BoxRec

tell me what you think Take it easy on me, my first atempt a full length peice.

http://www.boxingtime.com/British_Review.htm

adamiw wrote:tell me what you think Take it easy on me, my first atempt a full length peice.

http://www.boxingtime.com/British_Review.htm

Utter codswallop.





just kidding...it was quite good...and enjoyable read for sure.

Haven't had time to read it yet, but one piece of advice, if you are going to do a regular review, it's probably best to do it weekly, as you can go into more depth. It also allows you to do follow-ups on inside information, and give the reader a feeling of being involved in an ongoing stream of information, rather than a brief potted versions of recent events.

Once a month doesn't give you much opportunity to go into any one aspect of your review in depth.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Haven't had time to read it yet, but one piece of advice, if you are going to do a regular review, it's probably best to do it weekly, as you can go into more depth. It also allows you to do follow-ups on inside information, and give the reader a feeling of being involved in an ongoing stream of information, rather than a brief potted versions of recent events.

Once a month doesn't give you much opportunity to go into any one aspect of your review in depth.

yeah idealy i would do it once a week, and perhaps a feature as well, but at the moment i dont have too much time on my hands with my A levels coming up. It's more convenient to me if i do it monthly. Once my exams are out of the way, i will have more time.
cheers for the advice though.

Yeah it was good, I agree with James' criticisms though - some of it now was quite old - perhaps if you could make it more indepth, using other articles (if possible) with quotes. I don't know if you could have a review page, then followed to seperate links to each section. Then the reader can pick and choose what he wants to read without it taken so long to load.

What your writing there is something similar to what BM do every month. There articles are in somewhat more detail than yours. Don't take this the wrong way, I do like reading your work - grammatically and everything your sound - its just I can find reports the next day on the likes of secondsout and Britishboxing.net similar to yours.

Keep it up though, I understand your time constraints and the talent is there.

'A Levels'!

Oh to be so young again!

You precocious brat! I rephrase that, the article is crap, give up now, concentrate on your exams, desist!

yeah cheers man. I dont want to go too in depth. Infact i think i went too in detail with the Carl Thompson fight. I dont really want these to be fight reports. Obviously a fight report has to be done quickly after the event.

It's supposed to be a look back at the highlights of the month. I realise Boxing Monthly go more in depth, but that isn't one man's work.

I think if anything, more opinion could be included as obviously this isn't news and outdated. Yeah perhaps i should keep it less informative, and more opinionated with my views on how good a performance was etc...

thanks for the help though, keep it coming...

jamesmcdonnell wrote:'A Levels'!

Oh to be so young again!

You precocious brat! I rephrase that, the article is crap, give up now, concentrate on your exams, desist!

yeah, i'm only 17, looking to study journalism at Uni next year. I'm shit at everything else, so i aint changing my mind

I don't agree with you on the fight reports.

A fight report can be one of two things.

1 A bland piece of reportage which is much like any other fight report, rattled off quickly after the event, a-la fight news.

2 An insightful, personal and highly evocative piece of theatre which makes readers feel they were there.

The former is boring to write, and that's why I've never been much interested myself in that kind of thing.

Of course not every fight is exciting, but there are usually nuances which can be picked up, and any fight and the subjects surrounding it, can be given your own particular slant.

It depends what your ultimate aim is in all this really, whether you want to be a reporter or a columnist, which are two pretty different things.

adamiw wrote:yeah cheers man. I dont want to go too in depth. Infact i think i went too in detail with the Carl Thompson fight. I dont really want these to be fight reports. Obviously a fight report has to be done quickly after the event.

It's supposed to be a look back at the highlights of the month. I realise Boxing Monthly go more in depth, but that isn't one man's work.

I think if anything, more opinion could be included as obviously this isn't news and outdated. Yeah perhaps i should keep it less informative, and more opinionated with my views on how good a performance was etc...

thanks for the help though, keep it coming...

Yeah, that would be better - what I meant by indepth would be to include some of the boxers quotes or the scorecards at the end of the fight. I didn't necessarly mean the previous history of each fighter - your opinions on the performance and on his future plans (say if Barry Hearn mentioned who and when his charge would be fighting next). You could also give some thought on what you'd like to see Joe Bloggs do.

I also think it's good to assume that your readers don't know everything about the fighters. A bit of history, just a short paragraph on each gives the report more signifiance, as it builds the context for the reader. You can make even minor fights of more interest to boxing fans if you explain for instance that one fighter is on the comeback trail, or was a former champion, or is giving boxing one last hurrah.

