BoxRec

In this week’s BN, a long-time reader has complained in the Letters section that small hall coverage takes up too much space in BN. The mag have invited other readers to comment and provide feedback on this.

I’m paraphrasing, but the reader’s argument is that reading about an endless string of 60-54 fights featuring prospects vs journeymen is boring and a waste of time. Instead, BN should only give coverage to fights and shows that deserve it.

BN has scaled back its UK coverage in recent years, but the mag remains an institution for the ‘every fight, every week’ coverage it provides.

If BN scale back their UK coverage further this would leave a void for domestic shows and small hall promoters. Since the demise of BoxRec News and BBN before that, there’s no other website to my knowledge that does justice to grassroots boxing.

But I think the reader’s points have merit. There’s too many poor, predictable fights littering domestic shows that don’t deserve column inches.

Lightsoot wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 06:55 In this week’s BN, a long-time reader has complained in the Letters section that small hall coverage takes up too much space in BN. The mag have invited other readers to comment and provide feedback on this.

I’m paraphrasing, but the reader’s argument is that reading about an endless string of 60-54 fights featuring prospects vs journeymen is boring and a waste of time. Instead, BN should only give coverage to fights and shows that deserve it.

BN has scaled back its UK coverage in recent years, but the mag remains an institution for the ‘every fight, every week’ coverage it provides.

If BN scale back their UK coverage further this would leave a void for domestic shows and small hall promoters. Since the demise of BoxRec News and BBN before that, there’s no other website to my knowledge that does justice to grassroots boxing.

But I think the reader’s points have merit. There’s too many poor, predictable fights littering domestic shows that don’t deserve column inches.

BS, the essence of the BN is to cover every British fight, it's a trade mag and it will be a sorry day if it is stopped

Coco wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 07:00

Lightsoot wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 06:55 In this week’s BN, a long-time reader has complained in the Letters section that small hall coverage takes up too much space in BN. The mag have invited other readers to comment and provide feedback on this.

I’m paraphrasing, but the reader’s argument is that reading about an endless string of 60-54 fights featuring prospects vs journeymen is boring and a waste of time. Instead, BN should only give coverage to fights and shows that deserve it.

BN has scaled back its UK coverage in recent years, but the mag remains an institution for the ‘every fight, every week’ coverage it provides.

If BN scale back their UK coverage further this would leave a void for domestic shows and small hall promoters. Since the demise of BoxRec News and BBN before that, there’s no other website to my knowledge that does justice to grassroots boxing.

But I think the reader’s points have merit. There’s too many poor, predictable fights littering domestic shows that don’t deserve column inches.

BS, the essence of the BN is to cover every British fight, it's a trade mag and it will be a sorry day if it is stopped

I agree

Coco wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 07:00

Lightsoot wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 06:55 In this week’s BN, a long-time reader has complained in the Letters section that small hall coverage takes up too much space in BN. The mag have invited other readers to comment and provide feedback on this.

I’m paraphrasing, but the reader’s argument is that reading about an endless string of 60-54 fights featuring prospects vs journeymen is boring and a waste of time. Instead, BN should only give coverage to fights and shows that deserve it.

BN has scaled back its UK coverage in recent years, but the mag remains an institution for the ‘every fight, every week’ coverage it provides.

If BN scale back their UK coverage further this would leave a void for domestic shows and small hall promoters. Since the demise of BoxRec News and BBN before that, there’s no other website to my knowledge that does justice to grassroots boxing.

But I think the reader’s points have merit. There’s too many poor, predictable fights littering domestic shows that don’t deserve column inches.

BS, the essence of the BN is to cover every British fight, it's a trade mag and it will be a sorry day if it is stopped

Danny flexen did this before and it was when me and a lot of others stopped buying it religiously.They tried to do it as a round up type thing and miss results.

I started subscribing to BN in 2020 after 8 years of buying about 50% of issues from the shop.

The quality of it improved markedly during COVID in my view, and I still thoroughly enjoy the magazine. Matt Christie has done a brilliant job on it.

But the 4 or 5 pages of small hall reviews are what I read least and just flick through. Just a repeat of 3 star show after 3 star show telling us about home fighters beating away fighters (and I don't blame the writers who are excellent). I would support a review.

garethhop wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 07:40 I started subscribing to BN in 2020 after 8 years of buying about 50% of issues from the shop.

The quality of it improved markedly during COVID in my view, and I still thoroughly enjoy the magazine. Matt Christie has done a brilliant job on it.

But the 4 or 5 pages of small hall reviews are what I read least and just flick through. Just a repeat of 3 star show after 3 star show telling us about home fighters beating away fighters (and I don't blame the writers who are excellent). I would support a review.

Yep - that’s my take too.

