BoxRec

oliverfennell wrote:Thanks for your intelligent appraisal, Dave.

The question of the measuring stick for whether fighters are over or under-rated is as subjective as the opinions themselves, and each is for different reasons.

Cooper and Eubank because of their pop culture appeal. McGuigan because of his Hall of Fame placing.

Winstone and Minter were of course worthy champions but my argument was they were lucky to reign at the time they did. (Minter being a "modern great" I cannot unfortunately reference, but I have heard it said in domestic terms. Nobody's saying he's an international modern great, but a British one, which I still think is exagerrating his achievements)

Should this have been a published series of articles rather than a forum topic?

I say why not? Opinion-based features are as much a part of publishing as news-based articles. Your own site is compiled almost exclusively of opinion, Dave. And I have indeed seen similar topics as this in the American magazines in the past.

It was always a risk to write a couple of negative opinion pieces, as the reaction to this and my over-rated current boxers has shown. My "under-rated" articles provoked a response too, of course, but as they were positive articles, the reaction was not as strong. Inevitably, any high-profile boxer will have his supporters, and to criticise him is for the writer himself to invite criticism.

At the end of the day, they are just the opinions of one man. Thank you to those who read and especially to those who appreciate it for the above and are mature enough to understand everyone has a right to an opinion, and the fact the opinion may differ from theirs is not in itself a slight on their professionalism.

Finally, as with my "current over-rated" article, I have no ill-feeling or agenda against any of the boxers mentioned, in the same way as I have no connection with or reason to promote those I mentioned as under-rated. I have full respect for them as people and as fighters, and even in the critical pieces, highlighted and gave appropriate credit for what they did achieve. I never took that away from them, just suggested their reputation may be greater than their achievements.

KO Artist wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Thanks for your intelligent appraisal, Dave.

The question of the measuring stick for whether fighters are over or under-rated is as subjective as the opinions themselves, and each is for different reasons.

Cooper and Eubank because of their pop culture appeal. McGuigan because of his Hall of Fame placing.

Winstone and Minter were of course worthy champions but my argument was they were lucky to reign at the time they did. (Minter being a "modern great" I cannot unfortunately reference, but I have heard it said in domestic terms. Nobody's saying he's an international modern great, but a British one, which I still think is exagerrating his achievements)

Should this have been a published series of articles rather than a forum topic?

I say why not? Opinion-based features are as much a part of publishing as news-based articles. Your own site is compiled almost exclusively of opinion, Dave. And I have indeed seen similar topics as this in the American magazines in the past.

It was always a risk to write a couple of negative opinion pieces, as the reaction to this and my over-rated current boxers has shown. My "under-rated" articles provoked a response too, of course, but as they were positive articles, the reaction was not as strong. Inevitably, any high-profile boxer will have his supporters, and to criticise him is for the writer himself to invite criticism.

At the end of the day, they are just the opinions of one man. Thank you to those who read and especially to those who appreciate it for the above and are mature enough to understand everyone has a right to an opinion, and the fact the opinion may differ from theirs is not in itself a slight on their professionalism.

Finally, as with my "current over-rated" article, I have no ill-feeling or agenda against any of the boxers mentioned, in the same way as I have no connection with or reason to promote those I mentioned as under-rated. I have full respect for them as people and as fighters, and even in the critical pieces, highlighted and gave appropriate credit for what they did achieve. I never took that away from them, just suggested their reputation may be greater than their achievements.

If you said that in the first place you might have saved a lot of hassle

Terry D wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

KO Artist wrote: If you said that in the first place you might have saved a lot of hassle

Would have been a bit wordy for an internet article!

Internet writing should be as concise as possible.

I agree.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Why can't internet writing be expansive? One thing that news journalism tends to do (at least I've experienced this) is that you are so used to paring down that when you want to be expansive, it can be difficult.

Terry D wrote:I blame text messaging. It is producing a nation of feebes. Other factors contribute.

oliverfennell wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Why can't internet writing be expansive? One thing that news journalism tends to do (at least I've experienced this) is that you are so used to paring down that when you want to be expansive, it can be difficult.

Typically (and of course there are exceptions), the attention span of internet users is shorter than that of a print reader. This is because there are more distractions and because it is a less comfortable medium for a long read.

Answer me honestly, how often do you read thousands of words at a time on one web page?

If your honest answer is "all the time", then fair enough, but I have to say your answer would not be typical of the average internet user.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Why can't internet writing be expansive? One thing that news journalism tends to do (at least I've experienced this) is that you are so used to paring down that when you want to be expansive, it can be difficult.

Typically (and of course there are exceptions), the attention span of internet users is shorter than that of a print reader. This is because there are more distractions and because it is a less comfortable medium for a long read.

Answer me honestly, how often do you read thousands of words at a time on one web page?

If your honest answer is "all the time", then fair enough, but I have to say your answer would not be typical of the average internet user.

Oh yes, I completely agree.

But one would hope being concise would not curtail creativity.

J wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: Typically (and of course there are exceptions), the attention span of internet users is shorter than that of a print reader. This is because there are more distractions and because it is a less comfortable medium for a long read.

Answer me honestly, how often do you read thousands of words at a time on one web page?

If your honest answer is "all the time", then fair enough, but I have to say your answer would not be typical of the average internet user.

Oh yes, I completely agree.

But one would hope being concise would not curtail creativity.

so what you mean to say is you miss my 94 pages on a sat afternoon covering every bit of spittle from the 4 x 2 undercard through to the main event from the york hall?

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

J wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Oh yes, I completely agree.

But one would hope being concise would not curtail creativity.

so what you mean to say is you miss my 94 pages on a sat afternoon covering every bit of spittle from the 4 x 2 undercard through to the main event from the york hall?

Ah, you were a loss to the team, J, definitely. The thing is, you just couldn't manage to give overviews of things because you thought it wasn't doing a good job, which isn't true.

I would have got jaded writing at the level of detail you were so no wonder you wanted to pack it in. It became a chore for you, I don't blame you.

The 'boxers of the past' was always your best thing though

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

KO Artist wrote:so I think now is the time for you to reveal your real identity.

You made me feel like Batman for a moment there, thanks for that


Spud, move aside, I have a new friend to play with


And he makes you look like Edward De Bono