BoxRec

Steve Bunce appears to have got a good foot hold at the BBC now. He's on nearly every week with Craig Doyle on 'Sport +' discussing a variety of sports. I know some of you don't like him, and that's your right, but, I think he's a good bloke.

Good luck to him.

Good for Steve, lets hope with his enthusiasm for the sport he can encourage them to show more fights and to put it on at better times when they will be able to get proper viewing figures that reflect the interest that boxing has always got.

FlawedGenius wrote:Steve Bunce appears to have got a good foot hold at the BBC now. He's on nearly every week with Craig Doyle on 'Sport +' discussing a variety of sports. I know some of you don't like him, and that's your right, but, I think he's a good bloke.

Good luck to him.

Yeah, I saw discussing Marion Jones last weekend I think, it seemed odd cause you associate him with Boxing. But he did okay. Not sure I agreed with him about what she'll do in the Olympics, but its all opinions.

Good to see Bunce getting himself about a bit.
He is a good representative for boxing on terrestrial TV, I am sure he is lobbying the beeb relentlessly to keep a sustained interest in boxing.

Steve Bunce seems like a good bloke to me. Like most sports journalists, even though they may have their favourite specialisms, they usually take a necessary interest in a variety of sports.

Try giving Johnny Vaughan's 'Fighting Talk' a listen on Five Live, Saturday mornings, or whenever you like over the net. Don't know quite how it happened but Vaughan usually ends up (unfairly but very humorously) using Big Daddy as the butt of his humour! All in good fun though!

He loves talking about the Arsenal and heavyweight boxing, but I still think his nitty gritty knowledge is suspect. Only last week, he named a Mexican, Enrique Marcos, as a possible opponent for Scott Harrison after William Abelyan's pullout. Turns out nobody has heard of Marcos. There is no traceable record for the guy. Does he even exist?
Today, I read his report on the Dazzo Williams-Jamie Mckeever fight, and in his opening paragraph he describes the fight as "predictably close." McKeever entered the fight with a knackered left hand and nine months inactivity behind him, and was also struggling to make the weight. Williams, fighting on virtual home soil, was odds-on with the bookies.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/ ... ory=496488

Never been a fan of Bunce and hardly ever bother reading his articles anymore in BM....goodluck to him though.

HH

I really like Steve Bunce.I think he comes over as passionate about boxing and approachable.As a writer he is good also.His articles in The Independant are always clear and well structured.It is a real shame that he is not given enough word space to write more.But sadly, the british papers today, don't seem interested in giving boxing much coverage.

They show the fights don't they?

What more do you want?

Bollocks19842003... you wouldn't be related in any way to a certain Boxing promoter now would you?...

Southpaw Stylist wrote:They show the fights don't they?

What more do you want?

I want them to show fights live, is that to much to ask?

silkov wrote:Bollocks19842003... you wouldn't be related in any way to a certain Boxing promoter now would you?...

No, I hate the c**t.

Bennie - you are right, especially regarding the Marcos fellow. There is a danger that people trust this type of poor reporting.

Your boxing knowledge is obviously top drawer, outstripping Buncey no doubt, but (I could be wrong) I'm not sure if you could write a decent piece on Ski Jumping, which Steve eloquently spoke about off the top of his head on the radio!

Even though he is a specialist, he probably only devotes about 75% of his time to it, so he can write about other stuff. The other 25% (and more) you give the fight game is where his weaknesses would be revealed!

Bunce is a good character for TV and not bad in the independent - but his page in Boxing Monthly regularly features some of the worst writing in any publication, boxing or otherwise.

He makes Jim Brady and Steve Farhood (god, how I wish he'd fvck off and go back to writing for a lame US mag) looks like Ernest Hemingway....

Steve Farhood is a good writer - just a bit different. His eye for an amusing analogy or anecdote is good. Bunce's column in BN does come up a bit short at times - becomes a bit obvious in a specialist publication.

Yes I think Farhood is a decent writer, a different class from that truly awful couch potato, Jim Brady.

I just read Bunce's latest article in Boxing Monthly, to see if he'd improved any.
No chance, same old badly written stuff I'm afraid.

For instance, to make the point that Carl Thompson is an exciting fighter, he tells us:

"Don't tell me Benn and Hamed and Lewis were exciting. Give me a break"

No what sort of crap is that? I know he's trying to make a point, but why try to tell people that Benn or Naz were not exciting fighters?
The guy just says, or writes, the first thing that comes into his head it appears.
Even if it's complete bollocks.

