BoxRec

dbflex wrote:Chambers, call me Danny, I don't mind. Not this Friday, no, but Claude may have something to say about it the following week. he's only just got back from leave so is not doing the column this week. Besides Degale's gold is a natural for the column this week.

Cheers

Will do Danny, I couldn't remember what the D was for.

oliverfennell wrote:It's the damn software changing fight NEWS to fight VIEWS

Try this, but delete the spaces between fight and news

http://www.fight news.com/fight news_2/headlines//EkEAZVAVVZYdWXpVec.html

Cheers.

KG,
I've never sparred with you on the forums over the years, both here and elsewhere, but I've always followed your posts with interest, and humour!
However, you've shocked and disappointed me on this thread.
Are you sure you're not turning into the architypal internet poster such as myself, and others that you describe as "joyless, whinging, old women" ?
Come on KG, I've come to expect more originality than that from you.
Chill pal - Spud is no more.

dbflex wrote:Chambers, call me Danny, I don't mind. Not this Friday, no, but Claude may have something to say about it the following week. he's only just got back from leave so is not doing the column this week. Besides Degale's gold is a natural for the column this week.

Right, so Claude all of a sudden can only cover one topic in his editorial, unlike 99% of his previous efforts which cover 15 or 20. No space to put into writing what everyone outside SN and Sky are thinking - this PPV is an out and out piss take - he must be gutted about that!

No doubt he'll "address" it in a few tame words, buried in his big preview of Khan v 2 jabs Prescott.

No way will he take FW to task about this up front. BN has it's head stuck in the sand, really sad and massive fall from it's heyday.

I think that a publication which shies away of expressing opinions, in this day and age, is frankly doomed.

Coverage of sports is profligate on the internet, and free. What seperates printed publication is the standard of the writers and the professionalism of the setup, and even that is becominga level playing field over time.

I haven't bought boxing news for quite some time now, no disrespect, but I don't see what I am getting for my money, that I cannot get elsewhere.

Fine, if they want to write an interview with Warren, fair do's, he's an important man, but you have to ask some difficult and uncomfortable questions, so long as the piece is even handed, then there is little risk of a lawsuit.

I find it rather dissapointing that something like this frankly scandalous Khan PPV being foisted on the public is not even commented on in boxing's 'trade paper.'

And for the record, I would say the same whichever promoter was dumping this heap of excrement on the public, it just isn't on charging that amount to see a fighter who isn't even proven the best domestically, in a learning fight. I won't watch Hatton fight some bum in a 'world title fight' for 14.95, why should I pay to watch Khan against a complete nobody in a non title affair?

Perhaps we ought to extend BN the benefit of the doubt, Claude has been away and the FW article was prepared as a summer filler before the PPV announcement.

Daniel Herbert is unlikely to stick his neck out as caretaker.

Personally, I think the notion the BN can conduct itself in the more militant fashion upheld by Harry Mullan, given the current climate of www news sources and ebbing readership of magazines across the board is close to ridiculous.

Doesn't mean they have to be without a voice and Glyn Leach continues to be refreshing with his candour over at BM, illustrating that it can be done, but I think we have to accept the power has shifted. And as such the publication is inevitably more submissive in tone.

And perhaps it also simply reflects the personality of the ed. I always picture Richard Harris playing Harry Mullan, I think as far as anyone can tell, Abrams is less feisty by nature.

Having said all that, I discovered a whole box of discarded Bert Sugars mags from the 80's and 90's next to a skip while on holiday, yep...loads of them with Ring specials too, made my week, and it has to be said the frankness of Sugar's editorial was a world away from his modern day equivalents.

I;'m not saying I don't miss a more critical voice out there. But I accept why its happened.

DavidPayne wrote: Personally, I think the notion the BN can conduct itself in the more militant fashion upheld by Harry Mullan, given the current climate of www news sources and ebbing readership of magazines across the board is close to ridiculous.

