BoxRec

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/story ... z2KrSSuDAI

This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.

Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.

Its a John Ashton Promoted show .

Any fight he promotes get bigged up like that .

remember when he got a guy into the guiness world records as the oldest professional boxer . despite if being an EBF show .

The EBF is a joke , maybe the most well known white collar organisation but thats not a good thing .

Ive first hand experience of being asked to 'Fix' fights , their title challengers are atrocious to ensure their big ticket selling home guy retains his belt .

Lets face it , Eric the viking in a title fight ???? c,mon , hes been stopped everytime ive seen him , yet they big him up like hes really dangerous .

hes effectively a big lump that makes the home lad look the business for destroying someone who looks as burly as him .

I know nothing about the derby lad though , despite me being on the notts/derbys border

Its annoying that while i am involved in training unlicensed boxers currently , why do EBF even get the time of day , they are as far as im concerned the one organisation that i would never provide a boxer for .

Their titles mean nothing more than the boxer is a popular chappy that can shift a few tickets

MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.

I think it's dreadful because it gives the impression that the fight is for the 'British title'. Ergo, unwitting readers which rely on reporting to, erm, be accurate, would be misled if they understandably thought that this chap was in any way, shape or form boxing to be acknowledged as the best in Britain.

its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!

dondada wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.

I think it's dreadful because it gives the impression that the fight is for the 'British title'. Ergo, unwitting readers which rely on reporting to, erm, be accurate, would be misled if they understandably thought that this chap was in any way, shape or form boxing to be acknowledged as the best in Britain.

I get what your saying but it does state its the EBF British title , if anyone going to watch thinks hes the genuine british champion then they need to give their head a shake .


But if im honest those type of boxing fans are exactly what we need more of , to pack out those small hall shows up and down the country , to get boxing moving forward again .

dondada wrote:http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/story ... z2KrSSuDAI

This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.

Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.

That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.

Thats what I was thinking wouldnt you chase the papers up to do a piece on your show rather than get no publicity?

MachoMan09 wrote: The EBF seem to have this covered. Do the guys putting on the Burton show?

Knowing them. Probably not..... :-)

curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!

That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.

It's part of my role to tell people that a) it is smoke and b) the direction of it.

You enjoy it by all means but don't expect me to join in

MachoMan09 wrote:Whoever holds that belt is the genuine EBF Super-heavyweight British Champion. If some people are unable to differentiate between the various organisations that operate within boxing, or simply don't care, what does it matter?

I think it matters for the reasons I've stated above. If you don't, that's fine.

Vaudeville Villain wrote:As opposed to searing and brilliant local newspaper reporting that really cuts to the heart of the matter and is ultra-objective? This is a shocker. I'm shocked.

I just think this is a 'good' example of how cack local reporting can be. Some can be very good.

dondada wrote:

curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!

That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.

It's part of my role to tell people that a) it is smoke and b) the direction of it.

You enjoy it by all means but don't expect me to join in

I totally agree but this shit will always happen and there's almost no point being annoyed by it any more.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

dondada wrote:

curtis wood wrote:its showbizzzzzzness baby, no harm done, ive had glowing reports on some of my fights from people who dont know boxing when i know ive been crap and beat nobody, this is a hard gig so if you get a bit of smoke blown up your arse my advice is just go with it!!

That's my point pal - I don't agree that there's 'no harm done' - though I know I'm at one end of the spectrum on this. You end up with people paying good money to see two puddings look shite and it reflects badly if they think it's THE British title.

It's part of my role to tell people that a) it is smoke and b) the direction of it.

You enjoy it by all means but don't expect me to join in

I totally agree but this shit will always happen and there's almost no point being annoyed by it any more.

Mate, I only wish I could take your advice, I really do. It does me no good at all.

The Insider wrote:That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.

And whos fault is that ? - maybe the promoter of the Burton show should have a word with the EBF fella for some tips on how to promote a show.

It seems to me (I may be wrong / others may disagree) that the white collar promoters are more innovative in their approach to actually "promoting" their shows.

What do traditional small hall pro-boxing promoters do apart fron guaranteeing their boxers a win if they sell 200 tickets ?

The Insider wrote:

dondada wrote:http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/story ... z2KrSSuDAI

This paper has always been garbage, but it isn't alone in printing rubbish like this.

Imagine your normal punter believing that is for the 'British title'.

