BoxRec

been reading boxing news since 05 - and it has definetly got worse its like a watered down version of what it used to be, i also dont like the new lay out of the magazine.

Here's my take.

1 The punters who canceled or dont buy the mag are just getting old and jaded or sadlt short on cash (which I think is the only valid reason for not buying it as most 'internet only' writers are of a lower standard)

2 I miss Claude bigtime, Tris is a very good choice for the job (seems to have the same assured and calm demenour as Claude did) but for me Claude & Glyn are/were britains best editors and shite all over their US counterparts, end of.
hope Claude is well and enjoyng life, he was a gentleman.

3 The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

4 The content? well its only as good as the current boxing world (the wrting for me is great) and TBH at the mo the scene is pretty good, with the likes of Khan, Froch, Mayweather, PacMan etc etc.

5 The only things I dont like is the Ams section is way too big, I would give it only 2 pages max as it bores the shit outa me, and the old timers section I think could have better subject choices (but I have thought that since I started buying the mag yeats ago)

6 They have obviously made the effort so lets support them as the mag (along with BM) is/are the life blood of our favourite sport

7 FaceBook, Twitter etc jut like this site and many other sites they are all flavours of the month, they are the web.. they exist.. get over, it welcome to the future.

Now as for you people who have gave up on BN?
dont let age beat you ffs it only roughly 3 quid's, Just because we are all running dry on serotonin it shouldn't stop you from all looking forward to your fix of the best weekly magazine in the world.

All hail Boxing News!

Jon Saxon wrote:Here's my take.

1 The punters who canceled or dont buy the mag are just getting old and jaded or sadlt short on cash (which I think is the only valid reason for not buying it as most 'internet only' writers are of a lower standard)

2 I miss Claude bigtime, Tris is a very good choice for the job (seems to have the same assured and calm demenour as Claude did) but for me Claude & Glyn are/were britains best editors and shite all over their US counterparts, end of.
hope Claude is well and enjoyng life, he was a gentleman.

3 The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

4 The content? well its only as good as the current boxing world (the wrting for me is great) and TBH at the mo the scene is pretty good, with the likes of Khan, Froch, Mayweather, PacMan etc etc.

5 The only things I dont like is the Ams section is way too big, I would give it only 2 pages max as it bores the shit outa me, and the old timers section I think could have better subject choices (but I have thought that since I started buying the mag yeats ago)

6 They have obviously made the effort so lets support them as the mag (along with BM) is/are the life blood of our favourite sport

7 FaceBook, Twitter etc jut like this site and many other sites they are all flavours of the month, they are the web.. they exist.. get over, it welcome to the future.

Now as for you people who have gave up on BN?
dont let age beat you ffs it only roughly 3 quid's, Just because we are all running dry on serotonin it shouldn't stop you from all looking forward to your fix of the best weekly magazine in the world.

All hail Boxing News!

thanks for that Tris...now can you get rid of that stuart hall wannabe cos its givin me a headache reading his fight reports..he could go and write question for cryptic crosswords

bad mamma jamma wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:Here's my take.

1 The punters who canceled or dont buy the mag are just getting old and jaded or sadlt short on cash (which I think is the only valid reason for not buying it as most 'internet only' writers are of a lower standard)

2 I miss Claude bigtime, Tris is a very good choice for the job (seems to have the same assured and calm demenour as Claude did) but for me Claude & Glyn are/were britains best editors and shite all over their US counterparts, end of.
hope Claude is well and enjoyng life, he was a gentleman.

3 The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

4 The content? well its only as good as the current boxing world (the wrting for me is great) and TBH at the mo the scene is pretty good, with the likes of Khan, Froch, Mayweather, PacMan etc etc.

5 The only things I dont like is the Ams section is way too big, I would give it only 2 pages max as it bores the shit outa me, and the old timers section I think could have better subject choices (but I have thought that since I started buying the mag yeats ago)

6 They have obviously made the effort so lets support them as the mag (along with BM) is/are the life blood of our favourite sport

7 FaceBook, Twitter etc jut like this site and many other sites they are all flavours of the month, they are the web.. they exist.. get over, it welcome to the future.

