NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

[dondada]

I'm not interested in you disclosing who you work for (unless you want to) but what genre of publication is it?

With abbreviations like DPS, I'm guessing porn.

[Deserter]

I'm not interested in you disclosing who you work for (unless you want to) but what genre of publication is it?

Sent you a PM fella.

[steve689]

well I'm gonna commit blasphemy now and say that I don't care much for Ring Magazine either.

No blasphemy here, i've been saying the same for years. Ring is so out of date it's worthless. As for Boxing Monthly i subscribed for 3 years but cancelled last year. The columnists are good and it has good feature articles with the likes of Graham Houston always good value for money. But i agree it has become harder and harder to justify spending £3.60 on it.

I have never understood why they devote so much space to the quotes of the year either. It's not like most of the quotes are even witty or amusing. Some are just plain filler...who cares if Montell Griffin predicts a 3rd round TKO of Norman Jones on an ESPN2 videocall?! That was made up but you get the point.

[Floyd]

I used to get BM religously. However it has started to focus less on the British scene IMO. (Not to mention it now cost me $8). That was the reason I read it. Living in America it gave me a chance to read features on fighters I might otherwise never heard of. Does anyone know if this was done due to feedback from there readership?

[T.M.K]

I think there are some very good posts here....

Considering there is a 98% chance Mr Leach has/will read this I can only applaud those of you who have given REASONED and informative posts/opinions. He may well even address your thoughts if you are lucky..... however those of you who write before you think should remember that Glyn took over from a list of well-respected editors, and suffered to make the mag work.

(Indeed, I think he sacrificed enough to get where he is wth it, and not many realise that. When someone in America wanted to ask about the quality of print/paper a few years back Glyn was very honest and very aware of the concern.... so i think he has his finger on the pulse very nicely 90% of the time - although i do agree about missing Hatton-Mayweather 4 this issue).

Here's hoping he reads and replies.

"T.M.K"

PS: as Mr McNeily wishes us to - I am a sometime-but-regular BM contributor.

[Tykemania]

Yeah, I do know what you mean. One hopes the Benn-McClellan piece you refer to in an earlier post was the retrospective I did on its tenth anniversary in '05.

I like the features and historical pieces too. Best thing I've ever written (boxing-wise) was a retrospective on Duran-Leonard I. Took me fooking ages, mind.

I like the quotes bit as it serves as an amusing digest but completely take on board the points made.

I don't recall who wrote the piece, I just recall it being written with a greater sense of empathy and honesty than most magazine pieces. The point is, people would happily pay for that type of piece - which I seem to recall merited just a double spread -but will wonder why they couldn't have had similar on even just two of the pages filled up with meaningless quotes in the current issue.

[Tykemania]

Some real crap on this thread, boys. Here's some food for thought:

* BM outsells Boxing News 3-1 and it has been that way for years.

* Fighters Only, the main MMA mag, costs £1 more than Boxing Monthly. BM outsells FO, too, by the way although as MMA becomes bigger FOs numbers go up

* BM's main selling point is the quality of the writing, which outstrips any other mag and website out there (and that's not just bias, I hear that everywhere I go, esp in US where the Ring is considered a bit fluffy even before Oscar bought it). There isn't a better team of writers anywhere in boxing, IMHO.

* There was NO chance of getting Hatton report in there due to the fact of the deadline getting moved up due to Xmas.

* BM is making money. Almost all internet sites bar MaxBoxing - are not.

* The stuff Deserter wrote was off-key. My job in the UFC is to get press coverage for our fights and fighters and getting UFC in the likes of Maxim, FHM, Nuts, Zoo and even PowerSlam is huge. The "lads mag" boom of the 1990s is over but some of these mags are still doing 200,000 350,000 readers and getting in these mags shifts tickets and merch, believe me.

There is some crap on most threads here, I note. Why then, do you choose to add to it?

Deserter has already taken your sales figures to pieces - I shall simply add a comment from my brother-in-law, a WH Smith's branch manager (in East London, so prime fight territory) who commented that they can no longer give Boxing Monthly away. To go on to compare circulation figures with a magazine in a different genre is preporsterous, and then to claim credit for getting your employer's product into a magazine you edit (Power Slam) is taking the proverbials.

