BoxRec

The article in boxing news was a bit too Ok mag for me the first paragraph read like a social workers report from a family visit as i said i like bomber and was impressed with his frank and honest account of how he tried to make weight for the cleverley fight just felt it was out of place in a boxing mag lovely family though they are .

...I don't know how to spell his name.

Scottrf wrote:...I don't know how to spell his name.

he also has long eyebrow hairs

Adamj1987 wrote:he also has long eyebrow hairs

spiders legs arent they

I agree Lol

Bomber 1 wrote:I agree Lol

So you're going to cut your eyebrow hairs?

Please this is like reading the article again.
Joking aside, I think last weeks boxing news was the worst one I can remember reading - I hesitated buying it because of how bad the Haye/Klitscko fight was but still I think I read it in 20 mins and left it in the bar, hopefully this week will be a good'n with all the good match-ups this weekend.

There was a thread on this on Eastside last week but, to reiterate, the Beyond the Ropes series is designed to focus on boxers' lives OUTSIDE the ring (hence the name) and the driving forces behind them - in this case, Bellew's family. So if you dislike the concept or feel it incongruous, that's one thing. If it's the execution you take issue with that's a more serious problem and if it's both, well, I'm truly screwed lol. But despite the social worker-esque prose I have thus far received far more positive feedback on this article - on this forum, Facebook, Twitter, readers' letters etc - than negative. That alone does not prove it's any good but perhaps the people who didn't like it should make their voices more widely heard. BN will not continue with a concept the majority of readers don't want. I find these angles interesting - that's why I write the articles - but perhaps the majority do not, in which case we should can it. As I said in the previous thread I'm happy to accept feedback both positive and constructive but if it's the concept you don't like you should let BN know - power to the people and all that.

I like the interviews from a different angle than just from the boxing aspect.
Sure its nice to hear of their techniques, inspirations and aspirations - though sometimes an interview can turn into a PR stunt to hype a future fight.
The recent Tony Bellew interview was nice. No mention of Cleverly. Danny Flexen did Tony proud by focusing on the Bellews.
I'm sure this will have got Tony more admirers than a silly rant about Cleverly.
And yes - his eyebrows were kinda scary ..

He's a decent boxer, likeable guy. Posts well on here and never backs away. Not much to dislike about the guy (although he is a scouser)

i think the new format of boxing news is pants, its getting worse aswell its getting poor

Boxing News is not value for money.

half of it is devoted to the ams.

but i like Bellew, hes a good kid

funso banjo baby wrote:Boxing News is not value for money.

half of it is devoted to the ams.

but i like Bellew, hes a good kid

Sadly gotta agree :(

I realise amateurs are the sports future - but I`m not sure if most readers are mildly interested in the grass roots of the sport.
I didn`t find the amateur scene worth reading about when I boxed amateur - I find it even less interesting nowadays.

And the amount of pictures in it
Way too much :x

It really seems as if the boxing news is a background to the boxing pictures.

And don`t start me on the advertisements ....

If by half, you mean six pages out of around 38 then yes, half is devoted to the amateurs. But if that is what you mean, maths may not be your strongpoint lol. As for the advertising, there would not be a magazine without it and it has also enabled the cover price to stay comparatively low for many years. But again I can't emphasise enough that if you want BN – or any mag for that matter – to be the publication you desire then let the appropriate decision-makers know what you like and dislike. If there's too many pictures tell them, too much amateur content, tell them (just don't say it takes up half the mag). Sales are still pretty strong, which suggests people are broadly happy but if no-one expresses their opinion, sales figures become the only indicator of reader approbation.

Tony is quality and has a lot of potential. All his fights are entertaining and if he sticks to his jab like Arnie points out in another thread then he could go a long way.

yid14 wrote:Please this is like reading the article again.
Joking aside, I think last weeks boxing news was the worst one I can remember reading - I hesitated buying it because of how bad the Haye/Klitscko fight was but still I think I read it in 20 mins and left it in the bar, hopefully this week will be a good'n with all the good match-ups this weekend.

I feel there's not been as much in it over the last 2 or 3 months. Agree you can race through it very quickly.

tonyevs wrote:

funso banjo baby wrote:Boxing News is not value for money.

half of it is devoted to the ams.

but i like Bellew, hes a good kid

Sadly gotta agree :(

I realise amateurs are the sports future - but I`m not sure if most readers are mildly interested in the grass roots of the sport.
I didn`t find the amateur scene worth reading about when I boxed amateur - I find it even less interesting nowadays.

And the amount of pictures in it
Way too much :x

It really seems as if the boxing news is a background to the boxing pictures.

And don`t start me on the advertisements ....

Agree totally about the ams and the amount of pictures.

