's future: "At the relatively advanced age of 32, McCloskey may have damaged his own prospects more than Khan's". That says it all.

Dan Herbert, who is actually my favourite writer at BN, particularly his previews - gave one side of the McCloskey-Khan fight and it came across as 'poor Oscar got it in the neck'. It is the polar opposite of the no-nonsense approach from the editor of Boxing Monthly, who regularly calls out tv executives and the likes of Goldenboy for their bullshit."

D. "I can't agree more this weeks boxing news was terribly biased! Near every quote was from khan or a member of his team, an also in the amateurs it's all about the English team and from an English perspective, is the mag not representing the whole 4 nations?"

E. "I was shocked in the after presser that all the wanted to talk about was Bradley- bar one or two English reporters (the bloke with the long hair ah sure what was his name?he asked some very good cut based questions) they were all saying congrats whats next- seemed they didnt want to upset golden boy too.."

F. "What a stupid thing to say, McCloskey's profile has never been higher here in Ireland. Maidana, Judah and Prescott names have all been mentioned as potential opponents for " the damaged goods that is now Paul McCloskey". The problem with Boxing News is that they poo-pooed the McCloskey-Khan contest from the offset,so were trying to save face, when their ill founded predictions were found to be ludicrous."

G. "you could clearly hear in the post-presser all of the Bradley questions were asked by the English journos. After the way that fight finished, it was lame. As I said a few days ago, very well done to all the Irish journo's at that presser, at least they have the balls to call Goldenboy out on his bullshit."

H. "I haven't read it yet. But we were well within our rights to question what was going on and still are.
Whole thing was a joke. The English questions were indeed all ignoring McCloskey and aimed at Bradley and letting Khan spout bullshit.

All the while McCloskey sat beside him. I know I tried to be get at Khan when asking him a question and will never apologise for it.

Can anyone essentially say what the editorial said about Irish hacks? I'm fucked if I'm paying to see it. David Kelly was dead on to get so angry, what went on was a disgrace, start to finish - especially to finish."

slapbangwhallop wrote:

gobbles wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote: What do you mean by "out of order"?

Even if they were T-Bagging the ringcard girls does that mean that the Boxing News editorial should read like it was written by Asif Vali??

Out of order for press: cheering in the press seats, jumping out of their seats at the press conference to point and shout at the people on the top table.
I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey, who butted in every time Khan or De La Hoya spoke.
Some of the press even butted in when Roach spoke, not allowing him to give even an opening statement because, according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch.
I have been to hundreds of of boxing press conferences and I have never seen such a partisan section. The only thing I can compare it to was when Luis Collazo's wife tried to take over the press conference after his loss to Hatton.
And you might say, so what? Who cares if Khan's team were badgered, people like De La Hoya should not be able to get away with saying some things unchallenged, but sections of the Irish press (and this was about 4 of them, I don't want to tar the whole Irish press as behaving like this) were disrespectful to their colleagues there who wanted to ask different questions or even ask questions that they might get some quotes from (which, after all, is the point of a press conference, the point is not to have it descent into chaos, without the chance for one-on-one interviews with the winning side, which is what happened).

Lets break this bullshit down shall we -

1. "cheering in the press seats" - one guy was shouting "go on wee man"! not all the Irish journalists, one guy. He was a local journalist from the Derry Journal that has problably known Dudey all his life. I was at Sykes-Morris in Huddersfield and say some guy from the Dewsbury Express jumping up and down on his seat cheering Sykes on - I didnt think to myself "I know what I am I am going to show that guy and write a completely lobsided article against Sykes, that'll show the Tyke!"

2. "I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey" - I should fuckin hope so to. Team McCloskey are COMPLETELY biased towards McCloskey, I think with a statement like that that you acknowledge that Herbert was biased towards Khan. Boxing News is supposed to be a trade magazine, calling it down the line, not some fanboy blog blowing smoke up Khans arse.

3. "according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch." - funny that because "according to some members of the British press, the only issue was Khan's next fight with Bradley.