Two other points to consider; your claim that the Hatton fight could not have been covered leads me to ask "why not" - I read Wisden every month and they always cover games that are no more than five days prior.

Finally, and I fear at some length, I turn to your point regarding the quality of writers employed by Boxing Monthly. I have no quibble that they may well be the best around, at least as far as an overall team goes. The problem is, however good they are capable of being, the stuff that they have trotted out, or been required to trot out, in the past year or so has been downright poor - if they or the Magazine's editorial team had a few better ideas, then perhaps they wouldn't be facing this barrage of criticism.

[oliverfennell]

PS: as Mr McNeily wishes us to - I am a sometime-but-regular BM contributor.

Who are you?

[dondada]

I think there are some very good posts here....

Considering there is a 98% chance Mr Leach has/will read this I can only applaud those of you who have given REASONED and informative posts/opinions. He may well even address your thoughts if you are lucky..... however those of you who write before you think should remember that Glyn took over from a list of well-respected editors, and suffered to make the mag work.

(Indeed, I think he sacrificed enough to get where he is wth it, and not many realise that. When someone in America wanted to ask about the quality of print/paper a few years back Glyn was very honest and very aware of the concern.... so i think he has his finger on the pulse very nicely 90% of the time - although i do agree about missing Hatton-Mayweather 4 this issue).

Here's hoping he reads and replies.

"T.M.K"

PS: as Mr McNeily wishes us to - I am a sometime-but-regular BM contributor.

Oh aye, Glyn has made a lot of sacrifices and has forgotten more about the magazine market than the rest of us. It's always easier...when you don't actually have to do it.

Some interesting points though and I'm sure the constructive and informed ones will have been noted.

[steve689]

PS: as Mr McNeily wishes us to - I am a sometime-but-regular BM contributor.

Excuse my ignorance but what on earth does sometime-but-regular mean?! :P

[oliverfennell]

PS: as Mr McNeily wishes us to - I am a sometime-but-regular BM contributor.

Who are you?

I remember T.M.K. from posting on the BM guestbook. When it was awesome.

I mean, what's his real name? If he's a BM writer, I'd be interested to know for future perspective.

[T.M.K]

Who are you?

I remember T.M.K. from posting on the BM guestbook. When it was awesome.

I mean, what's his real name? If he's a BM writer, I'd be interested to know for future perspective.

"Sometime-but-regular" = It is regular, but not in terms of every month

Enjoy the fun page in the current issue:

"T.M.K"....aka "The Crossword King"

[Podmore_Birmingham]

I remember T.M.K. from posting on the BM guestbook. When it was awesome.

I mean, what's his real name? If he's a BM writer, I'd be interested to know for future perspective.

"Sometime-but-regular" = It is regular, but not in terms of every month

Enjoy the fun page in the current issue:

"T.M.K"....aka "The Crossword King"

Oh, so you’re the git that ruins my Boxing Day afternoon? Trying to do that bloody crossword whilst under the influence is impossible.

[Deserter]

Some real crap on this thread, boys. Here's some food for thought:

* BM outsells Boxing News 3-1 and it has been that way for years.

* Fighters Only, the main MMA mag, costs £1 more than Boxing Monthly. BM outsells FO, too, by the way although as MMA becomes bigger FOs numbers go up

* BM's main selling point is the quality of the writing, which outstrips any other mag and website out there (and that's not just bias, I hear that everywhere I go, esp in US where the Ring is considered a bit fluffy even before Oscar bought it). There isn't a better team of writers anywhere in boxing, IMHO.

* There was NO chance of getting Hatton report in there due to the fact of the deadline getting moved up due to Xmas.

* BM is making money. Almost all internet sites bar MaxBoxing - are not.

* The stuff Deserter wrote was off-key. My job in the UFC is to get press coverage for our fights and fighters and getting UFC in the likes of Maxim, FHM, Nuts, Zoo and even PowerSlam is huge. The "lads mag" boom of the 1990s is over but some of these mags are still doing 200,000 350,000 readers and getting in these mags shifts tickets and merch, believe me.

