BoxRec

I just wanted to say this months edition is excellent (again) and very good work from Terry Dooley (again). Boxing is not dying

Glad to hear it

Mine got delivered a few days ago but not had a chance to look through it properly yet. Noticed a decently sized piece on Sonny Liston which i look forward to reading.

Where is Terry Dooley?

I enjoyed it...... The Billy Graham' column is bloody awful though

some really good pieces in there, liston, pbc, warrington...

but then there are two pages about a deaf kid who hasn't done ote????? surely there are more deserving people to be featured in the magazine.

The Lee Haskins interview was interesting - he didn't sound confident of beating Caballero at all, repeatedly said "if I beat him" and if I lose I lose against the best etc .

Definitely wouldn't want to be putting any money on him after reading that.

palooka wrote:Where is Terry Dooley?

He's a busy lad: work, home life and all his journalistic endeavours.

veriton wrote:some really good pieces in there, liston, pbc, warrington...

but then there are two pages about a deaf kid who hasn't done ote????? surely there are more deserving people to be featured in the magazine.

That was meant to be an inspirational type of piece, V., about someone overcoming a handicap to pursue a dream. Now and again we do an "outside the box" type of feature. It interested me specifically because I remembered two deaf boxers from the 1950s, Mario D'Agata (the only deaf-mute world champion) and the US middleweight Eugene Hairston. Some writers called Hairston "Silent", but I also saw him referred to as "Dummy", which seemed incredibly cruel as poor Gene, it seems, couldn't speak.

I remember Edith (later Baroness) Summerskill (author of The Ignoble Art) stating, as part of her overall attack on boxing, that the old fighter Deaf Burke was probably deaf due to blows received in the course of his boxing career, but one of the boxing writers of the day (can't remember which one), as part of a rebuttal, imparted the information that Burke was actually born deaf.

Yes, the Liston writer (Chris Evans MP) obviously feels strongly that Sonny had a "bad" reputation that wasn't entirely deserved. I remember Sonny boxing exhibitions in the UK. The British fans loved him. I was told that Liston was always very good with kids, because he saw kids as posing no threat. I was told by a fight fan who was there that when Liston stepped into the ring to be introduced to the crowd at Shoreditch Town Hall in London that tears could be seen trickling down Sonny's cheeks because the warmth of his reception was something he had never received in the States. Don't know if that is true or not, but it is plausible and has a romantic ring to it.

Madvillain wrote:

palooka wrote:I just wanted to say this months edition is excellent (again) and very good work from Terry Dooley (again). Boxing is not dying

Cheers

No real drama from Hughie, just a heavyweight talking about his career and division.

Reggae, sorry to hear that it’s not buttering your giblets. The column gets loads of positive feedback. You can’t please all the people all the time, but it’s the thing I get asked about the most when I venture out to shows.

Thank you. I just find the 'geezer' type chit chat with the swearing to be somewhat unprofessional.... And I though the whole point of his column was simplistic and not very incisive. Basically it was 'don't fight if you've got a injury as its a dangerous sport'. Which is a little too simple. Take Calzaghe-Lacy for example. Many fighters go in with a niggle. Anyway apart from that I really enjoyed the issue.

To be honest, I really enjoy the Billy graham page along with buncey they are the first two articles I read every month. The swearing makes it seem more real to me.
Everyone is different so we can't all like the same thing can we.

Personally I don't think there's enough swearing in Billy's column

I thought the piece about the MGM skimmed over a few obvious issues.

I've been thinking about the Billy Graham swearing and I think it's not a good editorial choice. Now I know kids know all about swearing these days, but in America, where the mag does sell a bit, they are really sensitive about swearing.
I just think it also it adds nothing to the text. Graham's earthiness and geezerness comes a cross the way he writes.

That's my 2 cents :)

palooka wrote:I thought the piece about the MGM skimmed over a few obvious issues.

