BoxRec

What do you guys think, the new look boxing news
seems to be lacking in quality reports on fights and preview's.
Recently we had a preview of danny mcintosh's euro defence
in Germany, but no preview of the Geale/ sylvester ""World title fight".
This week a tiny report on the ouma/ golovkin, fight, and a great scrap,and
while were on ouma a disgusting headline... BRAIN BLEED, this is not the
Daily star guys, have respect for this great warrior and get your facts right
a blood shot eye that's all it was.
I' ve been getting boxing news for 30 years, i still love the game passionately
but i am getting pissed off with showy articles with no depth.!!

I'm an old fashioned 34 year old who grew up on the great Harry Mullan version, but I still think your views are a bit harsh.

It is definitely more 'disposable' though these days, but what isn't? Still buy it every week

advertisements have killed it but prob lack of shows represents that

Personally I think (and I'm not being biased because I contribute to it now and then) that the mag is 1000 x better than the large Berliner version they had out circa 2000 to 2005.

Also, IMO Matt Christie is quite possibly the best writer in British boxing at the minute. His pieces on Jim Evans and Jason Rushton were superb.

i like the new layout, ive only been buying it for the last 5 years but its got a look about it on the inside that could bring in more fans to give it a read. a few people at my work who read my magazine and are big MMA fans have started buying the magazine because its more accessable to the average fan

hurlock wrote:advertisements have killed it

Adverts never kill a magazine, only the lack of them. Trust me

Deserter wrote:

hurlock wrote:advertisements have killed it

Adverts never kill a magazine, only the lack of them. Trust me

Spot on.

I don't like it as much there isn't as much fight news as before and you can finish reading it very quickly, still decent magazine though

the original poster is being harsh ...since they revamped it i think thye could have more a news section ..biut given there up agaisn the internet they prob felt they were waisting space and the sapce would be better on Features

I like the new format however I think the fight previews could be improved considerably. I have always looked forward to reading the previews but recently the quality has dipped. Claude Abrams used to give a thoroughly detailed breakdown of both fighters before giving his verdict which usually was how the fight would eventually pan out.

chinny wrote:I'm an old fashioned 34 year old who grew up on the great Harry Mullan version, but I still think your views are a bit harsh.

It is definitely more 'disposable' though these days, but what isn't? Still buy it every week

I'm 'old school' too - but actually I like the new boxing news - visually strong; and I like the tidbits in the mag. It's very easy to pick up and read a little bit here and there.

It looks 'younger' if you like - but the indication is that the mag needs to appeal to a younger reader; and that is a good thing. That there are significant younger readers bodes well for the future of boxing.

Overall it gets my definite thumbs up!

let face it we all read a lot more, quicker and faster in these days of the internet.

As a 15 year old i remember the magic of getting an american boxing magazine and slowly reading the whole magazine that evening and savouring every page. Than i remember in my first job after university buying boxing monthly on a friday after my paypacket. id again savour the mag and read it over 2 days.

Hell once i got into my work where often i need to read up on something in depth, quickly, I can usually clear a 90 page report in a hour and a half.

To be honest call me a lowlife but boxing news, I usually read the entire mag for free in ASDA on a weekday night in 10 minutes.
These days theres so much free on the net Im gonna read through a mag like boxing news in 10 minutes

Let me tell you something.

In the 60 second interview, at the back page, there always used to be a question saying "Toughest man you've faced"...

That's been scrapped now. Now they ask "Facebook or Twitter"......."Cash or Card".......

And whoever was responsible for this

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it's shit now cancelling mine

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Let me tell you something.

In the 60 second interview, at the back page, there always used to be a question saying "Toughest man you've faced"...

That's been scrapped now. Now they ask "Facebook or Twitter"......."Cash or Card".......

And whoever was responsible for this

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

x2

The section on the amateurs is fantastic, definitely the strongest part of the mag and something that does not have an online equivalent.

The rest of the magazine has declined slightly I agree. It would be interesting to do a word count because I do find myself finishing it far quicker now than in the past.