There is some crap on most threads here, I note. Why then, do you choose to add to it?

Deserter has already taken your sales figures to pieces - I shall simply add a comment from my brother-in-law, a WH Smith's branch manager (in East London, so prime fight territory) who commented that they can no longer give Boxing Monthly away. To go on to compare circulation figures with a magazine in a different genre is preporsterous, and then to claim credit for getting your employer's product into a magazine you edit (Power Slam) is taking the proverbials.

Two other points to consider; your claim that the Hatton fight could not have been covered leads me to ask "why not" - I read Wisden every month and they always cover games that are no more than five days prior.

Finally, and I fear at some length, I turn to your point regarding the quality of writers employed by Boxing Monthly. I have no quibble that they may well be the best around, at least as far as an overall team goes. The problem is, however good they are capable of being, the stuff that they have trotted out, or been required to trot out, in the past year or so has been downright poor - if they or the Magazine's editorial team had a few better ideas, then perhaps they wouldn't be facing this barrage of criticism.

Unfortunately it looks like Ant has gone 'walkabout' fella. He appears very keen to give out the abuse (even when it's wrongly directed and backed up by incorrect assumptions), but less willing to acknowledge when he's completely wrong. Shame...

[T.M.K]

"T.M.K"....aka "The Crossword King"

Oh, so you’re the git that ruins my Boxing Day afternoon? Trying to do that bloody crossword whilst under the influence is impossible.

Ah yes, we really should have a disclaimer in there

I always worry they are not hard enough as most hardcore fight fans should walk through most of it with ease..... but if it gets the ol grey matter working hard then I can/will only take it as a compliment, and say thanks.

"T.M.K"

[Lightsoot]

I used to buy BM religiously but I only get it occasionally now, primarily because Boxing News fulfills all of my needs. I do think the BM writers are very good though - Graham Houston is my all time favourite boxing writer.

I agree with the majority of opinions on this thread but would add that I'd like to hear more from Glyn Leach. He pens one entertaining cameo at the outset of the mag and that's it! I'd like to hear more of Glyn's views because he expresses himself very well. He is the editor afterall!

[lowersmiths]

re the hatton and deadline issue
i thought it was a brilliant move by Boxing News to include the eight page preview pullout in the issue a full week before the fight.
this was obviously done so that the thousands of brits flying out to watch the fight could read the preview before going to the USA.
that's a publication with its finger on the pulse.

Rather like I have with BM, can you just make it clear that you actually do work for Boxing News? Oh, I've done it for you.

Like the Thai reports by the way and subscribe to BN...God knows how you keep up with all the name changes.

I submit freelance copy to BN, but I'm a newspaper man.

I had a subscription with BM for years but I just don't think it justifies the cost any more. BN has improved tremendously in the last few years.

[Glyn Leach]

Sorry, caught on to this a bit late but thanks to all for your comments, critical, complimentary, correct and incorrect. I'll attempt to shed light on a few issues raised but pardon me for not going through everything - it's Xmas day and I'm on my way to dinner, just popped into the office to check emails.

Non inclusion of Hatton report: How do you think I felt about that? Believe me, if there were a way I could have got it in and not damaged our Xmas on sale, I would have. This has been a bone of contention for years at the mag - that weekend has become an active fight weekend - but there is nothing we can do to change our on sale date without actually damaging sales due to the ensuing holiday nonsense. And rest assured, I do know what I'm talking about and all avenues have been explored. Remember, I am a journalist and I want to be up to date even more than you want us to be.

Quotes: Very popular feature but I tend to agree that it could be considered overlong at present. I will certainly consider cutting it down in size next year. However, I would point out that the January issue is always our best seller of the year, the quotes feature has been in for the last three years (I believe, without checking) and so there inevitably will be a tendency towards an "it ain't broke so don't try and fix it" attitude at BM's end. That said, your points are noted and thank you for them.

