Boxing Monthly - 'The Inquest'

[gasman]

The Inquest is the new feature of Boxing Monthly and it is basically a fresh new approach for reporting on boxing matches. The issue is that a monthly journal cannot compete with the internet or even weekly fight reports on other publications so needs a different approach.

The Inquest is a feature that brings in several Boxing Monthly writers to discuss the main talking points on a big fight or card that has occurred. This month takes in the Haye-Vlad fight and Glyn, Ron Borges and Steve Lillis discuss the big talking points of this fight.

This is a much more interesting format and a good way forward. Glyn has asked for feedback on this in his editorial and my feedback would be:

- deal with several key fights rather than one (although in this case, it is certainly justified - it is right to give the amount of space to the Haye-Vlad fight as it was such a big event).

- I like the format of The Inquest - Ringside writer contributes, as does Glyn (who I have always thought should write more) and Lillis (who is excellent) a US perspective (for the bigger fights).

- Another interesting add on for this format are little anecdotes or on the ground details from the ringside reporter i.e. the bits and pieces that we dont see on tv - i.e. something that was said at ringside or at the post-presser or an observation of the atmosphere etc...

But, yeah definitely a big improvement and an excellent idea.

PS. I thought Borges was particularly harsh on Booth, I think Booth is a class act myself and look what he did for George Groves and Haye. I have to laugh when a fighter loses - his team is then somehow shit? If Haye had of finished Vlad in the last round (and he did hurt him) - all this talk of shit tactics and a scared Haye etc would have evaporated. Vlad was just too big and technically sound for Haye. The likes of McGuigan can say he should have held the centre of the ring etc, but how does he do that against a giant like Vlad? I agree with Glyn, I thought it was an intriguing fight, and I respect Haye for being able to last the 12 rounds and take some of Vlad's big shots.

*One other thing, there is an interview with Ed Robinson in this months edition, a very good read and I agree with the writer, a very nice bloke is Ed (makes me feel bad for some of the criticism I have given him in the past ).

-

[LeedsLad]

I think Borges summed up the American feeling about Haye pretty well, although it was pretty scathing.

Was it Buncey who interviewed George Foreman who admitted that there was hardly any discussion about the fight between Haye and Klitschko?

For all Haye's bluster moving up to HW he didn't really do it consistently, which British journalists are reluctant to pull him up on.

All three add knowledgable and valid opinions, I hope they stick with it.

Borges isn't keen on Floyd too, which strikes a chord with me

[Adamj1987]

This is an excellent idea and a really good move by BM IMO. Quite often the press tend to report rather than give opinions (which i understand) but i feel if any form of debate is raised through Boxing monthly it will work as long as both sides are covered. Saying that the piece Ron Borges did last month on the IBHOF was a good example of a piece with an opinion all be it from one side and it was a shame that a balance wasnt addressed in an other piece.**

When Ringside hit our screens again they had several shows where a boxing subject was debated and although it was quite good IMO this would work better through BM where several people involved with the fight game could put across their opinions.

I'm not kissing up to Glyn (i'll leave that to MBE Jane) but i feel that BM at the moment is going strength to strength. I love the polls on big fights and enjoy the interviews with ex-fighters. I would love to see a piece maybe re-living a major event in UK or World boxing with people who were actually their recalling their experiences of the event or build up to the event. There is nothing better than hearing from people who experienced something first hand and sometimes it can give a great insight into an event from a prespective few of us have experienced.



** I'm sure Boxrec's news man Ian was going to do something but it never came off for various reasons.

sounds good i always enjoyd the my night in BN which is a similar thing

[gasman]

I have been very critical of Haye in the past, but on this occasion I think he did all he could in his fight with Vlad, of course he should never have got the big toe out, but he is a promoters dream - he sells his fights. Ring magazine add the marketability of a fighter in their ratings and a fighter, at world level especially, needs to shift tickets and cause interest and despite his short comings against Vlad, Haye provided intrigue to the heavyweight division.

You are right about Borges, but I isolate his points on Booth as I think they are off the mark.

One thing that is striking about the post-fight commentary on Haye-Vlad is the amount of rats coming out of the woodwork to slate Haye for his effort, performance against Vlad. These were the same bullshitters that were making excuses on Hayes behalf (and Sky's) about the Harrison fight and turning a blind eye to the awful PPV match up with Ruiz. At the time all I read was the common theme/promoter speak i.e. 'it was a big event (i.e. Haye-Harrison) and no one expected Harrison to win or be competitive'. It is like some of these guys are waiting to see what the common/safe line is from their peers and they just jump aboard. Just to be clear, I am NOT referring to any writers at Boxing Monthly, Glyn was one of the few writers that rightly criticised the Haye-Harrison PPV and the lack of under card shown.