Blatantly.

reggaereggae wrote:I've been thinking about the Billy Graham swearing and I think it's not a good editorial choice. Now I know kids know all about swearing these days, but in America, where the mag does sell a bit, they are really sensitive about swearing.
I just think it also it adds nothing to the text. Graham's earthiness and geezerness comes a cross the way he writes.

That's my 2 cents :)

I agree with you. I was puzzled as to why it wasn't at least asterisked out as I would expect most magazines on general sale to have been.
I neither enjoyed or agreed with Billy's views this time but generally I have liked reading his articles when I've picked up a copy of BM.

Madvillain wrote:No worries. Graham outlined it in depth from the editorial last year so it's out there somewhere in BoxRec's search box. Trust me, a lot more swearing goes on when we're putting it together. An article about how it gets made would probably be pure gold if he ever fancied it.

One thing I will say RE the US is that he's always had a lot of support from US readers. The stuff he used to do on BS always got a great reaction and the swearing was kept to retain his voice. No one complained. I suppose it depends on demographics, religious people might not like it, but on the other hand he's met loads of Christians in the US (his name draws them in) and they don't react negatively.

It's very much like The Heart of Darkness up there in Mossley when the time comes. Last month's highlight was an accusation that I'd derailed his plans to integrate his new dog with a lizard, the cats and a family ferrets. My crime? I have an allergy to cats yet they seem to like me so I moved the cat from my lap and the dog went bonkers.

The cat did too, to be fair.

Yep, to follow on from Terry's comments, we've been through the swearing thing in depth. I believe it keeps to the authentic Billy. There is so much swearing out there in the world it seems a bit quaint when, say, you get a broadcaster saying: "Sorry about the language" after eavesdropping on a corner between rounds. I've mentioned it before, but it seems ludicrous when, on American TV, swear words are bleeped out. Using asterisks in place of offending letters in a swear word seems oddly — that word again — quaint.

There is stuff on TV from which kids could very well be protected. TV series — almost every one of them — Game of Thrones, Ray Donovan, whatever — seem to feel it essential to have what used to be called "bedroom scenes" that verge on pornography. Scenes of violence are now routinely over the top in depictions of gore, brutality and sadism. (No, I don't watch these shows, but I have watched them.) I enjoyed Boardwalk Empire, but when we came to the sex scenes I would say to myself: "Oh God, do we have to see every damned detail." Glyn and I used to talk about this and Glyn would say how embarrassed he would feel if one of these scenes came on the screen when he was watching TV with his girlfriend and her teenager was in the room, even if the teenager didn't bat an eyelid. The point I'm trying to make is that the world is full of images that concern me far more than a few swear words in a boxing magazine. It's not as if young people, even pre-teens, don't hear these words all around them, every day. Glyn preferred not to sanitise quotes. He even used "f" word himself in a story he wrote about one of Mike Tyson's visits to the UK. The way Glyn used the word, it made me laugh out loud.

Re. the MGM, the decision was made to profile the gym and its financial backer as a straight boxing story even though we were aware of "colourful" aspects to the story. If someone is giving back to the boxing community and helping further the career of a number of young fighters, we tend to be supportive. Not singling out anyone, in the UK, US, or anywhere, fighters past or present, but boxing through the years has a had a cast of characters of all types and many could hardly be described as angelic or to have had lily-white backgrounds.

@GrahamHouston.

I enjoyed the November issue a great deal - plenty of bite and comment - and the Liston piece was thought-provoking because it was the first time anyone has actually looked at the other side of Sonny for ages. Not entirely convincing but worthy of some space.

Last time I read boxing monthly, it was crammed full of arse-lickey, boring identikit interviews with boxers who all say the same thing. Only thing I've read recently is the 'media' piece about bloggers being allowed into pressers, which was an awful, pointless rant. The guy said something along the lines of 'as long as consumers devour I'll-informed coverage, our sport will suffer' which is the biggest load of bollocks I've read in ages.

It read like a 'dear sir' to a promoter. There's plenty wrong with boxing. The writer should maybe try and tackle some of that instead of moaning about bloggers, some of whom provide coverage and opinion which mainstream journos don't deem important enough or are too scared to touch for fear of upsetting someone.

