BoxRec

Just got my copy through the post and what a great read it is this month.

-Top editorial - very balanced and well voiced concerns on the recent PPV - that was sadly lacking in other publications. Class as usual and well aligned to the boxing punter.
- Confirmation that Johnny Nelson is still deluded - he reckons that last PPV show as value for money because of the preview show (hype) - of course it was Johnny!
- Adam Smith interview - probably the most enjoyable feature I have read this year - lots of nuggets. Buy a copy if you havent got one to find out!

Havent got round to reading the rest....

I shall be renewing my subsciption for next year, have heard nothing but good reports of this years editions.

always buy BM.

best boxing mag.

I will always buy Boxing Monthly and Boxing News.Both are superb, and a pleasure to read and I look forward to each month, and each Thursday.Looking forward to reading the interview with Johnny.He is a top fella, and a very underestimated world champion.

Glad you like, thanks. We do our best, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But not an interview as such with Johnny Lennox, just a quote on the quality of the last Sky PPV.

Glyn Leach wrote:Glad you like, thanks. We do our best, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But not an interview as such with Johnny Lennox, just a quote on the quality of the last Sky PPV.

My copy came today we read tonight. Would like to know the reason sky are not showing Marquez v Katsdis?

big lennox wrote:He is a top fella, and a very underestimated world champion.

stand up guy.

his title reign was mediocre though.

remember that fight when he barely threw a shot for 6 rds.

then bang and knocked the guy out.

the thompson fight showed off some of his potential.

just a shame he reverted back to type to often. :(

leforge wrote:My copy came today we read tonight. Would like to know the reason sky are not showing Marquez v Katsdis?

Send your copy back to me and I'll put in an extra page for you leforge

Glyn Leach wrote:

leforge wrote:My copy came today we read tonight. Would like to know the reason sky are not showing Marquez v Katsdis?

Send your copy back to me and I'll put in an extra page for you leforge

Should have asked Adam Smith that?

Glyn Leach wrote:Glad you like, thanks. We do our best, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But not an interview as such with Johnny Lennox, just a quote on the quality of the last Sky PPV.

I think its consistently good, and I will still buy this months mag, even with only a quote from Johnny :-)

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

big lennox wrote:He is a top fella, and a very underestimated world champion.

stand up guy.

his title reign was mediocre though.

remember that fight when he barely threw a shot for 6 rds.

then bang and knocked the guy out.

the thompson fight showed off some of his potential.

just a shame he reverted back to type to often. :(

You are thinking about the Ezra Sellers fight in Copenhagen. It made anxious viewing, I can tell ya, but then he got him with an upercut to the eye.

I just loved the fact that he made EVERYONE miss, and fight at a pace they didn't want to. In fact, the only opponent who managed to gety Johnny out of his stride during his reign was Guillimore Jones, who subsequently failed a drug test....

hitman_hatton1 wrote:

big lennox wrote:He is a top fella, and a very underestimated world champion.

stand up guy.

He sings for his supper with his sky bosses though, big time. Always singing the praises of any old crap Sky care to show, including the Audley PPV by the sounds of it.

[/quote]Should have asked Adam Smith that?[/quote]

I'd definitely like to know what he has to say about that, for sure, but that's with hindsight. The interview, which was done about a month ago, is about Smith — a specific fight isn't the issue when the man has just been made head of Sky boxing, the most powerful man in boxing not called Barney Francis. The interview is about Smith, his general policy and vision, and I think he explains himself well. Why don't you tweet him, find out about any specific fights or specific issues that may concern you, I'm sure he'll answer. but at the time we spoke to him, that fight wasn't an issue.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Should have asked Adam Smith that?[/quote]

I'd definitely like to know what he has to say about that, for sure, but that's with hindsight. The interview, which was done about a month ago, is about Smith — a specific fight isn't the issue when the man has just been made head of Sky boxing, the most powerful man in boxing not called Barney Francis. The interview is about Smith, his general policy and vision, and I think he explains himself well. Why don't you tweet him, find out about any specific fights or specific issues that may concern you, I'm sure he'll answer. but at the time we spoke to him, that fight wasn't an issue.[/quote]

I not on twitter, facebook but not that. Looked forward to reading later.

yeah guillermo jones was a lucky one.

although he subsequently failed a drugs test so it didn't matter.

jones & sellars were the 2 best he boxed during his title reign.

not much to write home about.

carl thompson deserved a rematch.

although i blame warren for being a stubborn old goat on that one.