£3.60/BM profitability: I don't think the price is so outrageous for a monthly these days - I certainly pay more for certain specialist publications. And while we do OK as a mag, nobody's ever going to get rich. For instance, as a 50% shareholder and multi-hatted editor who also handles the bulk of the production duties (unlike any other editor in this field), I earn far less than a national newspaper journo. I could certainly earn more elsewhere but I love what I do - and that's what it's all about for me and for the BM writers. Remember, unlike BN and the Ring, Boxing Monthly does not belong to a rich parent company, it is independent and self financing. We are a small business and all that means.

Right, thanks all, have good xmas and new years. All the best.

[glahn]

I buy BM every month and always enjoy reading it, but I agree with the general consensus that the quotes section was a bit too long. I can understand the reasons for the Hatton omission though and that didn't really bother me. I think that it generally does a very good job of staying current and interesting in an age where the internet makes most "news" old in a matter of hours.

[Syntax Error]

Sorry, caught on to this a bit late but thanks to all for your comments, critical, complimentary, correct and incorrect. I'll attempt to shed light on a few issues raised but pardon me for not going through everything - it's Xmas day and I'm on my way to dinner, just popped into the office to check emails.

Non inclusion of Hatton report: How do you think I felt about that? Believe me, if there were a way I could have got it in and not damaged our Xmas on sale, I would have. This has been a bone of contention for years at the mag - that weekend has become an active fight weekend - but there is nothing we can do to change our on sale date without actually damaging sales due to the ensuing holiday nonsense. And rest assured, I do know what I'm talking about and all avenues have been explored. Remember, I am a journalist and I want to be up to date even more than you want us to be.

Quotes: Very popular feature but I tend to agree that it could be considered overlong at present. I will certainly consider cutting it down in size next year. However, I would point out that the January issue is always our best seller of the year, the quotes feature has been in for the last three years (I believe, without checking) and so there inevitably will be a tendency towards an "it ain't broke so don't try and fix it" attitude at BM's end. That said, your points are noted and thank you for them.

£3.60/BM profitability: I don't think the price is so outrageous for a monthly these days - I certainly pay more for certain specialist publications. And while we do OK as a mag, nobody's ever going to get rich. For instance, as a 50% shareholder and multi-hatted editor who also handles the bulk of the production duties (unlike any other editor in this field), I earn far less than a national newspaper journo. I could certainly earn more elsewhere but I love what I do - and that's what it's all about for me and for the BM writers. Remember, unlike BN and the Ring, Boxing Monthly does not belong to a rich parent company, it is independent and self financing. We are a small business and all that means.

Right, thanks all, have good xmas and new years. All the best.

How refreshing it is to hear from someone at the sharp end.

Interesting read sir!

[Deserter]

Sorry, caught on to this a bit late but thanks to all for your comments, critical, complimentary, correct and incorrect. I'll attempt to shed light on a few issues raised but pardon me for not going through everything - it's Xmas day and I'm on my way to dinner, just popped into the office to check emails.

Non inclusion of Hatton report: How do you think I felt about that? Believe me, if there were a way I could have got it in and not damaged our Xmas on sale, I would have. This has been a bone of contention for years at the mag - that weekend has become an active fight weekend - but there is nothing we can do to change our on sale date without actually damaging sales due to the ensuing holiday nonsense. And rest assured, I do know what I'm talking about and all avenues have been explored. Remember, I am a journalist and I want to be up to date even more than you want us to be.

Quotes: Very popular feature but I tend to agree that it could be considered overlong at present. I will certainly consider cutting it down in size next year. However, I would point out that the January issue is always our best seller of the year, the quotes feature has been in for the last three years (I believe, without checking) and so there inevitably will be a tendency towards an "it ain't broke so don't try and fix it" attitude at BM's end. That said, your points are noted and thank you for them.

£3.60/BM profitability: I don't think the price is so outrageous for a monthly these days - I certainly pay more for certain specialist publications. And while we do OK as a mag, nobody's ever going to get rich. For instance, as a 50% shareholder and multi-hatted editor who also handles the bulk of the production duties (unlike any other editor in this field), I earn far less than a national newspaper journo. I could certainly earn more elsewhere but I love what I do - and that's what it's all about for me and for the BM writers. Remember, unlike BN and the Ring, Boxing Monthly does not belong to a rich parent company, it is independent and self financing. We are a small business and all that means.