I'd say your argument justifying BN's castration is closer to ridiculous David - Why shouldn't the trade paper say what everyone is thinking? Isn't that giving the readers what they want? Real opinion, calling it what it is.
How about if newspapers in general took your line, saying how peachy everything is, just so long as they don't offend any of the "big boys"?

oliverfennell wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Pathetic, no wonder their loyal readers go elsewhere, in the hope of actually reading a real opinion on the state of Brit boxing.

Please tell me, where is this hallowed place?

Why, Frankwarrentv of course Oliver.

how about

http://www.britishboxing.net/

MightyWarrior wrote:

DavidPayne wrote: Personally, I think the notion the BN can conduct itself in the more militant fashion upheld by Harry Mullan, given the current climate of www news sources and ebbing readership of magazines across the board is close to ridiculous.

I'd say your argument justifying BN's castration is closer to ridiculous David - Why shouldn't the trade paper say what everyone is thinking? Isn't that giving the readers what they want? Real opinion, calling it what it is.
How about if newspapers in general took your line, saying how peachy everything is, just so long as they don't offend any of the "big boys"?

I'm affording them the benefit of the doubt until tomorrow on this issue, but I think in the context of the current climate, its naive to believe or expect BN to seek a battle they can only lose in? Isn't it?

Online, Dixon has been relatively direct in his criticism of the PPV status, and I appreciate this may appear to be a belated step but until tomorrow I think we have to suspend criticism don't we?

Fighting the good fight may get some respect from the loyal readership, the hardcore, but can they attract new, younger readers if burdened with legal cases and excluded from major shows? Perhaps, they can, perhaps they can't.

2008 has seen a significant change in direction and tone from the mag, and most have encouraged it, but it doesn't take a genius to realise with the clamour for new readers, in the quest to embrace more of the BM readership and Internet audience, with the recruitment of fresher faced writers - the zest for the type of confrontation required on issues like this was inevitably weakened.

But like I say, perhaps this will be addressed in a more forthright manner tomorrow. Time will tell MW.

Perhaps there is some even handed middle ground to be found, where the magazines integrity and guts are restored without the sanctions we've all grown to assume with follow, I hope Claude finds it tomorrow.

MightyWarrior wrote:

DavidPayne wrote: Personally, I think the notion the BN can conduct itself in the more militant fashion upheld by Harry Mullan, given the current climate of www news sources and ebbing readership of magazines across the board is close to ridiculous.

I'd say your argument justifying BN's castration is closer to ridiculous David - Why shouldn't the trade paper say what everyone is thinking? Isn't that giving the readers what they want? Real opinion, calling it what it is.
How about if newspapers in general took your line, saying how peachy everything is, just so long as they don't offend any of the "big boys"?

I have to agree with MW here, David. I just don't see where you're coming from. Or perhaps I do and just don't like the view from there...

No worries.

I cant try again.

DavidPayne wrote: ..but until tomorrow I think we have to suspend criticism don't we?

No need to wait till tomorrow David, we already know that Claude ducks the issue yet again. They go to press on Wed, and Danny already confirms above that Abrams devotes his latest hard hitting editorial in praise of DeGale - no room for anything else.

"Maybe" next week...if not, the week after! (space allowing)

Fair comment.

i have never heard of this magazine before i normally rely on setanta web page and here for boxing news. But after reading this discussion i went to my local newsagents today and he is going to order it in for me. Can never read enough about boxing and am not allowed the laptop in bed so looking forward to reading a new view point and having something other than the guardian to read at night!

No disrespect Adam, but you enough of a boxing fan to scan websites and all but haven't heard of Boxing News... I find that startling.

Don't get me wrong, I just assumed Boxing News or Boxing Monthly was ever fight fans first starting point after watching the sport on the TV. Its the trade paper.