And why on earth did the bbc run some bollocks about 'European' champion Jamie Cox wanting a title fight, and nothing about Ryan Farrag's win against Stephane Jamoye, who went away from home to win a proper European title? Jeff Powell's clickbait shite about Khan v Pac, agenda driven rants and nostalgic shite from the likes of Bunce etc. It's the mainstream media that needs to have a good look at itself, because it does nothing to address the issues in boxing that need addressing.

And to Graham Houston - that last reply is a complete cop out. Maybe if you'd have covered the more 'colourful' aspects of MGM it would have made a better article, and you'd shift a few more copies?

Dan Dares wrote:Last time I read boxing monthly, it was crammed full of arse-lickey, boring identikit interviews with boxers who all say the same thing. Only thing I've read recently is the 'media' piece about bloggers being allowed into pressers, which was an awful, pointless rant. The guy said something along the lines of 'as long as consumers devour I'll-informed coverage, our sport will suffer' which is the biggest load of bollocks I've read in ages.

It read like a 'dear sir' to a promoter. There's plenty wrong with boxing. The writer should maybe try and tackle some of that instead of moaning about bloggers, some of whom provide coverage and opinion which mainstream journos don't deem important enough or are too scared to touch for fear of upsetting someone.

And why on earth did the bbc run some bollocks about 'European' champion Jamie Cox wanting a title fight, and nothing about Ryan Farrag's win against Stephane Jamoye, who went away from home to win a proper European title? Jeff Powell's clickbait shite about Khan v Pac, agenda driven rants and nostalgic shite from the likes of Bunce etc. It's the mainstream media that needs to have a good look at itself, because it does nothing to address the issues in boxing that need addressing.

And to Graham Houston - that last reply is a complete cop out. Maybe if you'd have covered the more 'colourful' aspects of MGM it would have made a better article, and you'd shift a few more copies?

Internet forums are great, Dan, aren't they? You can post comments insulting all and sundry in total anonymity. (You wouldn't be one of the bloggers Mark B. refers to in his article, perchance? Just a wild guess.)

I am more than happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly specifically if the conversation is conducted in an intelligent way. I'm just not a big fan of vitriolic communications -- especially when someone is hurling abuse while sheltering behind a pseudonym.

Addendum: And, Dan, if the post you made about Kellie Maloney is an example of your world view and — I use the word loosely — "sensitivity", I venture to suggest it speaks volumes about you. As my London pals would have put it, back in the day: 'Nuff said.

Graham Houston wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:Last time I read boxing monthly, it was crammed full of arse-lickey, boring identikit interviews with boxers who all say the same thing. Only thing I've read recently is the 'media' piece about bloggers being allowed into pressers, which was an awful, pointless rant. The guy said something along the lines of 'as long as consumers devour I'll-informed coverage, our sport will suffer' which is the biggest load of bollocks I've read in ages.

It read like a 'dear sir' to a promoter. There's plenty wrong with boxing. The writer should maybe try and tackle some of that instead of moaning about bloggers, some of whom provide coverage and opinion which mainstream journos don't deem important enough or are too scared to touch for fear of upsetting someone.

And why on earth did the bbc run some bollocks about 'European' champion Jamie Cox wanting a title fight, and nothing about Ryan Farrag's win against Stephane Jamoye, who went away from home to win a proper European title? Jeff Powell's clickbait shite about Khan v Pac, agenda driven rants and nostalgic shite from the likes of Bunce etc. It's the mainstream media that needs to have a good look at itself, because it does nothing to address the issues in boxing that need addressing.

And to Graham Houston - that last reply is a complete cop out. Maybe if you'd have covered the more 'colourful' aspects of MGM it would have made a better article, and you'd shift a few more copies?

Internet forums are great, Dan, aren't they? You can post comments insulting all and sundry in total anonymity. (You wouldn't be one of the bloggers Mark B. refers to in his article, perchance? Just a wild guess.)