Now as for you people who have gave up on BN?
dont let age beat you ffs it only roughly 3 quid's, Just because we are all running dry on serotonin it shouldn't stop you from all looking forward to your fix of the best weekly magazine in the world.

All hail Boxing News!

thanks for that Tris...now can you get rid of that stuart hall wannabe cos its givin me a headache reading his fight reports..he could go and write question for cryptic crosswords

Eh?? Sorry I don't get your point could you please explain.

Jon Saxon wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:Here's my take.

1 The punters who canceled or dont buy the mag are just getting old and jaded or sadlt short on cash (which I think is the only valid reason for not buying it as most 'internet only' writers are of a lower standard)

2 I miss Claude bigtime, Tris is a very good choice for the job (seems to have the same assured and calm demenour as Claude did) but for me Claude & Glyn are/were britains best editors and shite all over their US counterparts, end of.
hope Claude is well and enjoyng life, he was a gentleman.

3 The new format rocks and anyone who doesnt like it is stuck in the past, I love the effort put into the new look the layout style the guest writers etc and its a shame that some of you can's see this either.

4 The content? well its only as good as the current boxing world (the wrting for me is great) and TBH at the mo the scene is pretty good, with the likes of Khan, Froch, Mayweather, PacMan etc etc.

5 The only things I dont like is the Ams section is way too big, I would give it only 2 pages max as it bores the shit outa me, and the old timers section I think could have better subject choices (but I have thought that since I started buying the mag yeats ago)

6 They have obviously made the effort so lets support them as the mag (along with BM) is/are the life blood of our favourite sport

7 FaceBook, Twitter etc jut like this site and many other sites they are all flavours of the month, they are the web.. they exist.. get over, it welcome to the future.

Now as for you people who have gave up on BN?
dont let age beat you ffs it only roughly 3 quid's, Just because we are all running dry on serotonin it shouldn't stop you from all looking forward to your fix of the best weekly magazine in the world.

All hail Boxing News!

thanks for that Tris...now can you get rid of that stuart hall wannabe cos its givin me a headache reading his fight reports..he could go and write question for cryptic crosswords

Eh?? Sorry I don't get your point could you please explain.

i was being a clever fcker by insinuating you were tris dixon in disguise cos of you gushing love about the quality of BN...

bad mamma jamma wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote: thanks for that Tris...now can you get rid of that stuart hall wannabe cos its givin me a headache reading his fight reports..he could go and write question for cryptic crosswords

Eh?? Sorry I don't get your point could you please explain.

i was being a clever fcker by insinuating you were tris dixon in disguise cos of you gushing love about the quality of BN...

I see.

I really do love Boxing News its Britains best weekly and I honestly think that its a very good example of how Britain shows the US how it should be done.

i mean look at 'The Ring'? I can't begin to tel you how bad that magazine is, it's sister Mag KO monthly used to be better i thought.

I wonder how many US boxing mags there are left now?

Jon Saxon wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
Eh?? Sorry I don't get your point could you please explain.

i was being a clever fcker by insinuating you were tris dixon in disguise cos of you gushing love about the quality of BN...

I see.

I really do love Boxing News its Britains best weekly and I honestly think that its a very good example of how Britain shows the US how it should be done.

i mean look at 'The Ring'? I can't begin to tel you how bad that magazine is, it's sister Mag KO monthly used to be better i thought.

I wonder how many US boxing mags there are left now?

i am a BN subscriber but it really has gone down the toilet since abrams left..have been reading it for years but i dont get the same buzz from reading it nowadays..The Big Debate is a waste of time IMO, the amateur section is too long, even the 60 SECOND iNTERVIEW has been dumbed down, i mean, fer fcks sake "when did you last cry".."twitter of facebook"..will they be asking them what their fave colour is next?
bring back eric armit's column, make it more for the boxing officianado like it used to be, aim it towards adults and not to kids, and fer gods sake make christie write a fight report that starts at the beginning and finishes at the end of a fight..i want light reading which is factual and descriptive not a mish mash of metaphors, who proof reads this shit?