If you think his editorial isnt written with complete bias then you are burying your head in the sand and engaging in "whataboutery"

Like I said, even if ALL the Irish press were wiping the bronzer off Buffers cheeks with baby wipes why would that be cause for Herbert to write a completely biased editorial - and fight report.

I dont buy the Derry Journal, I dont bu the Irish Times, I buy Boxing News and I dont expect to read complete arselicking bollocks like that in the editorial. Whinging that Oscar had to witness this unseemly mess but skirting over why there was a mess and then giving Roach the next page to reinforce Herberts view. I found it a truly embarrassing piece of journalism to be honest.

Here is some of the reaction from Irish journalists - obviously you wont take their opinions on an equal par as if they were British journalists, who would eh!? But ask yourself why would these normally mild mannered creature stir like this -

A. "It was a disgracfully biased editorial. It's funny the same guy who would have gloried in Harry Carpenter's "go on get it there Frank" remark at Bruno-Tyson 1, but heaven forbid an Irish journalist showing favouritism and getting behind his fellow countryman. Most likely the same Irish journalist would have followed Paul throughout most of his amateur career and all through his pro career, and would most likely have a emotional attachment to the lad.

Boxing News then gave Freddie [Khan will stop McCloskey in 4rds] Roach his pennies worth, and we heard the same bull from him. Herbert let himself down with that piece, it was very disappointing and decidely one sided. If this is part of "the new look" Boxing News, then they can keep it. "

B. "arent these the same lads who picked munroe to beat nishioka?"

C. "I just knew it would be a biased piece. Not a mention of the shit value for money for the PPV viewer or punter who bought a ticket. Not a mention of the crap under card. Or long intervals between each fight. The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. Why was there three English judges on duty for a world title fighter involving Khan? Why didnt Team McCloskey get a microphone during the post-presser? It was predictable that not a word would be posited on any of that. Just like in the aftermath of the shambolic Haye-Harrison - they tried to spin the shit out of it, and ultimately took the side of the promoter.

I have cancelled my BN subs, it has went downhill. There is very little that I read in it now. I can access anything on the fights off the net and it is packed with filler that is largely rehashed from websites. The editorials are poor, always looking to cover for the promoter. In the fight report, they gave the show 3 stars (good) and the main event 2 stars (disappointing). In the final line of the editorial, Herbert offers his own warped view on McCloskey's future: "At the relatively advanced age of 32, McCloskey may have damaged his own prospects more than Khan's". That says it all.

Dan Herbert, who is actually my favourite writer at BN, particularly his previews - gave one side of the McCloskey-Khan fight and it came across as 'poor Oscar got it in the neck'. It is the polar opposite of the no-nonsense approach from the editor of Boxing Monthly, who regularly calls out tv executives and the likes of Goldenboy for their bullshit."

D. "I can't agree more this weeks boxing news was terribly biased! Near every quote was from khan or a member of his team, an also in the amateurs it's all about the English team and from an English perspective, is the mag not representing the whole 4 nations?"

E. "I was shocked in the after presser that all the wanted to talk about was Bradley- bar one or two English reporters (the bloke with the long hair ah sure what was his name?he asked some very good cut based questions) they were all saying congrats whats next- seemed they didnt want to upset golden boy too.."

F. "What a stupid thing to say, McCloskey's profile has never been higher here in Ireland. Maidana, Judah and Prescott names have all been mentioned as potential opponents for " the damaged goods that is now Paul McCloskey". The problem with Boxing News is that they poo-pooed the McCloskey-Khan contest from the offset,so were trying to save face, when their ill founded predictions were found to be ludicrous."

G. "you could clearly hear in the post-presser all of the Bradley questions were asked by the English journos. After the way that fight finished, it was lame. As I said a few days ago, very well done to all the Irish journo's at that presser, at least they have the balls to call Goldenboy out on his bullshit."