I am more than happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly specifically if the conversation is conducted in an intelligent way. I'm just not a big fan of vitriolic communications -- especially when someone is hurling abuse while sheltering behind a pseudonym.

Addendum: And, Dan, if the post you made about Kellie Maloney is an example of your world view and — I use the word loosely — "sensitivity", I venture to suggest it speaks volumes about you. As my London pals would have put it, back in the day: 'Nuff said.

Name's Danny Wright. I doubt he's referring to me in his article, but I couldn't give a toss if he is. You say you're not a fan of vitriolic communication, but that's exactly what that article is. It's an awful piece of journalism and of absolutely no value to the reader whatsoever.

I understand you're trying to defend one of your writers, but I'm pretty sure Glyn Leach would have spiked it. Didn't most of the Boxing Monthly writers, some of whom can knock out decent copy, start out as bloggers and internet writers?

And as for insulting all and sundry, I take it you're referring to Bunce and Jeff Powell? I think you confuse insult with opinion. The only thing you need to have an opinion about boxing is a pair of eyes, and it's about time some of the agenda driven old-timers, who are often far too quick to dish out their own insults (Bunce, Powell) realised this.

I can't remember what I wrote about Kellie Maloney, but the fact you've looked it up, rather than respond to the points I made, whether you consider them vitriolic or otherwise, is pretty typical of Internet forums. I'm sure if it's libellous, you can give her a ring and let a few of your London pals know.

Dan Dares wrote:

Graham Houston wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:Last time I read boxing monthly, it was crammed full of arse-lickey, boring identikit interviews with boxers who all say the same thing. Only thing I've read recently is the 'media' piece about bloggers being allowed into pressers, which was an awful, pointless rant. The guy said something along the lines of 'as long as consumers devour I'll-informed coverage, our sport will suffer' which is the biggest load of bollocks I've read in ages.

It read like a 'dear sir' to a promoter. There's plenty wrong with boxing. The writer should maybe try and tackle some of that instead of moaning about bloggers, some of whom provide coverage and opinion which mainstream journos don't deem important enough or are too scared to touch for fear of upsetting someone.

And why on earth did the bbc run some bollocks about 'European' champion Jamie Cox wanting a title fight, and nothing about Ryan Farrag's win against Stephane Jamoye, who went away from home to win a proper European title? Jeff Powell's clickbait shite about Khan v Pac, agenda driven rants and nostalgic shite from the likes of Bunce etc. It's the mainstream media that needs to have a good look at itself, because it does nothing to address the issues in boxing that need addressing.

And to Graham Houston - that last reply is a complete cop out. Maybe if you'd have covered the more 'colourful' aspects of MGM it would have made a better article, and you'd shift a few more copies?

Internet forums are great, Dan, aren't they? You can post comments insulting all and sundry in total anonymity. (You wouldn't be one of the bloggers Mark B. refers to in his article, perchance? Just a wild guess.)

I am more than happy to discuss boxing and Boxing Monthly specifically if the conversation is conducted in an intelligent way. I'm just not a big fan of vitriolic communications -- especially when someone is hurling abuse while sheltering behind a pseudonym.

Addendum: And, Dan, if the post you made about Kellie Maloney is an example of your world view and — I use the word loosely — "sensitivity", I venture to suggest it speaks volumes about you. As my London pals would have put it, back in the day: 'Nuff said.

Name's Danny Wright. I doubt he's referring to me in his article, but I couldn't give a toss if he is. You say you're not a fan of vitriolic communication, but that's exactly what that article is. It's an awful piece of journalism and of absolutely no value to the reader whatsoever.

I understand you're trying to defend one of your writers, but I'm pretty sure Glyn Leach would have spiked it. Didn't most of the Boxing Monthly writers, some of whom can knock out decent copy, start out as bloggers and internet writers?

And as for insulting all and sundry, I take it you're referring to Bunce and Jeff Powell? I think you confuse insult with opinion. The only thing you need to have an opinion about boxing is a pair of eyes, and it's about time some of the agenda driven old-timers, who are often far too quick to dish out their own insults (Bunce, Powell) realised this.

