BoxRec

its been around 10 years since i last bought a boxing news, never missed a week in over 10 years previous to that.

Is Boxing News still a good read or is it a waste of time these days. i think back to when i read it Harry Mullan had something to do with it, and it only cost £1 i think.

any way oppinions please

I still get it mainly for the fact it has a report on every British fight.

It is much more glossy these days and aimed at a wider market, which is not as good for the anoraks, but they need to sell copies to pay the bills.

Claude Abrams is straight talking and very knowlegable, i'm amazed at how often he picks the big fights correctly often to the round.

I remember when Audley was having his pro debut and they asks a lot of 'experts' how far he would go. They all said he would be world champ, Steve Bunce was waxing lyrical about him!

Claude was the only one with the balls/knowledge to say no

it's still a good mag. abram's editorials are a decent read. though i have to say daniel herbert must have had a bad week last week! he only gave spinks 2 rounds against taylor.

Autobarn wrote:it's still a good mag. abram's editorials are a decent read. though i have to say daniel herbert must have had a bad week last week! he only gave spinks 2 rounds against taylor.

Yeah i couldn't see how he scored that either.

I'm a subscriber and I have to say i find it much better written than THE RING - also the weekly format means they can do good coverage of everything.

Old bones Ian wrote:

Autobarn wrote:it's still a good mag. abram's editorials are a decent read. though i have to say daniel herbert must have had a bad week last week! he only gave spinks 2 rounds against taylor.

Yeah i couldn't see how he scored that either.

he also said Pavlik mustn't be rushed into a Taylor fight (!), and said that he had a "career based on marketability more than substance." Addressing the latter, Pavlik has actually been totally under the radar. Bob Arum admitted that gave them TOTAL FREEDOM to develop Kelly bit by bit without pressure from TV.

Did Daniel Herbert write this or James Herbert (joke)?

Its still a great magazine, but I think over the last couple of years too much space is given to foreign fight reports. Don't get me wrong, I like boxing but if theres nothing happening on the British scene I would rather read say, an article about a British trainer, cutsman, etc than some fight report about two straweights from Papa New Guinea who I've never heard of fighting for an alphabet title

johnty1888 wrote:Its still a great magazine, but I think over the last couple of years too much space is given to foreign fight reports. Don't get me wrong, I like boxing but if theres nothing happening on the British scene I would rather read say, an article about a British trainer, cutsman, etc than some fight report about two straweights from Papa New Guinea who I've never heard of fighting for an alphabet title

this is addressed in this week's letters page. the reply is that they have to keep a broad scope for foreign sales, I think it said.

boxing news is a great read. all the british news, world scene, 60 second interview, letters and features.

i dont see how you can claim to be a boxing fan and not read it.

~ MIKEE ~ wrote:I'm a subscriber and I have to say i find it much better written than THE RING - also the weekly format means they can do good coverage of everything.

I never bother with the ring magazine, it always seems about 6 months off the pace.

BN is essential reading for boxing fans.

Some super writers - Brit anorak Andrew Whittle, Tony Connolly is class as is Bob Mee. Danny Herbert might have had a bad week but don't we all? I'm even warming to the idiosyncratic Zachary Levin.

Coco wrote:Claude Abrams is straight talking and very knowlegable, i'm amazed at how often he picks the big fights correctly often to the round.

NEVER picks an underdog, though, does he? Not a gripe, just something I've noticed.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I'm even warming to the idiosyncratic Zachary Levin.

Levin is a good addition to the team. He's got a very appealing style and I like the odd bit of cynicism he throws in.

i can do without his sam soliman loving, though

mimmy123 wrote:its been around 10 years since i last bought a boxing news, never missed a week in over 10 years previous to that.