I'm a big fan of BM too.

I'm starting to run out of room for them, as I've got nearly all of them going back to 1989, the first one with SRL dressed as a clown on it!!!

OK leforge and interested parties, Adam Smith tells me he wanted the fight but at this stage — and remember he got his new job after the year's budget has been decided so he's inherited a situation — all the money available has gone on the contracts with the four promoters Sky work with. Let's see what happens when he can set the budget next year.

Glyn Leach wrote:

Should have asked Adam Smith that?[/quote]

I'd definitely like to know what he has to say about that, for sure, but that's with hindsight. The interview, which was done about a month ago, is about Smith — a specific fight isn't the issue when the man has just been made head of Sky boxing, the most powerful man in boxing not called Barney Francis. The interview is about Smith, his general policy and vision, and I think he explains himself well. Why don't you tweet him, find out about any specific fights or specific issues that may concern you, I'm sure he'll answer. but at the time we spoke to him, that fight wasn't an issue.[/quote]

How many Bridesmaids do we need honey x

Glyn Leach wrote:OK leforge and interested parties, Adam Smith tells me he wanted the fight but at this stage — and remember he got his new job after the year's budget has been decided so he's inherited a situation — all the money available has gone on the contracts with the four promoters Sky work with. Let's see what happens when he can set the budget next year.

I was very optimistic about his views on Froch - it would be great to get their hype machine behind Froch!

princess wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Should have asked Adam Smith that?

I'd definitely like to know what he has to say about that, for sure, but that's with hindsight. The interview, which was done about a month ago, is about Smith — a specific fight isn't the issue when the man has just been made head of Sky boxing, the most powerful man in boxing not called Barney Francis. The interview is about Smith, his general policy and vision, and I think he explains himself well. Why don't you tweet him, find out about any specific fights or specific issues that may concern you, I'm sure he'll answer. but at the time we spoke to him, that fight wasn't an issue.[/quote]

How many Bridesmaids do we need honey x[/quote]

Ahah, you! Good, I'm stitching you up good and proper in the next issue!

Who were these chief sportswriters et al you were giving out about in the editorial! I bet I can guess (and I agree totally with your sentiments!)

gasman wrote:Who were their chief sportswriters et al you were giving out about in the editorial! I bet I can guess (and I agree totally with your sentiments!)

Time to go home for the evening, methinks

Glyn Leach wrote:OK leforge and interested parties, Adam Smith tells me he wanted the fight but at this stage — and remember he got his new job after the year's budget has been decided so he's inherited a situation — all the money available has gone on the contracts with the four promoters Sky work with. Let's see what happens when he can set the budget next year.

Thanks for the reply. Shame they could not buy the fight. I would like to see more overseas fights.

gasman wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:OK leforge and interested parties, Adam Smith tells me he wanted the fight but at this stage — and remember he got his new job after the year's budget has been decided so he's inherited a situation — all the money available has gone on the contracts with the four promoters Sky work with. Let's see what happens when he can set the budget next year.

I was very optimistic about his views on Froch - it would be great to get their hype machine behind Froch!

indeed hopefully froch will beat abraham so sky have good cause the execs may ask why a guy whos lost twice on the trot is worth the money if they dont know that much about boxing

gasman wrote:Who were these chief sportswriters et al you were giving out about in the editorial! I bet I can guess (and I agree totally with your sentiments!)

Listen my man, I go all over the fecking place, to big shows and small (though not as often as I used to, granted). For the Ruiz fight, hardly any of the fellas to whom Glyn refers showed up - no story, you see? You get the lads from the nationals who cover boxing - Ron Lewis, Jeff Powell, Kevin Mitchell, Gareth Davies, Pat Sheehan, Nick Parkinson etc - but when there's a 'big' fight, the general sports journos (i.e. football writers who occasionally turn their hands to turn up and they know absolutely f*ck all.

I was going to do a 'bits and bobs' piece from ringside about it. Some silly c*nt wrote down 'Dave Perrez' instead of Dave Parris; another had written that it was for the WBO title, etc.

I knew about 20% of those in the press section. We need the sport to be more mainstream but it's dangerous in the hands of silly buggers who know nowt.