I don’t even read the show reviews. I scan the results and if there’s a competitive fight on paper (it’s obvious when there is one based on the records) or an upset then I’ll read the article.

I’d criticise BN in that they seem to give them all 3 star reviews and when there’s a good fight to area level headlining then it’s 4 stars. I used to go to several small hall shows but the truth is that the vast bulk are poor with the vast bulk of fights containing a fighter not trying to win - just trying to go the distance. BN should criticise that.

I’d rather they condensed it to 2 pages. One and a half discussing the fights of merit and then half a page with the results.

I started subscribing when Boxing Monthly folded. Whilst I preferred Boxing Monthly to Boxing News I actually thought BN was a hell of a lot better than when I previously subscribed to it 10 years ago.

Doesn't surprise me to be honest. Small hall shows nowadays are very poor in regards to competitive fights and expensive to go to (£45).

As a trade paper, and not a mass market magazine, in my view all results should be included much like the racing post with horse racing. I stopped having BN about twenty years ago now. It is an institution in boxing but nowhere near as good as it was in the 60s, 70s
& 80s.

I'm a BN subscriber and while it's a great mag, I agree that without question this is the weakest link in the publication. For me there is really limited reader value in them in their current form - telling me that fighter x beat fighter y by z points gives me zero insights or 'flavour'. There's also the reality that if you want that info you can get it from boxrec quicker.
For me, i would still cover the small hall scene, but I would completely change the reporting style to focus on the context and insights you can't get anywhere else - for example, if a prospect has just moved to 3-0 with an impressive performance i want to know a lot more about him than just his name... what's his style, what's his background, why is he one to watch? etc. Not just that he won 40-36 behind a 'strong jab' or something similar. That info is pretty meaningless in isolation.

They give enough coverage to the big fights so should keep it in. Don’t read that part of you don’t like it. Maybe put more in too on
The amateur scene eg a review of a club every week.

Deserter wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 09:33 I'm a BN subscriber and while it's a great mag, I agree that without question this is the weakest link in the publication. For me there is really limited reader value in them in their current form - telling me that fighter x beat fighter y by z points gives me zero insights or 'flavour'. There's also the reality that if you want that info you can get it from boxrec quicker.
For me, i would still cover the small hall scene, but I would completely change the reporting style to focus on the context and insights you can't get anywhere else - for example, if a prospect has just moved to 3-0 with an impressive performance i want to know a lot more about him than just his name... what's his style, what's his background, why is he one to watch? etc. Not just that he won 40-36 behind a 'strong jab' or something similar. That info is pretty meaningless in isolation.

This is a good shout….. tell us if they have the chance to progress, are they worth looking out for, do they have a decent back story….

That's it in a nutshell.

With Boxrec around now recording the bare facts, the reports could be a lot more imformative and enlightening.

Been getting BN since 1980..but stopped buying a month ago!
It's a tough job editing a magazine with all the digital and Internet challenges I imagine ,but the watering down on reports and articles on women's boxing + the ridiculous taylor/serrano" fight of the century "inclusive bullshit was the final straw for me.

I’m surprised the “matches” on some small hall shows and the poor winning records of certain countries in the UK isnt “championed” by BN, instead of taking World Governing bodies as their No1 agenda.
I feel the writing and quality of BN has deteriorated over the last few years and it’s partly why I’ve recently terminated my subscription of 30+ yrs. I read an article recently where again paragraphs were repeated in error, there are basic typos etc etc.
The only “story” writer (if that’s the term) I find interesting is Steve Bunce. In terms of the reports of small hall fights, they are understandably without any great literary genius as they are generally short and basic, but they do the job.
Why do they not at least provide a UK Diary of Amateur and Pro shows for the month with a specific email for clubs to send there show dates to??

I miss boxing monthly

I may be in a minority, but I like reading about the small-hall stuff. Sometimes there are cracking fights, like Area title fights, which fully deserve detailed coverage, and fighters who give such performances deserve their spotlight in the paper.

Where there are lots of 60-54s and 40-36s, it's a question of mentioning whether the fight was watchable, whether the loser put up a good effort, praising it if so and criticising it if not. Boxing News has always been a paper of record, so has to publish the results and details if it wants to continue that. However, BN has often sought to be the conscience of the sport, particularly in the Harry Mullan era, and some of Matt Christie's recent editorials have reminded me of those times, in a positive way. There's a reason why there are so many dull-as-ditchwater 4s and 6s on British undercards, and that reason is that no-one is stopping it - and it suits journeymen, promoters, fighters who can sell tickets, and others for it to continue. Having refs enforce the "not trying is a foul" rule clearly and promptly would be a good start. If Boxing News wants to highlight the issue and help the sport address it (because doing so would improve the sport), then covering the small hall shows has to continue, and in an unvarnished way.