Having some information on them as characters helps to build the piece and bring it to life. Also I think it is good to include any snippets you pick up from a fight if you attend it live, like chatting to judges, boxers, etc.

It's slightly different for me as i am writing for a predominantly American audience who know shit all about all but the biggest UK boxers, but I think the same principle is involved.

I think that like all forms of writing it's about finding a voice, which after 3 years of writing about boxing, is settling for me.

I think the experience you get in now will be invaluable experience and will give you a real head start when you study journalism, sadly haven't got the time to study now, nor can get funding after 4 years of uni, but if I get the chance I certainly will.

Good luck...

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't agree with you on the fight reports.

A fight report can be one of two things.

1 A bland piece of reportage which is much like any other fight report, rattled off quickly after the event, a-la fight news.

2 An insightful, personal and highly evocative piece of theatre which makes readers feel they were there.

The former is boring to write, and that's why I've never been much interested myself in that kind of thing.

Of course not every fight is exciting, but there are usually nuances which can be picked up, and any fight and the subjects surrounding it, can be given your own particular slant.

It depends what your ultimate aim is in all this really, whether you want to be a reporter or a columnist, which are two pretty different things.

But there is little point into going into too much detail about a fight, when it could of happened a couple of weeks ago, and when i have got several other fights to talk about. If someone has been fully informed about a fight, however good my report maybe, they wont be interested as they already no enough. As apposed to me doing it within 24 hours of a fight, where they are far more interested and less informed.

I think i will continue with this, probably until June, and then start doing it weekly.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I also think it's good to assume that your readers don't know everything about the fighters. A bit of history, just a short paragraph on each gives the report more signifiance, as it builds the context for the reader. You can make even minor fights of more interest to boxing fans if you explain for instance that one fighter is on the comeback trail, or was a former champion, or is giving boxing one last hurrah.

Having some information on them as characters helps to build the piece and bring it to life. Also I think it is good to include any snippets you pick up from a fight if you attend it live, like chatting to judges, boxers, etc.

It's slightly different for me as i am writing for a predominantly American audience who know shit all about all but the biggest UK boxers, but I think the same principle is involved.

I think that like all forms of writing it's about finding a voice, which after 3 years of writing about boxing, is settling for me.

I think the experience you get in now will be invaluable experience and will give you a real head start when you study journalism, sadly haven't got the time to study now, nor can get funding after 4 years of uni, but if I get the chance I certainly will.

Good luck...

yes, i gave a paragraph of information to a couple of the sections. Once again, i would provide more detail if i was doing a piece exclusivly covering one event, shortly after it happened.

i'm hoping to attend the manchester cards in April, and mix with there pressm get quotes etc...

stujones wrote:

adamiw wrote:yeah cheers man. I dont want to go too in depth. Infact i think i went too in detail with the Carl Thompson fight. I dont really want these to be fight reports. Obviously a fight report has to be done quickly after the event.

It's supposed to be a look back at the highlights of the month. I realise Boxing Monthly go more in depth, but that isn't one man's work.

I think if anything, more opinion could be included as obviously this isn't news and outdated. Yeah perhaps i should keep it less informative, and more opinionated with my views on how good a performance was etc...

thanks for the help though, keep it coming...

Yeah, that would be better - what I meant by indepth would be to include some of the boxers quotes or the scorecards at the end of the fight. I didn't necessarly mean the previous history of each fighter - your opinions on the performance and on his future plans (say if Barry Hearn mentioned who and when his charge would be fighting next). You could also give some thought on what you'd like to see Joe Bloggs do.

yeah i thought about quotes and scorecads, but i want to get away from providing too much detail, and turning it into a report. It's kind of like analysing a film, and you start to tell the story of the film, when all you want to do is make comments on certain parts. Obviously i have got to give a small description of the action, but in future i wont go so in depth with the details.

just looking over it again, i would rather stick to the kind of thing i did for the Calzaghe section, where i talked less about the fight and more about Joe and his future.

In that case you are looking at being an opinion based writer or fight analyst, which gives you room to talk about all kinds of weird and wonderful things.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:In that case you are looking at being an opinion based writer or fight analyst, which gives you room to talk about all kinds of weird and wonderful things.

well, in the future i aint sure what i want to be really, a bit of both perhaps. But for a monthly article, i think it will be best to be more opinionated.

Good on you mate Ps. Like your prediction for the booth robinson fight

Nice work. Hope you don't mind me using the cut and paste facility for my own gain.

bennie wrote:Nice work. Hope you don't mind me using the cut and paste facility for my own gain.

thanks for the advice and the praise guys, really appreciate it. 8)