The new design is OK (I'm not really bothered to be honest), but the quality of the photographs or at least the printing seems to have worsened.

Having said that it is still a quality read and something I look forward to every week.

Too much space given to pictures rather than actual boxing news.
Too much space given to adverts - instead of boxing news. But this i can forgive because of the revenue it brings in.
Too many amateur boxing pages. It really does look like padding the paper..

That said. It is much better under Tris Dixon than it ever was with Claud Abrams.

Deserter wrote:

hurlock wrote:advertisements have killed it

Adverts never kill a magazine, only the lack of them. Trust me

By the general rule you would be absolutely correct Deserter - the formula being that advertising revenue should pay for production. Not like that in boxing though, the figures don't match up anything like they should. So while every penny is important, you could argue that ads spoil boxing mags - I certainly feel that way in relation to BM, I want every possible page I can get for editorial. This may or may not be relevant to BN, but that's my two bob's worth on adverts

Glyn Leach wrote:

Deserter wrote:

hurlock wrote:advertisements have killed it

Adverts never kill a magazine, only the lack of them. Trust me

By the general rule you would be absolutely correct Deserter - the formula being that advertising revenue should pay for production. Not like that in boxing though, the figures don't match up anything like they should. So while every penny is important, you could argue that ads spoil boxing mags - I certainly feel that way in relation to BM, I want every possible page I can get for editorial. This may or may not be relevant to BN, but that's my two bob's worth on adverts

Hear what you're saying Glyn, but in all my years in the industry I've never seen a shred of evidence that a high ratio of ads results in damaging declines in copy sales. Readers will bitch and moan (as will editors!) on occasion, but it's never resulted in a substantial drop in copy sales revenue. By contrast, there are numerous examples of mags that have gone to the wall after a drop in advertising revenue, despite having maintained reasonable copy sales.

Deserter wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

Deserter wrote: Adverts never kill a magazine, only the lack of them. Trust me

By the general rule you would be absolutely correct Deserter - the formula being that advertising revenue should pay for production. Not like that in boxing though, the figures don't match up anything like they should. So while every penny is important, you could argue that ads spoil boxing mags - I certainly feel that way in relation to BM, I want every possible page I can get for editorial. This may or may not be relevant to BN, but that's my two bob's worth on adverts

Hear what you're saying Glyn, but in all my years in the industry I've never seen a shred of evidence that a high ratio of ads results in damaging declines in copy sales. Readers will bitch and moan (as will editors!) on occasion, but it's never resulted in a substantial drop in copy sales revenue. By contrast, there are numerous examples of mags that have gone to the wall after a drop in advertising revenue, despite having maintained reasonable copy sales.

Yeah, I'm definitely coming at it from the editorial side mate, I realise this.

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Let me tell you something.

In the 60 second interview, at the back page, there always used to be a question saying "Toughest man you've faced"...

That's been scrapped now. Now they ask "Facebook or Twitter"......."Cash or Card".......

And whoever was responsible for this

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is without a doubt the worst part of the magazine. It's like something from a teenage music magazine.

I'm pretty happy with it overall, some of the features have been pretty good of late and I enjoy the guest columnist every week.

What's Claude Abrams up to these days?

Picked up last week's and over all not too bad. The guy who previewed the King show is a good writer.

But the 4 or 5 page feature on the late Lavander Johnson, followed by part 2 next week (??! ) was way too much. I know Tris was a friend of his, but one major feature would surely have been enough. Next week should have featured another boxer, like an ex pro from the same town. Surely must be hundreds.

all my years in the industry I've never seen a shred of evidence that a high ratio of ads results in damaging declines in copy sales. Readers will bitch and moan (as will editors!) on occasion, but it's never resulted in a substantial drop in copy sales revenue

An eye opener then that those in the industry ignore their readers ... that can`t be good :(

What mag have/do you work for .. I`ll give it a wide berth.

charlieb wrote:What's Claude Abrams up to these days?

Travelling the world with his wife and kid I believe