[Scottrf]

Interesting feature, I know why they chose that fight but will work better with fights with more talking points/that split opinion more.

Ron certainly didn't hold back did he! I agree with a lot of what he said, but it gave the impression he bought into the pre fight hype and felt let down. Everything that happened in the fight had ample precedent. "Maybe British fans will still come out to support him for lack of anything better to do" is an unnecessary and patronising statement, especially to feature in a British magazine. Followed up with the obligatory 'he needs an American trainer to succeed', who thinks the American's are insular?

Liked the 'What the papers say' and 'What did Germany think of it?' parts too.

[Final round]

I shall buy and give me opinion then, I don't wnat to spoil it before hand.

[earsjohn]

I've not read it yet but a novel approach, without being a novelty, should be applauded.

One potential idea would be to tie in a fight with a theme for discussion. For example, a review of Williams v Lara could begin a debate on poor judging, Cook v Burns could lead a piece on gambling in boxing, the Magee v Barbosa match could be the intro to an analysis of the farcical belt awarding activites of our beloved commissioning bodies.

[MightyWarrior]

Yes great idea, though I thought it should have covered more than just one fight ( eg Mitchell/Murray ) rather than all the sub catogories running 4 pages for toegate - and glad Borges was deservedly harsh on Haye, as think Glyn and BN gave him far too much of an easy ride for his no show flop.

[Glyn Leach]

That's brilliant, thanks for all this feedback chaps, all duly noted - and I won't be paying you for any of the suggestions you have made if I use them, so sod off!. Seriously, that's really helpful of you, thanks again.

PS Mark, Ian's in the gay bar (!) with the Martin Murray, pages 28-30

[Wake up call]

[Scottrf]

Off topic, but what about a look at prospects we probably haven't heard of; just a one page summary of style, opponents, amateur background etc?

[Final round]

I thought the format worked well, a nice contrast of opinions not fond of Dan Rapha Borges' trash talking style but there you go.
Not sure that Wlad is defo Britains favourite foreign fighter either. I would have thought Pacquaio or Mayweather still, then again I'm not sure Wlad is anyones favourite fighter at all.

[Syntax Error]

I've just read this & I agree, it was fantastic.

Great summation by all 3 guys.

Ron Borges was particularly poignant, as it gives an insight into where David (& his little toe ) stand in the USA right now.

For all David's bluster, his standing has taken a right shellacking & he's going to have to do something spectacular to win the fight fans back on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Yes We Can]

I think it was a trial worth running, and certainly captured my total interest throughout. Totally understand the need to out manouvre the modern world of media and the fact that as a monthly mag they cant keep up with the internet, but i for one still find a lot of internet journalism to be very sloppy due to the overall speed in which they do deliver articles, and a lot of the time the extra qualty in the BM fight reports is often worth the money.... maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

[Final round]

Btw I noticed that BM didn't tackle the 'suspect' betting from the Cook fight that Steve Bunce copped a lot of flack on here for not talking about on his show. Was this because when the mag went to press nothing had been proven to have taken place or it just wasn't worth talking about.

[hurlock]

give jane couch a little reporters role. she knows all the people to dig out for intresting insight :!:


telephone interviews?????

jamie moore doing his homework on gym methods??

[wrimc]

This is a welcome addition to the mag gives an interesting ne wangle on fight reporting. BM is in a much better position than BN to report on the aftermath and the effect of a particular boxing match on a division or a fighters reputation.

I hope this is something that continues.

[hurlock]

i also like old school fight figures giving there angle on today's boxing as a sport & buisness

[Glyn Leach]

Btw I noticed that BM didn't tackle the 'suspect' betting from the Cook fight that Steve Bunce copped a lot of flack on here for not talking about on his show. Was this because when the mag went to press nothing had been proven to have taken place or it just wasn't worth talking about.