H. "I haven't read it yet. But we were well within our rights to question what was going on and still are.
Whole thing was a joke. The English questions were indeed all ignoring McCloskey and aimed at Bradley and letting Khan spout bullshit.

All the while McCloskey sat beside him. I know I tried to be get at Khan when asking him a question and will never apologise for it.

Can anyone essentially say what the editorial said about Irish hacks? I'm fucked if I'm paying to see it. David Kelly was dead on to get so angry, what went on was a disgrace, start to finish - especially to finish."

The press conference was a shambles. Right from the way so many people crowded the top table (mostly from McCloskey's camp) while both teams' camps were massed on either side, which is always a bad idea.
English questions on Bradley? Of course. McCloskey barely landed a punch. Did he even try to win? He wasn't competitive in a single round. All that "you were tiring" stuff is bullshit, Khan was having his best round in the sixth. He lasted 12 all right v Maidana, when he actually fought at a high pace, there was no pace to the McCloskey fight at all.
If you think "come on wee man" was the only cheering for McCloskey in the press seats, you're nuts, or weren't there.
Do you thinking shouting at De La Hoya "would you have been happy to be stopped like that" would actually achieve a decent answer? Screaming at Roach the same thing? I wonder how Hearn would have reacted if journalists had shouted at him in a similar way in one of his press conferences.
"All the Bradley questions were asked by English journalists". Why would someone covering McCloskey ask such a question, even though you might have got a more positive answer if someone had asked "after Bradley, will you give McCloskey another shot?"
The way the whole thing was run meant there was hardly any time for questions because it was quickly obvious that Golden Boy would not let Khan stick around too long in that atmosphere and, believe it or not, Khan is the big name, not McCloskey. Instead Hearn starts yapping on about Khan should fight him in Belfast.
And to most people, plans to box Bradley (something that actually could happen) as opposed to "doesn't McCloskey deserve a rematch?" (1. no he doesn't, 2. it was a voluntary defence, 3. it won't happen) is a more sensible question.
Cancelled your Boxing News subscription on the basis that you don't like one writer's opinion, that shows you in a horribly blinkered light. Guess you can't appreciate that other people disagree with you about what the story was. The cut brought an end to a very disappointing world title challenge.
And your comment - "I tried to get at Khan" - take a deep breath next time you are doing your job. Believe it or not, it's not supposed to be personal for a journalist.
I like McCloskey, and I'm a big admirer of John Breen. But the atmosphere created in the press conference was what resulted in the shambles.

gobbles wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Out of order for press: cheering in the press seats, jumping out of their seats at the press conference to point and shout at the people on the top table.
I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey, who butted in every time Khan or De La Hoya spoke.
Some of the press even butted in when Roach spoke, not allowing him to give even an opening statement because, according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch.
I have been to hundreds of of boxing press conferences and I have never seen such a partisan section. The only thing I can compare it to was when Luis Collazo's wife tried to take over the press conference after his loss to Hatton.
And you might say, so what? Who cares if Khan's team were badgered, people like De La Hoya should not be able to get away with saying some things unchallenged, but sections of the Irish press (and this was about 4 of them, I don't want to tar the whole Irish press as behaving like this) were disrespectful to their colleagues there who wanted to ask different questions or even ask questions that they might get some quotes from (which, after all, is the point of a press conference, the point is not to have it descent into chaos, without the chance for one-on-one interviews with the winning side, which is what happened).

Lets break this bullshit down shall we -

1. "cheering in the press seats" - one guy was shouting "go on wee man"! not all the Irish journalists, one guy. He was a local journalist from the Derry Journal that has problably known Dudey all his life. I was at Sykes-Morris in Huddersfield and say some guy from the Dewsbury Express jumping up and down on his seat cheering Sykes on - I didnt think to myself "I know what I am I am going to show that guy and write a completely lobsided article against Sykes, that'll show the Tyke!"