Right, thanks all, have good xmas and new years. All the best.

Glyn, fair play to you for coming on here in person and responding in such positive fashion to the views that have been expressed.
I should point out that most of us are actually BM fans, hence the level of feeling expressed about the mag - I've been a regular reader for as long as I can remember, for example.
However, we all know the internet has changed the goalposts for everyone in publishing. I take on board your comments regarding your pricing, but the only thing I feel obliged to point out is that your editorial pagination for the current issue is significantly lower than the vast majority of specialist mags in the same price range. Value for money's a crucial issue on the newsstand and I just think you're dangerously close to alienating some regular readers through not offering enough unique content (i.e. stuff you can't get on the web) for the price.
Anyway, on a far more positive note, I genuinely hope BM is able to keep going successfully as most of us understand to a degree the difficulties a smaller publisher/business faces and the constraints these impose. Your passion is clear and always has been in the magazine itself, which has been one of its strengths, so full respect for that.

[n1ebf]

that should get you a couple of complimentary issues

[Glyn Leach]

Glyn, fair play to you for coming on here in person and responding in such positive fashion to the views that have been expressed.
I should point out that most of us are actually BM fans, hence the level of feeling expressed about the mag - I've been a regular reader for as long as I can remember, for example.
However, we all know the internet has changed the goalposts for everyone in publishing. I take on board your comments regarding your pricing, but the only thing I feel obliged to point out is that your editorial pagination for the current issue is significantly lower than the vast majority of specialist mags in the same price range. Value for money's a crucial issue on the newsstand and I just think you're dangerously close to alienating some regular readers through not offering enough unique content (i.e. stuff you can't get on the web) for the price.
Anyway, on a far more positive note, I genuinely hope BM is able to keep going successfully as most of us understand to a degree the difficulties a smaller publisher/business faces and the constraints these impose. Your passion is clear and always has been in the magazine itself, which has been one of its strengths, so full respect for that.

Some good points well raised Deserter and stuff it is always good to hear from those who are genuine readers (and i.e. to whom it is of genuine concern). Thanks to you for launching the thread and to all others who have posted here.

[Tykemania]

Can I just stick one more grumble in before we close this off?

It regards the British ratings in BM - I was flicking through them yesterday when laid up in bed, and I was surprised to note the number of fighters with losing records who were still deemed worthy of inclusion - including one or two who are no more than "joke" opponents for young fighters - whilst others like Luke Simpkin (current record a less than staggering 10-29-3) are somehow ranked above fighters like Derek Chisora who, whilst they may not have had many fights, are far better prospects.

If BM is aspiring, as it claims, to provide a serious set of rankings then it needs to resolve this issue - I would propose that no fighter with a record below .500 be eligible for inclusion. Indeed, any fighter with less than 20 fights who is below .650 should probably be omitted.

[oliverfennell]

Can I just stick one more grumble in before we close this off?

It regards the British ratings in BM - I was flicking through them yesterday when laid up in bed, and I was surprised to note the number of fighters with losing records who were still deemed worthy of inclusion - including one or two who are no more than "joke" opponents for young fighters - whilst others like Luke Simpkin (current record a less than staggering 10-29-3) are somehow ranked above fighters like Derek Chisora who, whilst they may not have had many fights, are far better prospects.

If BM is aspiring, as it claims, to provide a serious set of rankings then it needs to resolve this issue - I would propose that no fighter with a record below .500 be eligible for inclusion. Indeed, any fighter with less than 20 fights who is below .650 should probably be omitted.

That's a flawed argument, as statistics alone do not tell the tale of quality of opposition. Look at Nadeem Siddique, undefeated in 20, but has only fought ONE fighter with a winning record (and only 4-1-2, at that), but Simpkin on the other hand is always matched tough and has scored his share of upsets (Carl Baker, Fola O'Kes, drew with Reid and Francis, beat our own Billy Bessey recently). Pound for pound, Simpkin has achieved more than Siddique, despite the apparent disparity in their records.