My sub ran out a couple of weeks ago, am debating whether or not to re-sub. I've not really missed it much.

bad mamma jamma wrote: bring back eric armit's column, make it more for the boxing officianado like it used to be

You can do one, an all...Eric has an appreciative home, thank you:

http://news.boxrec.com/users/eric-armit

The great man is taking a well earned break at the moment

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote: bring back eric armit's column, make it more for the boxing officianado like it used to be

You can do one, an all...Eric has an appreciative home, thank you:

http://news.boxrec.com/users/eric-armit

The great man is taking a well earned break at the moment

eric is a legend! i referred his boxrec column to casual boxing fans and now they are regular readers

Sadly I just find much of BN's content so trivial these days. My subscription renewal is up soon and I doubt I'll renew it - much as pains me to do so (after 25 years.)

Basically I don't really understand why, as 'boxing people', BN's editor and writers have nothing to say on such issues such as Nicky Cook's promotion in to the WBO rankings or Ian John-Lewis's appointment as referee and sole judge of his fellow Medway man Tom Dallas' fight with Zach Page. Is a boxer's favoured choice between an 'aisle or window seat' really more important?

bad mamma jamma wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

bad mamma jamma wrote: i was being a clever fcker by insinuating you were tris dixon in disguise cos of you gushing love about the quality of BN...

I see.

I really do love Boxing News its Britains best weekly and I honestly think that its a very good example of how Britain shows the US how it should be done.

i mean look at 'The Ring'? I can't begin to tel you how bad that magazine is, it's sister Mag KO monthly used to be better i thought.

I wonder how many US boxing mags there are left now?

i am a BN subscriber but it really has gone down the toilet since abrams left..have been reading it for years but i dont get the same buzz from reading it nowadays..The Big Debate is a waste of time IMO, the amateur section is too long, even the 60 SECOND iNTERVIEW has been dumbed down, i mean, fer fcks sake "when did you last cry".."twitter of facebook"..will they be asking them what their fave colour is next?
bring back eric armit's column, make it more for the boxing officianado like it used to be, aim it towards adults and not to kids, and fer gods sake make christie write a fight report that starts at the beginning and finishes at the end of a fight..i want light reading which is factual and descriptive not a mish mash of metaphors, who proof reads this shit?

I agree with what you say about the 60 second interview BUT it does have to apeal you the new younger fans also no?

And in last weeks, they had a page on the Danny Green-Antoine Tarver fight and not even the result of the Commonwealth cruiserweight title fight between Shane Cameron and Dominic Vea, I know it was between a kiwi and an aussie but some people don't use the internet so wouldn't have even known a commonwealth title fight had happened.

Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

Good post. I must admit that I'm enjoying Fighting Fit when I pick it up from the UK. Not a fan of the saddlestictch format as the mag just falls apart too easily, but realise there's a cost implication of going perfect-bound. Danny, on a related note, I couldn't see your competitor, Train Hard, Fight Easy, anywhere. Has it bitten the dust or has it just lost some of its retail footprint?

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

thats all you can do, how many poster here have complainned compared to the readership as a whole or BN? very small

i personally like the new format, but i dont follow the ams so i'm stuck on both sides of the argument which im sure alot of people are.

Deserter wrote:

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

Good post. I must admit that I'm enjoying Fighting Fit when I pick it up from the UK. Not a fan of the saddlestictch format as the mag just falls apart too easily, but realise there's a cost implication of going perfect-bound. Danny, on a related
note, I couldn't see your competitor, Train Hard, Fight Easy, anywhere. Has it bitten the dust or has it just lost some of its retail footprint?

the latter I guess as it still exists. Good news for us perhaps.

Cholo_cws wrote:Sadly I just find much of BN's content so trivial these days. My subscription renewal is up soon and I doubt I'll renew it - much as pains me to do so (after 25 years.)

Basically I don't really understand why, as 'boxing people', BN's editor and writers have nothing to say on such issues such as Nicky Cook's promotion in to the WBO rankings or Ian John-Lewis's appointment as referee and sole judge of his fellow Medway man Tom Dallas' fight with Zach Page. Is a boxer's favoured choice between an 'aisle or window seat' really more important?

I know, the 60 second interview is, in my view, somewhat of an insult to readers and the fighters who feature.