2. "I thought the Boxing News editorial was way more balanced than the ridiculous reaction of Team McCloskey" - I should fuckin hope so to. Team McCloskey are COMPLETELY biased towards McCloskey, I think with a statement like that that you acknowledge that Herbert was biased towards Khan. Boxing News is supposed to be a trade magazine, calling it down the line, not some fanboy blog blowing smoke up Khans arse.

3. "according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch." - funny that because "according to some members of the British press, the only issue was Khan's next fight with Bradley.

If you think his editorial isnt written with complete bias then you are burying your head in the sand and engaging in "whataboutery"

Like I said, even if ALL the Irish press were wiping the bronzer off Buffers cheeks with baby wipes why would that be cause for Herbert to write a completely biased editorial - and fight report.

I dont buy the Derry Journal, I dont bu the Irish Times, I buy Boxing News and I dont expect to read complete arselicking bollocks like that in the editorial. Whinging that Oscar had to witness this unseemly mess but skirting over why there was a mess and then giving Roach the next page to reinforce Herberts view. I found it a truly embarrassing piece of journalism to be honest.

Here is some of the reaction from Irish journalists - obviously you wont take their opinions on an equal par as if they were British journalists, who would eh!? But ask yourself why would these normally mild mannered creature stir like this -

A. "It was a disgracfully biased editorial. It's funny the same guy who would have gloried in Harry Carpenter's "go on get it there Frank" remark at Bruno-Tyson 1, but heaven forbid an Irish journalist showing favouritism and getting behind his fellow countryman. Most likely the same Irish journalist would have followed Paul throughout most of his amateur career and all through his pro career, and would most likely have a emotional attachment to the lad.

Boxing News then gave Freddie [Khan will stop McCloskey in 4rds] Roach his pennies worth, and we heard the same bull from him. Herbert let himself down with that piece, it was very disappointing and decidely one sided. If this is part of "the new look" Boxing News, then they can keep it. "

B. "arent these the same lads who picked munroe to beat nishioka?"

C. "I just knew it would be a biased piece. Not a mention of the shit value for money for the PPV viewer or punter who bought a ticket. Not a mention of the crap under card. Or long intervals between each fight. The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish. Why was there three English judges on duty for a world title fighter involving Khan? Why didnt Team McCloskey get a microphone during the post-presser? It was predictable that not a word would be posited on any of that. Just like in the aftermath of the shambolic Haye-Harrison - they tried to spin the shit out of it, and ultimately took the side of the promoter.

I have cancelled my BN subs, it has went downhill. There is very little that I read in it now. I can access anything on the fights off the net and it is packed with filler that is largely rehashed from websites. The editorials are poor, always looking to cover for the promoter. In the fight report, they gave the show 3 stars (good) and the main event 2 stars (disappointing). In the final line of the editorial, Herbert offers his own warped view on McCloskey's future: "At the relatively advanced age of 32, McCloskey may have damaged his own prospects more than Khan's". That says it all.

Dan Herbert, who is actually my favourite writer at BN, particularly his previews - gave one side of the McCloskey-Khan fight and it came across as 'poor Oscar got it in the neck'. It is the polar opposite of the no-nonsense approach from the editor of Boxing Monthly, who regularly calls out tv executives and the likes of Goldenboy for their bullshit."

D. "I can't agree more this weeks boxing news was terribly biased! Near every quote was from khan or a member of his team, an also in the amateurs it's all about the English team and from an English perspective, is the mag not representing the whole 4 nations?"

E. "I was shocked in the after presser that all the wanted to talk about was Bradley- bar one or two English reporters (the bloke with the long hair ah sure what was his name?he asked some very good cut based questions) they were all saying congrats whats next- seemed they didnt want to upset golden boy too.."

F. "What a stupid thing to say, McCloskey's profile has never been higher here in Ireland. Maidana, Judah and Prescott names have all been mentioned as potential opponents for " the damaged goods that is now Paul McCloskey". The problem with Boxing News is that they poo-pooed the McCloskey-Khan contest from the offset,so were trying to save face, when their ill founded predictions were found to be ludicrous."