That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.

x2 not a word about the Burton Show at all Derby Paper only seems interested in unlicensed perhaps if the Promotor gave them a call I am sure they would put something in the paper for him or Perhaps Luke Gallear should give them a call as hes from Derby and is Boxing on the Burton Show

bripez wrote:

The Insider wrote:That paper is garbage your right. No word of the pro show that's happening on the 1st March at Burton.

And whos fault is that ? - maybe the promoter of the Burton show should have a word with the EBF fella for some tips on how to promote a show.

It seems to me (I may be wrong / others may disagree) that the white collar promoters are more innovative in their approach to actually "promoting" their shows.

What do traditional small hall pro-boxing promoters do apart fron guaranteeing their boxers a win if they sell 200 tickets ?

Totally agree it's not Johns fault. He's being pro active and making a living.

MachoMan09 wrote:Ian, I was in your camp on this one for years but not any more. Competition is good and organisations like the BBBofC should not be exempt. Their license no longer automatically carries any more weight with me than any other organisation's franking stamp.

Agree with your second sentence to a minor extent but I'm waaaaaaaaay off getting to your final one yet mate. I think my head might implode before I get there, to be fair.

I used to cover boxing for the Yorkshire Evening Post in Leeds and was often to asked to cover EBF/other licensed shows. I always knocked it back as my policy was BBBofC and ABA only.

The only real exception to that was Lee Murtagh because he was boxing on the pro circuit using an Irish licence. While I covered his fights on board and Irish shows, I never covered the shows he was involved in promoting under the EBF's banner.

I've personally got nothing against the "alternative" circuit. For some people it's the only realistic way they'll get to box, but I don't feel that it should be reported on in the same way pro boxing is.

The only time I feel it should be covered by the media is when someone is doing an investigative feature on it, which I attempted last year when I bounced quotes from Robert Smith and Spencer Brown (EBF boss) off each other.

MachoMan09 wrote:I fully understand why you think the reporting is dreadful and I'm confident most people on here will agree with you. I've been doing some radical (in the going to the root sense) thinking about boxing, belts, licenses, etc lately and, in line with that, I don't think the reporting is dreadful - at least not for the reason you think it's dreadful.

The only way to have belts mean anything is to control them, that can only be done in a "closed" system with a single dominant promoter (Example UFC - Go on lads, start moaning)

Looking back i think Mr Warren was trying to do just that with the WBO/WBU Sky deal in the 90's.

Boxing would have been better off if he had managed to kill off all the smaller promotions and have all the talent.

News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.

It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.

Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.

It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.

"The truth?"

What in the article above is untrue?

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.

It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.

"The truth?"

What in the article above is untrue?

It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.

I think the point Dixonian is making is that there is no critical eye on the releases or whatever that are coming the paper's way. Hardly revelatory but still annoys me (and hardly anyone else, granted).

dondada wrote:

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.

It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.

"The truth?"

What in the article above is untrue?

It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.

I think the point Dixonian is making is that there is no critical eye on the releases or whatever that are coming the paper's way. Hardly revelatory but still annoys me (and hardly anyone else, granted).

My point is that the article is factually accurate, we can argue about the implication, slant, bias whatever, but that's all opinion and goes for any article.

I also don't think it's the job of a Derbyshire local paper to pour cold water on a local fighters career in the build up to a fight.

Aye, that's certainly a slant and a justifiable one. Ashton is doing a good job for himself and his lads.

All I'm saying is that some people, after reading that, would understandably think they are seeing a fight to see who is the best big boxer in Britain, when in reality they are seeing a couple of blokes who aren't even professional boxers.

I know it's thousands down the list of priorities but it's not giving a true picture, IMO.

"The truth?"

What in the article above is untrue?[/quote]

It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.

I think the point Dixonian is making is that there is no critical eye on the releases or whatever that are coming the paper's way. Hardly revelatory but still annoys me (and hardly anyone else, granted).[/quote]

My point is that the article is factually accurate, we can argue about the implication, slant, bias whatever, but that's all opinion and goes for any article.

I also don't think it's the job of a Derbyshire local paper to pour cold water on a local fighters career in the build up to a fight.[/quote]

It's also not the job of a reporter to regurgitate pr guff. Admittedly, this is a really minor example of a much bigger issue. While there are no actual lies in this report there is plenty of insinuation which could mislead readers. On more complex issues I would agree with Galaxy that slants and bias can often be argued dependent on your political/social viewpoint. This is clearly a simple piece of 'can't-be-bothered-to-research-so-I'll-take-them-at-their-word journalism.' Truth is often deeper than an empirical value.