Is Boxing News still a good read or is it a waste of time these days. i think back to when i read it Harry Mullan had something to do with it, and it only cost £1 i think.

any way oppinions please

Incidentally, Mimmy123, why did you stop buying it?

can't rememeber what his name is, but i like the feature writer who did those pieces that questioned the legendary status of hopkins and toney. he made some terrific points that made me reconsider my opinions about Hopkisn being the "next Hagler/Monzon" and Toney being "the modern Ezzard Charles."

Glynn Evans, I think. Yes, they were good pieces. Obviously controversial views for some, but the sign of a good article is one that gets people talking.

Autobarn wrote:can't rememeber what his name is, but i like the feature writer who did those pieces that questioned the legendary status of hopkins and toney. he made some terrific points that made me reconsider my opinions about Hopkisn being the "next Hagler/Monzon" and Toney being "the modern Ezzard Charles."

i thought he was spot on about Hopkins

Hopkins gets A LOT of credit from me for beating Trinidad, De La Hoya and particularly Tarver, and especially for doing so at his age, but his reign was pretty unremarkable before those opponents. Not his fault, though, because it was a weak division for a long time, and I feel he would have beaten a higher grade had it been available. But accepting the level of opposition at 160 wasn't good, perhaps it is right to criticise him for not seeking sterner challenges at 168.

oliverfennell wrote: NEVER picks an underdog, though, does he? Not a gripe, just something I've noticed.

Good point, and I think you're right. The best predictor in boxing, and has been for 20 years, is ex BN man Graham Houston. He very rarely gets it wrong and doesn't always go with the fav.

For instance Claude picked Miranda last week, and Houston went for the unproven underdog Kelly Pavlik.

GH got it wrong with Huck last week, though I doubt he'd ever seen him fight, but picked the underdog Steve Cunningham to score the upset in Poland.

lowersmiths wrote:boxing news is a great read. all the british news, world scene, 60 second interview, letters and features.

i dont see how you can claim to be a boxing fan and not read it.

because everything I need is right here, at the click of a button - the electronic era begun the demise of the hard copy.

Still, nice to grab a copy in the airport when going away, or in a service station when facing a long drive (providing im not driving of course).

Wales wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:boxing news is a great read. all the british news, world scene, 60 second interview, letters and features.

i dont see how you can claim to be a boxing fan and not read it.

because everything I need is right here, at the click of a button - the electronic era begun the demise of the hard copy.

Still, nice to grab a copy in the airport when going away, or in a service station when facing a long drive (providing im not driving of course).

The INFORMATION is available at a click of a button, but not always the quality of writing. That's the difference between print and web, especially now that everybody and his dog can be a "journalist", "webmaster" or "video producer" online.

I'd say the quality of writing at maxboxing is as good as any of the print publications.

I agree with you there, but I'm sure most agree it's in the minority. There are very few websites which can compete with print for quality journalism - and I mean in all areas, not just boxing.

oliverfennell wrote:I agree with you there, but I'm sure most agree it's in the minority. There are very few websites which can compete with print for quality journalism - and I mean in all areas, not just boxing.

Yes, agree with this.

There is a bit of a grey area though. There are only enough jobs in print journalism for a finite number of people. Yet there are many more people capable of writing to the necessary standard.

Once upon a time they wouldn't have had much of an outlet for their work whereas now they have, via the internet. Where the latter medium lets itself down is the almost complete absence of any quality control which denigrates the whole concept, to a certain extent.

Then again, I've read plenty of shite in printed publications.

oliverfennell wrote:Hopkins gets A LOT of credit from me for beating Trinidad, De La Hoya and particularly Tarver, and especially for doing so at his age, but his reign was pretty unremarkable before those opponents. Not his fault, though, because it was a weak division for a long time, and I feel he would have beaten a higher grade had it been available. But accepting the level of opposition at 160 wasn't good, perhaps it is right to criticise him for not seeking sterner challenges at 168.

Agree with that. Apart from those three opponents, he has done relatively little to stand out - especially compared to Hagler and Monzon...

And seeing as he could have made 168 or 175 much earlier, he could have done more with his career