G. "you could clearly hear in the post-presser all of the Bradley questions were asked by the English journos. After the way that fight finished, it was lame. As I said a few days ago, very well done to all the Irish journo's at that presser, at least they have the balls to call Goldenboy out on his bullshit."

H. "I haven't read it yet. But we were well within our rights to question what was going on and still are.
Whole thing was a joke. The English questions were indeed all ignoring McCloskey and aimed at Bradley and letting Khan spout bullshit.

All the while McCloskey sat beside him. I know I tried to be get at Khan when asking him a question and will never apologise for it.

Can anyone essentially say what the editorial said about Irish hacks? I'm fucked if I'm paying to see it. David Kelly was dead on to get so angry, what went on was a disgrace, start to finish - especially to finish."

The press conference was a shambles. Right from the way so many people crowded the top table (mostly from McCloskey's camp) while both teams' camps were massed on either side, which is always a bad idea.
English questions on Bradley? Of course. McCloskey barely landed a punch. Did he even try to win? He wasn't competitive in a single round. All that "you were tiring" stuff is bullshit, Khan was having his best round in the sixth. He lasted 12 all right v Maidana, when he actually fought at a high pace, there was no pace to the McCloskey fight at all.
If you think "come on wee man" was the only cheering for McCloskey in the press seats, you're nuts, or weren't there.
Do you thinking shouting at De La Hoya "would you have been happy to be stopped like that" would actually achieve a decent answer? Screaming at Roach the same thing? I wonder how Hearn would have reacted if journalists had shouted at him in a similar way in one of his press conferences.
"All the Bradley questions were asked by English journalists". Why would someone covering McCloskey ask such a question, even though you might have got a more positive answer if someone had asked "after Bradley, will you give McCloskey another shot?"
The way the whole thing was run meant there was hardly any time for questions because it was quickly obvious that Golden Boy would not let Khan stick around too long in that atmosphere and, believe it or not, Khan is the big name, not McCloskey. Instead Hearn starts yapping on about Khan should fight him in Belfast.
And to most people, plans to box Bradley (something that actually could happen) as opposed to "doesn't McCloskey deserve a rematch?" (1. no he doesn't, 2. it was a voluntary defence, 3. it won't happen) is a more sensible question.
Cancelled your Boxing News subscription on the basis that you don't like one writer's opinion, that shows you in a horribly blinkered light. Guess you can't appreciate that other people disagree with you about what the story was. The cut brought an end to a very disappointing world title challenge.
And your comment - "I tried to get at Khan" - take a deep breath next time you are doing your job. Believe it or not, it's not supposed to be personal for a journalist.
I like McCloskey, and I'm a big admirer of John Breen. But the atmosphere created in the press conference was what resulted in the shambles.

Hey listen to the champ - Those quotes arnt from me, they are from other Irish boxing journalists.

Again, for the third time, even if the Irish journalist bombed Dresden in the last days of the war, why would this give cause to Herbert to write a fan piece. You seem to be ignoring Herbets bias!

Your argument to back up Herberts editorial seems largely based on "irish journalists simply dont follow etiquette so Herbert can ignore providing his readers with a balanced account."

flick to page 39 -

Facts = Ireland 5 Golds, Britain 4 - including two Micks beating top Brits in the finals

headline = "Britain Delivers"

SBW, much of that sounds like bias from the Irish side, if anything, Admittedly I haven't read the Herbert piece in question, but I get the impression that they have taken umbrage that the world outside Ireland failed to see anything but a one-sided win for Khan.

Some of the Irish journalists' comments were fine (especially in questioning the value of the show as a PPV or a live event, and BN's usual hesitance in addressing that side of things), but others betrayed their own bias, or at least inappropriate level of consternation. For example:

"according to some members of the Irish press, the only issue was trying to badger Khan's team into a rematch." - funny that because "according to some members of the British press, the only issue was Khan's next fight with Bradley.