Agree with the last post..some valid points there .Fighters not trying so to speak should be across the board ,problem is the journeymen not boxing for a month if they get stopped is a big obstacle !

I always read the small hall stuff (admittedly after the bigger articles) and think it would be a shame to lose them especially for the fighters concerned, it might only be a few lines but it means the world to most of the fighters to see their name in print in an iconic publication.

Frostieballs wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 10:04

Deserter wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 09:33 I'm a BN subscriber and while it's a great mag, I agree that without question this is the weakest link in the publication. For me there is really limited reader value in them in their current form - telling me that fighter x beat fighter y by z points gives me zero insights or 'flavour'. There's also the reality that if you want that info you can get it from boxrec quicker.
For me, i would still cover the small hall scene, but I would completely change the reporting style to focus on the context and insights you can't get anywhere else - for example, if a prospect has just moved to 3-0 with an impressive performance i want to know a lot more about him than just his name... what's his style, what's his background, why is he one to watch? etc. Not just that he won 40-36 behind a 'strong jab' or something similar. That info is pretty meaningless in isolation.

This is a good shout….. tell us if they have the chance to progress, are they worth looking out for, do they have a decent back story….

Agree with both the above, I'd be sorry to see the small hall reports go but maybe a revamp is in order to give a bit more depth and background as to what is going on up and down the country and who we should be looking out for.
Matt Christie has often mentioned on the BN podcast that he's not a big fan of the current small hall reporting in that most shows get three stars so as not to upset the promoter and it being a whole raft of paragraphs detailing the latest 40-36 prospect v journeyman contest.
I think it's important that the small hall scene stays within the magazine but it probably does need revamping.

If anything should go it should be the inane Q&A on the last page.

i give 0 f@cks about anything i can just find right away on boxrec, as mentioned, let's have some more info. tell us honestly if they look any good. go interview them and tell us if they have an interesting background or something. something that's harder to find than just knowing a result and a couple bland sentences of the inevitable 40-36

milpool wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 12:30

Frostieballs wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 10:04

Deserter wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 09:33 I'm a BN subscriber and while it's a great mag, I agree that without question this is the weakest link in the publication. For me there is really limited reader value in them in their current form - telling me that fighter x beat fighter y by z points gives me zero insights or 'flavour'. There's also the reality that if you want that info you can get it from boxrec quicker.
For me, i would still cover the small hall scene, but I would completely change the reporting style to focus on the context and insights you can't get anywhere else - for example, if a prospect has just moved to 3-0 with an impressive performance i want to know a lot more about him than just his name... what's his style, what's his background, why is he one to watch? etc. Not just that he won 40-36 behind a 'strong jab' or something similar. That info is pretty meaningless in isolation.

This is a good shout….. tell us if they have the chance to progress, are they worth looking out for, do they have a decent back story….

Agree with both the above, I'd be sorry to see the small hall reports go but maybe a revamp is in order to give a bit more depth and background as to what is going on up and down the country and who we should be looking out for.
Matt Christie has often mentioned on the BN podcast that he's not a big fan of the current small hall reporting in that most shows get three stars so as not to upset the promoter and it being a whole raft of paragraphs detailing the latest 40-36 prospect v journeyman contest.
I think it's important that the small hall scene stays within the magazine but it probably does need revamping.

If anything should go it should be the inane Q&A on the last page.

Yeah - I read it but rarely taken anything in from it. Who cares which actor a boxer thinks should play them in a movie?!

Like I wrote earlier, BN is poor when you compare it to a publication such as The Racing Post which is published six days a week !

Trouble is, if they put more in it, the cover price would go up. £3.99 is poor value. I flick through it in my local supermarket then put it back on the shelf.

Keep the same space but use it differently. Choose the most competitive small hall show of the week and use that as the in depth report across two pages with pics.

As for the 60-54 shows, just run a list of results in the final column of that spread. No need for any description- waste of time.

In other words, give everything what it's worth

veriton wrote: ↑27 Jul 2022, 16:14 Keep the same space but use it differently. Choose the most competitive small hall show of the week and use that as the in depth report across two pages with pics.

As for the 60-54 shows, just run a list of results in the final column of that spread. No need for any description- waste of time.

In other words, give everything what it's worth

While I would want more than just the results, cutting the space given to predictable fights is reasonable enough.
Saying that BN journalists were usually on terrible money so I wouldn't like to see their pay cut further.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I read and enjoy the small hall commentary a lot. I get a kick out of seeing the surprises, the stats and up and coming fighters. I hope it stays the way it is

The mag is great, happy subscriber here.

While I agree with the ethos of 'every fight, every week', I would much prefer if they ignored the plethora of 60-54's and gave a bigger focus to competitive fights. I'm sure we'd all prefer to read that, even if it involved fights between boxers with extensive losing records.

This might even encourage promoters to up their game and make more 50/50 fights