BoxRec

MatthewS wrote:Some interesting comments above...

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

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

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

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

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

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

dalcumly wrote: the Editor has to be totally independent and fearless . Claude was , and I suggest you ask allegedly if there is any doubts

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

MightyWarrior wrote:

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

Claude must have been convinced that Bobby Gunn was an acceptable world title challenger for Enzo Macc then.

He definitely treated FW with kid gloves, there's just no two ways about it.

dbflex wrote:Bernard Fernandez is one of the most respected boxing beat writers in the world. I know what you mean about his first report but his second - on the Mosley-Mora bill - was very good and focused on the fighters involved.

doctorboxing wrote:

dbflex wrote:Bernard Fernandez is one of the most respected boxing beat writers in the world. I know what you mean about his first report but his second - on the Mosley-Mora bill - was very good and focused on the fighters involved.

Generally a great magazine but this is simply not true. This was a shockingly bad write up and really looked to be a case of a writer trying too hard. It was without a doubt the worst write up that I have read in the past few years.

The features recently have been excellent though and the DeGale one was another good read.

dalcumly wrote:Another previous editor , Gilbert Odd , was a stickler for proper grammar and spelling and would be turning in his grave if he saw some of the errors occuring recently .
The new staff members , and the Editor , are feeling their way , and that is the problem - as they say up here Scotland , they might feel that their jackets are on a " shoogly peg ", implying that they are still on trial in some way. Perhaps they don't want at this stage to have too strong an opinion on some matters . For instance , if the Ricky Burns v Matt Zegan contest is really going to take place would they come straight out and declare the match up to be a disgrace ?? I fear not , and that is what's missing .
Having said that I'll never stop buying it and wish the staff all the best .

Deserter wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:

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

Claude must have been convinced that Bobby Gunn was an acceptable world title challenger for Enzo Macc then.

He definitely treated FW with kid gloves, there's just no two ways about it.

God, you're right, I'd completely forgotten about that - if that isn't the perfect example of ducking a contentious issue I don't know what was?

dbflex wrote:

doctorboxing wrote:

dbflex wrote:Bernard Fernandez is one of the most respected boxing beat writers in the world. I know what you mean about his first report but his second - on the Mosley-Mora bill - was very good and focused on the fighters involved.

Generally a great magazine but this is simply not true. This was a shockingly bad write up and really looked to be a case of a writer trying too hard. It was without a doubt the worst write up that I have read in the past few years.

The features recently have been excellent though and the DeGale one was another good read.

Don't hold back, say what you really think. Seriously the worst write-up in years?

oliverfennell wrote:

Deserter wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote: Claude must have been convinced that Bobby Gunn was an acceptable world title challenger for Enzo Macc then.

He definitely treated FW with kid gloves, there's just no two ways about it.

God, you're right, I'd completely forgotten about that - if that isn't the perfect example of ducking a contentious issue I don't know what was?

Yes, I was looking forward to BN that week to read what I hoped would be a scathing preview of the "fight" that involved what many people were labelling the worst-ever challenger for a major world title in a British ring. After all, BN slammed Herbie Hide v Damon Reed beforehand, and for my money Gunn was even worse than Reed! But there wasn't even a hint of consternation in the preview.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

dalcumly wrote: the Editor has to be totally independent and fearless . Claude was , and I suggest you ask allegedly if there is any doubts

Asking Al wouldn't help. I'm afraid your history is of the revisionist order. But, it's a very tricky sea to sail on. The supposed 'hardest game in the world' is populated by some of the most ultra-sensitive people in the world.

dbflex wrote:No disrespect to Steve Wellings who is a gifted writer, good friend and occasional landlord, but it's not that his copy is free from error and ours is riddled. We sub everything including our own stuff so if one writer comes across as error-free the editing process must take a portion of the credit. Trust me nothing ever arrives in its original form with zero errors. But you are right that mistakes slip through, too many on some weeks. A great many of these would not be shown up by spellcheck so it's not a cure-all and often errors can creep in after the page has been laid out, not when it's in the Word format. I could make excuses - though I would call them valid reasons (very small team working on two magazines, an annual and a website) - but we want to eradicate this and no-one is more frustrated when errors occur than we are. we're not the Daily Star, we abhor grammatical errors.

oliverfennell wrote: That's why a lot of publications keep those roles separate.

oliverfennell wrote:

dbflex wrote:No disrespect to Steve Wellings who is a gifted writer, good friend and occasional landlord, but it's not that his copy is free from error and ours is riddled. We sub everything including our own stuff so if one writer comes across as error-free the editing process must take a portion of the credit. Trust me nothing ever arrives in its original form with zero errors. But you are right that mistakes slip through, too many on some weeks. A great many of these would not be shown up by spellcheck so it's not a cure-all and often errors can creep in after the page has been laid out, not when it's in the Word format. I could make excuses - though I would call them valid reasons (very small team working on two magazines, an annual and a website) - but we want to eradicate this and no-one is more frustrated when errors occur than we are. we're not the Daily Star, we abhor grammatical errors.

This is all fair enough, especially when operating to budget restrictions which you have no say over. Perhaps, though, Newsquest might consider investing in a separate, full-time subeditor? Writers and subs need not be mutually exclusive, but they are different crafts and sometimes writers can miss each other's typos (I think that's a more appropriate word than errors - of course the guys know grammar and spelling), especially when so familiar with the material and with each other. Often it takes a completely fresh and neutral pair of eyes to do the editing process justice. That's why a lot of publications keep those roles separate.

dbflex wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

dbflex wrote:No disrespect to Steve Wellings who is a gifted writer, good friend and occasional landlord, but it's not that his copy is free from error and ours is riddled. We sub everything including our own stuff so if one writer comes across as error-free the editing process must take a portion of the credit. Trust me nothing ever arrives in its original form with zero errors. But you are right that mistakes slip through, too many on some weeks. A great many of these would not be shown up by spellcheck so it's not a cure-all and often errors can creep in after the page has been laid out, not when it's in the Word format. I could make excuses - though I would call them valid reasons (very small team working on two magazines, an annual and a website) - but we want to eradicate this and no-one is more frustrated when errors occur than we are. we're not the Daily Star, we abhor grammatical errors.

This is all fair enough, especially when operating to budget restrictions which you have no say over. Perhaps, though, Newsquest might consider investing in a separate, full-time subeditor? Writers and subs need not be mutually exclusive, but they are different crafts and sometimes writers can miss each other's typos (I think that's a more appropriate word than errors - of course the guys know grammar and spelling), especially when so familiar with the material and with each other. Often it takes a completely fresh and neutral pair of eyes to do the editing process justice. That's why a lot of publications keep those roles separate.

Investment? In this climate? If we could afford it, we'd do it.

veriton wrote:I heard Newsquest's chief executive Paul Davidson has just given himself a 100,000 pound wage increase to take his yearly salary to 609,000 pounds.