I only have a passing interest in the amateurs, 1 page would be enough 2 more than enough and anything more is absolute overkill.

dbflex wrote:If by half, you mean six pages out of around 38 then yes, half is devoted to the amateurs. But if that is what you mean, maths may not be your strongpoint lol. As for the advertising, there would not be a magazine without it and it has also enabled the cover price to stay comparatively low for many years. But again I can't emphasise enough that if you want BN – or any mag for that matter – to be the publication you desire then let the appropriate decision-makers know what you like and dislike. If there's too many pictures tell them, too much amateur content, tell them (just don't say it takes up half the mag). Sales are still pretty strong, which suggests people are broadly happy but if no-one expresses their opinion, sales figures become the only indicator of reader approbation.

Of course, half was an exageration .. but 5 pages does still seem too much in my opinion.

But having just looked through this weeks BN.
Of the 1st 46pages (not counting the last inside page and rear cover) ... it would seem legit to say 23 of the pages were dedicated to pictures not boxing news .. thats half I`m thinking ... please feel free to correct me.

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:If by half, you mean six pages out of around 38 then yes, half is devoted to the amateurs. But if that is what you mean, maths may not be your strongpoint lol. As for the advertising, there would not be a magazine without it and it has also enabled the cover price to stay comparatively low for many years. But again I can't emphasise enough that if you want BN – or any mag for that matter – to be the publication you desire then let the appropriate decision-makers know what you like and dislike. If there's too many pictures tell them, too much amateur content, tell them (just don't say it takes up half the mag). Sales are still pretty strong, which suggests people are broadly happy but if no-one expresses their opinion, sales figures become the only indicator of reader approbation.

Of course, half was an exageration .. but 5 pages does still seem too much in my opinion.

But having just looked through this weeks BN.
Of the 1st 46pages (not counting the last inside page and rear cover) ... it would seem legit to say 23 of the pages were dedicated to pictures not boxing news .. thats half I`m thinking ... please feel free to correct me.

But u said amateurs, not pics. I haven't got last week's to hand but I'll have a look at tomorrow's and let you know. Some readers do like the photography though.

dbflex wrote:

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:If by half, you mean six pages out of around 38 then yes, half is devoted to the amateurs. But if that is what you mean, maths may not be your strongpoint lol. As for the advertising, there would not be a magazine without it and it has also enabled the cover price to stay comparatively low for many years. But again I can't emphasise enough that if you want BN – or any mag for that matter – to be the publication you desire then let the appropriate decision-makers know what you like and dislike. If there's too many pictures tell them, too much amateur content, tell them (just don't say it takes up half the mag). Sales are still pretty strong, which suggests people are broadly happy but if no-one expresses their opinion, sales figures become the only indicator of reader approbation.

Of course, half was an exageration .. but 5 pages does still seem too much in my opinion.

But having just looked through this weeks BN.
Of the 1st 46pages (not counting the last inside page and rear cover) ... it would seem legit to say 23 of the pages were dedicated to pictures not boxing news .. thats half I`m thinking ... please feel free to correct me.

But u said amateurs, not pics. I haven't got last week's to hand but I'll have a look at tomorrow's and let you know. Some readers do like the photography though.

No I didn`t. I did however agree there was too much amateur boxing pages

tonyevs wrote:

dbflex wrote:

tonyevs wrote:
Of course, half was an exageration .. but 5 pages does still seem too much in my opinion.

But having just looked through this weeks BN.
Of the 1st 46pages (not counting the last inside page and rear cover) ... it would seem legit to say 23 of the pages were dedicated to pictures not boxing news .. thats half I`m thinking ... please feel free to correct me.

But u said amateurs, not pics. I haven't got last week's to hand but I'll have a look at tomorrow's and let you know. Some readers do like the photography though.

Sorry; the person who said 'half' was referring to the amateurs. And I will check this week's for pics.

No I didn`t. I did however agree there was too much amateur boxing pages

Fair enough, the person who said 'half' was referring to amateurs. Will let u know on pics.

more photos would be better in my opinion!

57philbox wrote:more photos would be better in my opinion!

each to their own I guess.

Its just I buy Boxing news for boxing news
The great thing about old issues of BN is that you could read round by round how a fight went.
With more space devoted to pictures, the report is squeezed in with less and less detail.

If this continues. Then BN may lose its niche as the trade paper. It may as well then drop the `News` and replace it with `Pictures`.

I like the magazine the amateur section i bypass though i realise it is important to cover this as its what feeds the pro game and im sure gives the young boxers coming up a buzz to make it into an issue of BN.
Alot of whats in each issue is already known from the internet so the interviews and pros opinions on up and coming fights are what i look for cant wait till tommorows edition should be brimming as the weekends looking top draw .