As well it should be. There's no demand for a McCloskey rematch outside of Ireland. And discussing the winner's next move is normal after any fight, and Bradley is especially relevant in this instance because a Khan-Bradley fight has already been agreed in principle, plus it would be a unification contest. Are we supposed to accept that the British press preferring to talk about Khan in a WBA-WBC-WBO unification and probable Ring championship fight against the division's number 1 rather than a rematch against a guy he'd just whitewashed on points is somehow unfair?

B. "arent these the same lads who picked munroe to beat nishioka?"

Obviously the credibility of any journalist/publication plummets the first time he gets a fight prediction wrong, such is the predictable nature of the sport (which is why we all love it - drama is so boring).

Herbert offers his own warped view on McCloskey's future: "At the relatively advanced age of 32, McCloskey may have damaged his own prospects more than Khan's". That says it all.

So, pointing out how the reigning world champion heading into a unification bout in the States, backed by Golden Boy, and a household name in the UK, has better prospects than a hitherto unknown and subsequently unsuccesfull challenger who got his ears boxed off "says it all"? If "it all" means the blatantly obvious, then yes, it does.

E. "I was shocked in the after presser that all the wanted to talk about was Bradley- bar one or two English reporters (the bloke with the long hair ah sure what was his name?he asked some very good cut based questions) they were all saying congrats whats next- seemed they didnt want to upset golden boy too.."

Again, congratulating the winner and asking what's next is what happens after every major fight.

The problem with Boxing News is that they poo-pooed the McCloskey-Khan contest from the offset,so were trying to save face, when their ill founded predictions were found to be ludicrous."

Was their ill-founded prediction that Khan would win easily? If so, was that ludicrous when Khan, erm, won easily?

"you could clearly hear in the post-presser all of the Bradley questions were asked by the English journos."

In other words, the only journalists not asking the questions that the whole world outside of Ireland is interested in, were Irish.

The English questions were indeed all ignoring McCloskey and aimed at Bradley.

Same as above.

Clearly I wasn't at the presser so can only comment on what I have seen on youtube etc etc.

Team McCloskey if they felt wronged had every right to be angry, we see it all the time with football managersd bemoaning crucial decisions etc etc.

However, the way in which they went about things was in my opinion 'amateurish' and lacked a bit of class.

From the video I have seen some of the Irish press guys looked and sounded like cheerleaders rather than professional people there to do a job.

The person that spoke the most sense at the presser was Khan himself.

Look, McCloskey had the biggest chance of his life and did sod very little to win the fight. He was dominated from start to finish. We can argue all night long about the cut, the fact is we have seem similar stoppages in the past and we will again. To suggest this is down to some cunning plan from De La Hoya etc only serves to take attention away from McCloskeys poor effort in the fight.

People need to get some perspective here, pretty much like Dan Herbert did in BN. This was not a Brodie v Jorrin type robbery, it was a slightly controversial ending to a one sided fight.

Why shouldn't Khan talk about Bradley after the fight? Its a natural subject to talk about and a far more relevant subject than whether or not someone who was soundly beaten deserves a re-match or not. Did Lauri get a re-match after the controversial ending against McCloskey? No, and there is a bigger case for one than there is here. Yet, no-one seems to upset by that.

Wrists wrote:Clearly I wasn't at the presser so can only comment on what I have seen on youtube etc etc.

Team McCloskey if they felt wronged had every right to be angry, we see it all the time with football managersd bemoaning crucial decisions etc etc.

However, the way in which they went about things was in my opinion 'amateurish' and lacked a bit of class.

From the video I have seen some of the Irish press guys looked and sounded like cheerleaders rather than professional people there to do a job.

The person that spoke the most sense at the presser was Khan himself.

Look, McCloskey had the biggest chance of his life and did sod very little to win the fight. He was dominated from start to finish. We can argue all night long about the cut, the fact is we have seem similar stoppages in the past and we will again. To suggest this is down to some cunning plan from De La Hoya etc only serves to take attention away from McCloskeys poor effort in the fight.