The big debate is poor and a waste of column inches. The readers poll could be scrapped, so could hit and miss. In this weeks edition the tribute to Butch Lewis was way too brief.

Some of the writers are good. Daniel Herberts article on The Khan - Judah fight was excellent. However, in my view Herbert is the only writer on Boxing News who can match Glyn Leach, Steve Farhood and Graham Houston over at Boxing Monthly which is now unsurpassed as the worlds best Boxing Magazine.

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

matt christie's article on tapia was a good piece i grant you, but i have a beef with his report writing. now i am all for a bit of colour added to a fight report and really enjoy how kenneth sam-bouharie and zachary levin (where is he now?) add a dash of it to their pieces. but matt seems to go overboard on occasions which leads the reader to a state of confusion..its not easy to follow and a fight report should be easy to follow in order to allow the reader to visualise the action as if they were there.

paradoxically BN is IMO at the same time lowering its standards to aim at the younger reader. however i have been reading BN since I was about 11-12 years old (i am 38 now) in the days of Mullan and i wasnt put off by it, even though in those days they didnt make a special effort to attract the "yoof". No matter how old you are you will buy BN if you are a big boxing fan and you are looking for factual information about the game..and not knowing whether a boxer likes Eastenders or Corrie, or if his favourite colour is blue or red wont put them off buying it.

BN is not a publication that can realistically expect the casual fan to pick up and read it, unlike Fighting Fit. its a trade paper and should be treated as such.

bad mamma jamma wrote:

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

matt christie's article on tapia was a good piece i grant you, but i have a beef with his report writing. now i am all for a bit of colour added to a fight report and really enjoy how kenneth sam-bouharie and zachary levin (where is he now?) add a dash of it to their pieces. but matt seems to go overboard on occasions which leads the reader to a state of confusion..its not easy to follow and a fight report should be easy to follow in order to allow the reader to visualise the action as if they were there.

paradoxically BN is IMO at the same time lowering its standards to aim at the younger reader. however i have been reading BN since I was about 11-12 years old (i am 38 now) in the days of Mullan and i wasnt put off by it, even though in those days they didnt make a special effort to attract the "yoof". No matter how old you are you will buy BN if you are a big boxing fan and you are looking for factual




information about the game..and not knowing whether a boxer likes Eastenders or Corrie, or if his favourite colour is blue or red wont put them off buying it.



BN is not a publication that can realistically expect the casual fan to pick up and read it, unlike Fighting Fit. its a trade paper and should be treated as such.

That limits ambition - why not be the trade paper and more. And, no offence, a 12-year-old now differs wildly from you and I when we were that age

bad mamma jamma wrote:

dbflex wrote:Before I express my view, let me declare an interest: while I write only occasionally for BN these days (cue sighs of relief from some), I'm still part of the same team and remain on the same bank of desks. So try as I might, I may not be completely impartial.

That being said I do think there is a lack of understanding here, the benevolent Jon Saxon aside. Just to detail a few of the mixed messages flying in BN's direction: posters requesting more overseas content, something the hardcore fans and trade insiders have, over the years, decried in favour of more and longer British coverage; posters complaining of amateur overkill when last year, as the section was often reduced to just two-three pages per week, we received many complaints for neglecting and disrespecting a crucial element of the sport; BN is implored to aim itself at adults but the future sustainability of the brand - and, perhaps print media as a whole - depends on our attracting new young readers; Matt is criticised for being overly elaborate in a thread that purports to be about BN 'dumbing down' and on a forum where the magazine has previously been castigated for bland writing that lacks 'a voice'.

This litany of contradictions is not intended as a slight on any posters - it's not as if any of you have altered your own previous opinions - but it should highlight how widely opinions differ and how difficult it is to identify a consensus. BN listens - hence the enlarged amateur section (redesigned this week) and other changes like more varied feature stories - but to whom should they be listening? It's impossible to please all of the people all of the time but I can guarantee they strive to at least please most of the people most of the time. Please keep your comnents coming - the more considered and constructive the better - because I know they read them and take them onboard.

Ps: Objective as I can be, I thought Matt's Johnny Tapia article was an outstanding piece of work that would sit comfortably in any sports section or publication.