I can't remember what I wrote about Kellie Maloney, but the fact you've looked it up, rather than respond to the points I made, whether you consider them vitriolic or otherwise, is pretty typical of Internet forums. I'm sure if it's libellous, you can give her a ring and let a few of your London pals know.

Danny. OK. You didn't state it in your post, but do I do believe you might be doing a boxing blog, in which case it isn't too far a reach to suggest you had a vested interest in Mark B.'s article. So, I can quite understand that reading Mark's piece would have been like a bugle call to battle for you. The post on Kellie Maloney was the one posted as "Dan Dares" on May 27. I was curious to see the sort of posts you have made recently, and after reading that one I thought: "Good grief" and went no further. I just wondered why you didn't declare from the off that you do your own blog? (Assuming you do have a blog.) I will say this: Yes, several of our contributors did start out with blogs. All without exception expressed a willingness to learn and improve. It's a pleasure working with them. Without re-reading Mark's piece, I am pretty sure that he said the internet had produced some valuable voices that otherwise wouldn't have been heard. Sorry if you didn't include yourself in that group of internet writers. I see no useful purpose in keeping this particular "conversation" going, Danny. Over and out. Have a nice day.

Thank you for the reply, Graham

I understand the desire for an uplifting, 'good news' story about boxing in general and the MGM.

I hope, but don't imagine that the darker aspects of the MGM story are in the past. Large scale drug importation and reprisal murders don't just disappear and the money for the gym, in a prime part of Marbella came from somewhere....

Having read the piece from MB in the BM, I have to say I found it somewhat uncomfortable and also felt it was generalising about the majority of non established writers at ringside. It has been about 10 years since I last reported from ringside and wrote for an established website and I have to say that the impression given that all established writers are somewhat above the new breed is certainly not what I found during my spell with the pen.

Indeed I would go further and say that although I found the crop of reporters around at that time both pleasant and welcoming, I was surprised by the very average knowledge of an awful lot of the more established writers with whom I became acquainted with at that time. Indeed having covered many bills and spoken to numerous people whilst doing so, one of the most knowledgeable people I spoke to was a guy from a local newspaper covering his local fighter who was on the bill that night.

The chap concerned was more used to covering local events and news in the south east but he told me he had jumped at the chance to cover this fight as Boxing was his passion. We spoke throughout the evening at York Hall in between fights and it was really pleasant and refreshing to talk to someone who knew the British and European scene inside out, I have to be honest and say I had not had that experience with the "press" that had been ringside very often, the lack of knowledge really surprised me, although I would not for one minute say that the reports I read from them were anything other than well written.

I think what I am trying to say is that there are some huge talents out there and some very very knowledgeable people who would love to get into the reporting side of things and perhaps sometimes when they venture there for the first few times the excitement may get the better of them.

It would, however, be foolish to think that just because some people display there emotions on there sleeves and have modern day equipment with them, that they are not as good at doing there job as those that come armed merely with a pencil and pad.

palooka wrote:Thank you for the reply, Graham

I understand the desire for an uplifting, 'good news' story about boxing in general and the MGM.

I hope, but don't imagine that the darker aspects of the MGM story are in the past. Large scale drug importation and reprisal murders don't just disappear and the money for the gym, in a prime part of Marbella came from somewhere....

In addition to reporting on, analysing and featuring boxing is it also the job of Boxing Monthly to be a moral compass cum criminal investigator cum mud slinger? The answer is: it's up to the guy at the helm and for the rest to decide whether that jives or it doesn't.

Here's an idea for a tortured soul/wannabe next big thing to run with and meme up to the max as something a bit different...Which Boxer are You?

A website in the style of one of those personality test sites that asks you loads of questions about your emotions, train of thought, morals, etc and the does a computation and tells you you're a pudendum or what not.

Providing their was a picture snd decent description for each fighter thrown out as a result, you'd have no bother getting people clicking to have a go. Everybody wants to find out more about themselves.