BoxRec

The Boxing News is often considered to be a magazine of 'record' . In other words it reports the facts so that in later years anyone who is interested can research copies of the Boxing News to get accurate information. I accept and appreciate this.

But when they report on a fight , or preview an upcoming fight ( the now postponed 'joke' fight Martin Murray was going to be involved in , in Monaco is an example), to refer to a WBA 'interim' title fight and on the same bill a WBA 'regular' title fight is nothing short of ridiculous.By referring to ANY fight which is not recognised by the general boxing public as a world title fight is actively encouraging the mess. A number of years ago the RING decided to launch their own titles and it was based on sound, logical considerations ie the best fighting the best and the winner became the champion. I felt at the time that the other specialist boxing magazines should have supported them.

Someone once said that there is no such thing as BAD PUBLICITY only PUBLICITY. Using this idea in reverse would it not suffocate the alphabet organisations if the boxing media simply refused to refer to them. This couldn't possibly damage the sport much more than the current state of affairs. After all we are trying to encourage the transient fan ( he who watches Froch v Groves etc )to take a greater interest. How do you explain to that type of person the mess with Jamie O'Donnell and Stuey Hall??? Or try to explain that Martin Murray was fighting for the world title when that German guy just beat Darren Barker, and what about that Russian guy with concrete hands that's knocking everybody out !!!!
Carl Froch is the world champion though isn't he ?? Er no, he's not, that would be Andre Ward !! Who ???

Come on Boxing News , make a stand. Produce your world rankings and thereafter talk about reality, tough though it is. When Froch fights Groves again lets declare that the number one contender is fighting the number two contender and hopefully the winner will fight the champion!! Would it cost the promotion any loss of income. No it wouldn't.

PS Why on earth was Golovkin not in your top ten international fighters???

Ever since I began to follow boxing there were 2 titles (WBC and WBA); the IBF came in later and then the WBO. It is more of a mess than before with the interim and Silver' championships etc and I imagine it could get me worked up if I weren't worked up about more important things.

The Ring made a right mess of trying to 'do the right thing' and got caught up in all sorts; the Boxing News used to be like a 'trade journal' and no doubt the editor and staff have their informed opinions but refusing to type 'WBC' or 'WBO' or bring in their own championship would be a bit political I think.

I do agree that it would take some explaining to a non fan and it's not something I'd try and do.

It's not just them mentioning these titles (which could just be mentioned as a footnote for record keepers at the bottom of any fight report) but that theses days they have very little to say of the shenanigans of the alphabet boys. They just seem to leave it to the occasional Bob Mee article.

Times seem to have changed. Maybe younger generations of boxing writers care less and less about the alphabets but surely it is still the number one agenda for most boxing fans. I found it very strange a few years ago that Boxing News ran a campaign to get boxing back on the BBC yet at the same time never showed the same commitment or desire for boxing to put its own house in order. I guess it just doesn't want to rattle the cages of anybody in the boxing industry. A far cry form the days of the much missed Harry Mullan.

As for The Ring, sure it was involved in scandal and corruption but at least it was found out, addressed and changes made very quickly. The alphabets have been doing that for decades in front of our very eyes and nothing ever changes.

palooka wrote:Ever since I began to follow boxing there were 2 titles (WBC and WBA

When I was a kid there were the 3 - but the IBF was the "rubbish" one (a bit like the NABC's compared to the ABA's).

Cholo_cws wrote:It's not just them mentioning these titles (which could just be mentioned as a footnote for record keepers at the bottom of any fight report) but that theses days they have very little to say of the shenanigans of the alphabet boys. They just seem to leave it to the occasional Bob Mee article.

Times seem to have changed. Maybe younger generations of boxing writers care less and less about the alphabets but surely it is still the number one agenda for most boxing fans. I found it very strange a few years ago that Boxing News ran a campaign to get boxing back on the BBC yet at the same time never showed the same commitment or desire for boxing to put its own house in order. I guess it just doesn't want to rattle the cages of anybody in the boxing industry. A far cry form the days of the much missed Harry Mullan.

As for The Ring, sure it was involved in scandal and corruption but at least it was found out, addressed and changes made very quickly. The alphabets have been doing that for decades in front of our very eyes and nothing ever changes.

1) Boxing News printed something that a big promoter didn't like and he refused them press passes to his next show (it was the first show in Britain not covered by the paper in 100 odd years) and I think the one after he placed them behind a pillar.

2) The television networks seem to want titles and belts for fights - I'm not defending the alphabet bodies but I don't put a lot of brain power into working out all the titles; it doesn't bother me so much as it does others. If there were no need or market for the titles etc then the bodies would have all become bankrupt, they seem to do well and the promoters etc seem to like working with them which suggests a magazines stance isn't going to shake the foundations from under them.