People need to get some perspective here, pretty much like Dan Herbert did in BN. This was not a Brodie v Jorrin type robbery, it was a slightly controversial ending to a one sided fight.

Why shouldn't Khan talk about Bradley after the fight? Its a natural subject to talk about and a far more relevant subject than whether or not someone who was soundly beaten deserves a re-match or not. Did Lauri get a re-match after the controversial ending against McCloskey? No, and there is a bigger case for one than there is here. Yet, no-one seems to upset by that.

No doubt that Herbert had valid points and the McCloskey camp could have acted with more decorum.

What I think the underlying issue is that tone, balance and weighting given to each of the arguments.

I subscribe to Boxing News, its a quality publication but the English and dare I say it "London and Home Counties" biased in the magazine is becoming more and more apparent in ever issue.

Is it too much to ask for a little balance from Europe's leading weekly boxing publication?

I know it is off tangent but what was the yellow bag that was brought into the Amir Khan corner after every round? What was in in it? I thought that nothing could be brought into the ring between rounds?

SBW - disagree.

BN for me has no agenda at all.

And for me this is another sub plot being created to once again get away from the main issue which was McCloskeys poor effort.

Wrists wrote:SBW - disagree.

BN for me has no agenda at all.

And for me this is another sub plot being created to once again get away from the main issue which was McCloskeys poor effort.

Thats OK. We dont have to agree to make the world go round.

I thought it was biased, a lot of people I respect thought it was biased, many English people think it was fair enough. Maybe that simply highlights the inbuilt bias in us all.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Wrists wrote:SBW - disagree.

BN for me has no agenda at all.

And for me this is another sub plot being created to once again get away from the main issue which was McCloskeys poor effort.

Thats OK. We dont have to agree to make the world go round.

I thought it was biased, a lot of people I respect thought it was biased, many English people think it was fair enough. Maybe that simply highlights the inbuilt bias in us all.

Your right mate - I'm a Newcastle United fan so therefore I reckon the whole world is against us.
So can see what you're saying.

King Geedorah wrote:Well, well. Mr Ambassador, with this rant you really are spoiling us.

Oh Ambassador with this thread, your really spoling us.

God Almighty....

By pouring my frustration out in Gods name, this in no way detracts from the validity of any other God, boxer, fanbase, bullshitter, or troll.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Wrists wrote:SBW - disagree.

BN for me has no agenda at all.

And for me this is another sub plot being created to once again get away from the main issue which was McCloskeys poor effort.

Thats OK. We dont have to agree to make the world go round.

I thought it was biased, a lot of people I respect thought it was biased, many English people think it was fair enough. Maybe that simply highlights the inbuilt bias in us all.

So, the Irish press wanted to talk about a McCloskey rematch and the English press wanted to talk about Bradley. This could mean either, or both, are biased.

The only way to sort it out is to see what the international media and fans are discussing.

Is it a McCloskey rematch, or Khan v Bradley?

oliverfennell wrote: So, the Irish press wanted to talk about a McCloskey rematch and the English press wanted to talk about Bradley. This could mean either, or both, are biased.

The only way to sort it out is to see what the international media and fans are discussing.

Is it a McCloskey rematch, or Khan v Bradley?

Its much more than that I was just tired of arguing.

Not being funny but read the editorial and then give me a shout.

Cheers!

They're Italian; the bloke who was in charge of the factory died the other day and was the richest man in Italy

Yeah, if you ever need any confectionery information or the names of chocolate dynasties just yodel me

Hahaha

slapbangwhallop wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: So, the Irish press wanted to talk about a McCloskey rematch and the English press wanted to talk about Bradley. This could mean either, or both, are biased.

The only way to sort it out is to see what the international media and fans are discussing.

Is it a McCloskey rematch, or Khan v Bradley?

Its much more than that I was just tired of arguing.

Not being funny but read the editorial and then give me a shout.

Cheers!

I haven't seen it and I actually can't since I'm in Thailand and BN isn't sold here. Any way someone could scan it?