There was only the Racing Post story of the day of the fight to go on when we finalised the reports pages. The RP story was specifically about betting patterns for Round 3, but when the fight ended in the first that line lost relevance to what was a very short report (five paragraphs) anyway. It would have been a totally different story had the fight ended in the third, obviously. There would have been something concrete to write about based on the information available to us at that time. But had we pontificated on the whys, wherefores and possibilities of a suspicious betting pattern based around Cook losing two rounds later than he actually did, it would have been at the expense of Bellew-McKenzie and Gavin-Woodhouse, which IMO were more worthy of coverage than musing about the implications of a bunch of suspicious bets that came nowhere near to paying off. Then on the Monday after the fight, Ian M was told by a bookmaker that there was a Rounds 1-3 pattern also, but BM's reports pages were gone by then hence no mention.

[Jeff Thomas]

It says a lot about Boxing Monthly and Boxing News that they continue to be unmissable despite there 'reporting' often being academic.

I personally would like a section that revisits a random domestic fighter - just one page. His record, background, best wins etc.

[Glyn Leach]

maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

I think that's a very good point. BM has never been a 'paper of record', traditionally that's BN's remit, but when I look at the feature now I think where's the scores, the weights, the mention of the knockdown - the basic facts of an old school report. I think a small box at the very start containing such details might be an important addition. Or am I just showing my age?

Also, do you think the Khan fight is worthy of an Inquest? Is there enough to discuss? Interested to hear some views on that as I'm not sold on it at the mo.

Also, how would you feel about The Inquest as a regular monthly feature that might not just centre on one fight but could be used to thrash out general talking points in boxing at any given period? Strikes me the format is pretty versatile and has a lot of possibilities.

[Scottrf]

maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

Also, do you think the Khan fight is worthy of an Inquest? Is there enough to discuss? Interested to hear some views on that as I'm not sold on it at the mo.

Also, how would you feel about The Inquest as a regular monthly feature that might not just centre on one fight but could be used to thrash out general talking points in boxing at any given period? Strikes me the format is pretty versatile and has a lot of possibilities.

I don't think there is enough debate around the Khan fight. I don't really know anyone that thinks it was really a low blow, and even fewer will think he should have been disqualified.

Although as a general theme, the same referee disqualified Miranda for low blows on Friday. No warning, 2 point deductions then the DQ.

I'd rather see it with smaller fights with probably haven't been covered in detail, but I like the idea of tying it round a talking point, perhaps referencing other fights in the past etc.

[Glyn Leach]

maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

Also, do you think the Khan fight is worthy of an Inquest? Is there enough to discuss? Interested to hear some views on that as I'm not sold on it at the mo.

Also, how would you feel about The Inquest as a regular monthly feature that might not just centre on one fight but could be used to thrash out general talking points in boxing at any given period? Strikes me the format is pretty versatile and has a lot of possibilities.

I don't think there is enough debate around the Khan fight. I don't really know anyone that thinks it was really a low blow, and even fewer will think he should have been disqualified.

Although as a general theme, the same referee disqualified Miranda for low blows on Friday. No warning, 2 point deductions then the DQ.

I'd rather see it with smaller fights with probably haven't been covered in detail, but I like the idea of tying it round a talking point, perhaps referencing other fights in the past etc.

Agree on Khan fight Scott, ta

[gasman]

maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

I think that's a very good point. BM has never been a 'paper of record', traditionally that's BN's remit, but when I look at the feature now I think where's the scores, the weights, the mention of the knockdown - the basic facts of an old school report. I think a small box at the very start containing such details might be an important addition. Or am I just showing my age?

Also, do you think the Khan fight is worthy of an Inquest? Is there enough to discuss? Interested to hear some views on that as I'm not sold on it at the mo.

Also, how would you feel about The Inquest as a regular monthly feature that might not just centre on one fight but could be used to thrash out general talking points in boxing at any given period? Strikes me the format is pretty versatile and has a lot of possibilities.

That is the second biggest advantage of continuing with this type of format, the first is obviously to avoid rehashing descriptive and factual info on a fight/s that occurred weeks prior to the publication.

If there is only one interesting talking point then you could widen the constituency of commentators to get a bigger variety of opinion and strive to a majority viewpoint i.e. similar to the piece that you did with the Degale-Groves predictions, only this is post fight. You wont have a Haye-Vlad every month, so the versatility of The Inquest will help.

[Final round]

maybe there is a bigger winner in more of a hybrid between the 2 ways.

Also, how would you feel about The Inquest as a regular monthly feature that might not just centre on one fight but could be used to thrash out general talking points in boxing at any given period? Strikes me the format is pretty versatile and has a lot of possibilities.

That would work it's a good feature, thanks for explaining the gambling issue to me.