Pps: Read the next Fighting Fit - Mayweather, Froch, Ward, Barker and more.

matt christie's article on tapia was a good piece i grant you, but i have a beef with his report writing. now i am all for a bit of colour added to a fight report and really enjoy how kenneth sam-bouharie and zachary levin (where is he now?) add a dash of it to their pieces. but matt seems to go overboard on occasions which leads the reader to a state of confusion..its not easy to follow and a fight report should be easy to follow in order to allow the reader to visualise the action as if they were there.

paradoxically BN is IMO at the same time lowering its standards to aim at the younger reader. however i have been reading BN since I was about 11-12 years old (i am 38 now) in the days of Mullan and i wasnt put off by it, even though in those days they didnt make a special effort to attract the "yoof". No matter how old you are you will buy BN if you are a big boxing fan and you are looking for factual information about the game..and not knowing whether a boxer likes Eastenders or Corrie, or if his favourite colour is blue or red wont put them off buying it.

BN is not a publication that can realistically expect the casual fan to pick up and read it, unlike Fighting Fit. its a trade paper and should be treated as such.

Design and layout are essential to attracting the "casual fan" that's just a fact of publishing that Glyn Rhodes will back me up on if you ask him.
It's not simply a trade paper either, it's the ONLY weekly boxing paper we have and we should celebrate it.
Sure there are areas for improvement but there isnt a mag in the world that you couldnt say this about.
I mean look at BM's new rating of David Haye? Given that he just went the distance with a rival champion in a fight where he wasn't dominated (neither of them did shit tbh) I mean what the fuk is that all about? that said I love BM and will buy it to I die.

One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

BIGMARK wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
Design and layout are essential to attracting the "casual fan" that's just a fact of publishing that Glyn Rhodes will back me up on if you ask him.
It's not simply a trade paper either, it's the ONLY weekly boxing paper we have and we should celebrate it.
Sure there are areas for improvement but there isnt a mag in the world that you couldnt say this about.
I mean look at BM's new rating of David Haye? Given that he just went the distance with a rival champion in a fight where he wasn't dominated (neither of them did shit tbh) I mean what the fuk is that all about? that said I love BM and will buy it to I die.

One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

A man of many talents i think you might mean Leach

lol fuk you Mark lol lol

BIGMARK wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

BIGMARK wrote: A man of many talents i think you might mean Leach

lol fuk you Mark lol lol

Anyway I meant Nick Rhodes from Duran Duran

I have voiced an opinion on what I personally like & dislike about Boxing News, in a previous post. However, to recap:

- Amatuer section too in-depth, however with London 2012, I can see why it has a larger focus than before.

- Fight reports, a little too brief and lacking the detail of yesteryear. A bit too generalised and lacking detail.

- The Q & A, like most, don't really agree with the 'dumbing' of the questions. Preferred it when it was a bit more aggresive with its questioning.

I do genuinely like the magazine and have a lot of time for the likes of Tris & Co and they're opinions. The 'Who would Win' debates are fun and enjoyable to read and I usually find myself siding with one side or the other, in agreement with the presented logic.

Maybe it is me, but like yid said, I do find myself reading pretty much all of it, alot quicker than I used to. As stated though, that could just be me and not down to any subtle changes in Boxing News.

In general, I do still enjoy reading Boxing News, a few things could be changed, to satisfy my personal preference. Still a great read and I am happy we have it, compared to the rubbish, like The Ring and other dross, our cousins across 'The Pond' have to endure.

Oh yeah, Teddy Atlas.....No, just no, decent guy but gets more of his calls wrong then they are right. Ordinarily, this fine and can be expected, due to the unpredictable nature of the sport......but the following week, he writes, telling us why he knew straight away why X was going to lose to Y, despite telling us the opposite the previous week.

It does irritate me, to a degree, but meh....

Jon Saxon wrote:One other thing a mate of mine owns a well known UK mag and he said that he would buy BN in a heartbeat.

Well he's a brave man in the current media climate. What magazine does he own Jon, as it's very rare in this day and age for a well-known UK mag to be owned by an individual rather than one of the big publishers such as Bauer or Haymarket?