BoxRec

A shame, but I wonder if the reason for all this could be placed under a 'modernising' theme?

They're certainly seeking to embrace the web more than they ever had and the job ad for the position Tris got, appeared to lean heavily on the need for web skills.

oliverfennell wrote:

steve689 wrote:http://www.boxingtribune.com/index.php? ... le&id=1692

Who's responsible for this little gem:

This time, there is a world title on the line; Braehmer's WBO Intercontinental strap.

Anyone who knows me on here and knows my views on "world" belts will realise i am certainly not responsible for that one either Along with the EU/European edit that is what i am moaning about. I don't mind editing but changing facts to make me look stupid?! It's a conspiracy!!

I`ve been saying it for a fair few years now, but BN knows it has to change with the times to survive but seems to be going the wrong way about it.

Its making itself just another boxing magazine aimed at the casual boxing fan.

Claude last week even called it a magazine, whereas I have always viewed it as a paper....but I guess he is right it really is a magazine nowadays...endless pictures/advertising pages and still too much amateur coverage.

They need to go back to producing it as a boxing paper..cut out the glitz and bullshit...leave that for the monthly magazines to pad out with.

Good luck to the future TC

oliverfennell wrote:By Newsquest or by Claude?

Yeah, a great shame. He was my favourite writer of the three and also a good bloke too. What on earth happened??

I for one would like to know who sacked Tony? If it's Claude, then I have to say, bad move by Abrams in my view!

What does this mean for Boxing News in the future? TC was a brilliant contributor to the publication & to not have him there anymore is a shame & a loss.

Action needs to be taken fast as this could lead to others, who may not be happy with the sacking of TC, to review there job within Boxing News!

Terry D wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Terry D wrote:I do know the difference but it is becoming the case that differentiating between the two is fast disappearing from use

True, but it's the little things like this which you must get right every time if you seek credibility as a writer.

I disagree, focus on content, then look after form. Many writers are technically very good but dull as ditchwater. You can see they are grammaticians and not imaginative people.

As for credibility, judging a person on forum posts would make me doubt that persons credibility as a person.

If I did it all the time then sure, if it is a intermittent thing then lateral thinking (he is at work and/or in a hurry) should kick in.

Sorry Terry, I'm not having a dig. You ARE a good writer. Your point about the content coming first is valid, but there's no reason why you can't have both good style AND good grammar. OK, grammar may not be your strong point, and if that's the case, then it's a matter for the editor.

But at the end of the day, any publication, be it print or web, which takes itself seriously should aim to apply PERFECT English every time.

(No, I don't include forums in this assessment, nor judge your writing on your forum output!)

Terry D wrote:Many published works have poor grammar

How can you claim this when you just admitted to never having studied it?

Word's grammar check can be unreliable and inflexible.

What I do is know my job. I'm a professional editor, after all. Some say I'm pedantic, but I take it as a compliment! ;)

So sorry if I come across as a boor; it's just what I'm trained to do!

Well let's not bore everyone else, anyway. The thread wasn't supposed to be about this!

If you ever need something editing, just see me. As I told David Payne, my rates are competitive.

Terry D wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Terry D wrote: I disagree, focus on content, then look after form. Many writers are technically very good but dull as ditchwater. You can see they are grammaticians and not imaginative people.

As for credibility, judging a person on forum posts would make me doubt that persons credibility as a person.

If I did it all the time then sure, if it is a intermittent thing then lateral thinking (he is at work and/or in a hurry) should kick in.

Sorry Terry, I'm not having a dig. You ARE a good writer. Your point about the content coming first is valid, but there's no reason why you can't have both good style AND good grammar. OK, grammar may not be your strong point, and if that's the case, then it's a matter for the editor.

But at the end of the day, any publication, be it print or web, which takes itself seriously should aim to apply PERFECT English every time.

(No, I don't include forums in this assessment, nor judge your writing on your forum output!)

No offence taken Oliver, we are not women here.

It is not my strong point but I think I muddle along and get help whenever possible. The perfect English thing is all good but how many people can read perfect English, to them it may seem imperfect.

I'll be honest I never learned grammar, it was dull to me, I learned it from my text books and going from German to English by way of French can lead to muddled grammar if you take it as your lead.

Many published works have poor grammar, style ovecomes all in my view.

if you have bad grammar your editor should take care of it

oliverfennell wrote:Well let's not bore everyone else, anyway. The thread wasn't supposed to be about this!

If you ever need something editing, just see me. As I told David Payne, my rates are competitive.

Does word not have spelling and grammar check?

Why pay for it?

oliverfennell wrote:Word's grammar check can be unreliable and inflexible.

What I do is know my job. I'm a professional editor, after all. Some say I'm pedantic, but I take it as a compliment! ;)

So sorry if I come across as a boor; it's just what I'm trained to do!

You may have spelt it wrong. I think its bore, not boor. Isnt boor a reference to a person who is ill-mannered?

Sorry to be pedantic!

I did mean boor; meaning I didn't wish to be offensive to Terry.

Noticed TC's name has been removed from BN this week, but no mention of it by Claude.