Don't mind him on TV though

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Steve Farhood is a good writer - just a bit different. His eye for an amusing analogy or anecdote is good. Bunce's column in BN does come up a bit short at times - becomes a bit obvious in a specialist publication.

You must take a lot of of drugs! His analogies are truly terrible - cringe inducing, and as for his attempts at humour...he just trivialises boxing and boxers.

He has such a cheesy, uneducated US tabloid-style of writing.....

I really wonder what you would consider to be bad writing!

"Don't tell me Benn and Hamed and Lewis were exciting. Give me a break"


SURELY HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC.

I mean Benn was hardly in a dull fight ands in fact in some of the most memorable.

No he wasn't even being sarcastic I'm afraid.

He was trying to make the point that any young upstarts who think Benn & Naz were exciting, had never seen a Thompson fight.
Type of comment you'd expect from the pub bore really.

blimey cheers MW shame that, stupid thing to say in my opinion as genuinely quite like hearing what he has to say on the beeb post fight, might not agree with it all but hey there you go . I guess he just got carried away with the excitement of the Rothman fight, i know i was doing my nut when the Cat pulled that out the bag.

But to say Benn Hamed or Lewis (I know he could be boring a la tua) were less exciting than Thompson is just downright crap .

E wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Steve Farhood is a good writer - just a bit different. His eye for an amusing analogy or anecdote is good. Bunce's column in BN does come up a bit short at times - becomes a bit obvious in a specialist publication.

You must take a lot of of drugs! His analogies are truly terrible - cringe inducing, and as for his attempts at humour...he just trivialises boxing and boxers.

He has such a cheesy, uneducated US tabloid-style of writing.....

I really wonder what you would consider to be bad writing!

Ironic that someone going by the pseudonym of 'E' accuses me of taking drugs! Perhaps you should begin with reasoned debate rather than potentially offensive accusations.

I suppose that 'quality of writing' is all about opinion once writers have mastered the basics. I mean, 'Lord of the Rings' being the nation's greatest work of literature? I think not.

I like Farhood and he does make me laugh, although that might say more about my sense of humour than his talent...but I don't think so. I think he has a refreshing style (which may or may not be cheesy) and stands out merely because he is not the norm - in a good way. Plus, this is all underpinned by solid and extensive knowledge, which is a hard combination to find.

What would I consider to be bad writing? Not that it makes me an authority by any means, but before I recently re-trained to be a journalist, I spent nine years as a teacher and lecturer. English was/is my subject. I have a decent BA in English and European Literature and an MA in Literature Studies. I have read some really awful stuff in my time, believe me.

Steve Farhood is not an example of bad writing, in my opinion. And the latter is what it is all about - your opinion is certainly as valid as mine, hence the wonder and enjoyment of debate.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

E wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Steve Farhood is a good writer - just a bit different. His eye for an amusing analogy or anecdote is good. Bunce's column in BN does come up a bit short at times - becomes a bit obvious in a specialist publication.

You must take a lot of of drugs! His analogies are truly terrible - cringe inducing, and as for his attempts at humour...he just trivialises boxing and boxers.

He has such a cheesy, uneducated US tabloid-style of writing.....

I really wonder what you would consider to be bad writing!

Ironic that someone going by the pseudonym of 'E' accuses me of taking drugs! Perhaps you should begin with reasoned debate rather than potentially offensive accusations.

Nothing offensive about what E wrote.

E gave his opinion just like you did!

Bunce is good for a quote or two. There's no doubt he says some thing's to purposely cause a stir, and anyone who does that can't be taken too seriously.

On saying that though, I don't mind the bloke at all.

I don't mind Bunce at all. Listen to him on 'Fighting Talk' (not a boxing show) on Radio 5 live, presented by Johnny Vaughn on a Saturday morning (11am I think, you can even listen to archives of the show on the website) and he comes across as a good guy, and quite funny with it.

Sure he might not have the hardcore knowledge of many of you on here but that's ok, I can overlook the odd discrepency. I don't read the tabloids for my boxing info anyway.

E wrote:

You must take a lot of of drugs!

Matchfixer - some people would be offended by this. I wasn't, as I'm sure it was meant light-heartedly. As I explained, it's all about opinions!