If you want other recommendations then I am sure other forums members will help... its basically Boxing News and Boxing Monthly for UK based Mags.

fight news . com (no space between the t and n) is a good news based site. Britishboxing.net is fundamental to the British fight fan, there are a variety of others.

stujones wrote:No disrespect Adam, but you enough of a boxing fan to scan websites and all but haven't heard of Boxing News... I find that startling.

Don't get me wrong, I just assumed Boxing News or Boxing Monthly was ever fight fans first starting point after watching the sport on the TV. Its the trade paper.

Stu, you've inadvertently touched on why print is facing such a tough challenge to hang onto readers in the face of the online onslaught. There's a new generation whose starting point in the web rather than print, whereas our generation would err towards print first and then the web as a secondary resource.
It also highlights why BN should do more to deliver for existing readers, as it's increasingly harder to win new ones. I found Danny's remark earlier that the editor almost certainly doesn't even look at the forums a damning indictment on him, as it's potentially a fantastic resource for editors who wish to stay in touch with the 'zeitgeist' and while, as with any form of research, you have to treat it with caution and not allow it to skew your perspective too much, to ignore it is tantamount to negligence.

I agree Deserter. The Internet is still viewed, to some extent, as though it's a niche media outlet by some circles when it's the number one resource for people to use nowadays. Just look at the impact it's had on magazines for Music, Sport and Current Affairs. As an example I used to read Smash Hits and Shoot when I was a kid. Both are now gone for good and they were the top selling magazines in their respective categories (although maybe Match had more sales, but it was at least second).

Most, if not, all, of the Internet boxing journalists use boxing forums so it's easier for them to understand what issues the fans have with the sport, and then speak on it on their behalf. That said, I respect Danny for coming on here to argue his point. Not a lot of people would've done that.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote: I respect Danny for coming on here to argue his point. Not a lot of people would've done that.

I agree fella.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:I used to read Smash Hits

I gave you kudos when you said the first record you bought was by LL Cool J.

Now I find out it was all a lie and you were actually into Bros.

Radio was, honest. I just used it for the lyrics to impress girls.

oliverfennell wrote:It's the damn software changing fight NEWS to fight VIEWS

Try this, but delete the spaces between fight and news

http://www.fight news.com/fight news_2/headlines//EkEAZVAVVZYdWXpVec.html

http://tinyurl.com/5j4pz7

I started wit livefight then fightnews then setanta. Prob i find wit weekly news is by the time u get it u hav already read it sumwhere else. But as said wil giv it a go and c if they hav a dif view on things. I hav a computer science degree and am writing this on my fone so tech is 2nd nature. Saying that i get guardian delivered every day as prefer 2net so tech is not always beta. Ps i was a 90 minutes man

Ant Evans wrote:On holiday so won't get my BN until next Friday... so did BN comment on the Khan Kon v 2 Jabs?

I see no ships...then again, the Editor is back from his own hols soon, I believe.

I expected Dan Herbert to address it while subbing as editor. He looks like the type who isn't afraid to upset a few people with some hardline views.

Deserter wrote:

stujones wrote:No disrespect Adam, but you enough of a boxing fan to scan websites and all but haven't heard of Boxing News... I find that startling.

Don't get me wrong, I just assumed Boxing News or Boxing Monthly was ever fight fans first starting point after watching the sport on the TV. Its the trade paper.

Stu, you've inadvertently touched on why print is facing such a tough challenge to hang onto readers in the face of the online onslaught. There's a new generation whose starting point in the web rather than print, whereas our generation would err towards print first and then the web as a secondary resource.
It also highlights why BN should do more to deliver for existing readers, as it's increasingly harder to win new ones. I found Danny's remark earlier that the editor almost certainly doesn't even look at the forums a damning indictment on him, as it's potentially a fantastic resource for editors who wish to stay in touch with the 'zeitgeist' and while, as with any form of research, you have to treat it with caution and not allow it to skew your perspective too much, to ignore it is tantamount to negligence.

Well said.

If I was Abrams I'd be on here every single day. They all should be, even for five mins.