Page 1 of 9

NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

Posted: 15 Dec 2007, 17:13
by Deserter
I'm a Glyn Leach fan, but I think the latest BM is a shabby offering. Pagination is way below what you'd expect for a £3.60 product and even in that limited offering there's a lot of filler content, most notably 'Quotes of the Year' - would have had value as a single page feature, but has been stretched over something like six pages.
It's also commercial stupidity to publish the week after the biggest fight British boxing has seen in years and yet contain no review or post-fight coverage. Before anyone jumps in, I work in the industry so I'm fully aware of issues like Christmas deadlines, but I would have delayed the on-sale date to include Vegas-related coverage.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how BM is going to survive in the internet era. One thing they've done well is assembled a strong line-up of columnists/writers such as Bunce, Borges and Farhood, but this alone is not going to be enough.
Very poor value for money at the moment, imo.

Posted: 15 Dec 2007, 17:18
by n1ebf
couldn't agree more.
especially regarding the week just gone and not featuring any of it. Most potential punters won't understand why.
Also they could do with a letters page I think.
The rankings are usually quite fair though......well interesting anyway, always nice to get a new independently compiled set of rankings and I find their's is ok.

Posted: 15 Dec 2007, 17:33
by Poncey
It's more, but Boxing News is a far better publication. Plus it's up-to-date (obviously).

Re: NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 08:53
by dondada
Deserter wrote:I'm a Glyn Leach fan, but I think the latest BM is a shabby offering. Pagination is way below what you'd expect for a £3.60 product and even in that limited offering there's a lot of filler content, most notably 'Quotes of the Year' - would have had value as a single page feature, but has been stretched over something like six pages.
It's also commercial stupidity to publish the week after the biggest fight British boxing has seen in years and yet contain no review or post-fight coverage. Before anyone jumps in, I work in the industry so I'm fully aware of issues like Christmas deadlines, but I would have delayed the on-sale date to include Vegas-related coverage.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how BM is going to survive in the internet era. One thing they've done well is assembled a strong line-up of columnists/writers such as Bunce, Borges and Farhood, but this alone is not going to be enough.
Very poor value for money at the moment, imo.
You mean the likes of McNeilly, Bunce, Borges and Farhood, surely?

In doing our 'fights we'd like to see in 2008' we were a bit tied because we couldn't really comment on Haye (though Elliot did) or Hatton due to deadlines. It's a tricky call on deadlines, as you know, but I take your point.

Hopefully your faith will be rekindled next year.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 09:19
by Sammy Mendelson
Since I got a home internet connection in the late 90s I have bought less than five boxing magazines. They were when I have had a flight to take and didn't fancy a newspaper. Practically all boxing journalists, on both sides of the pond, have an online presence; so I cannot see the point of purchasing a hardcopy publication.

Re: NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 09:39
by Autobarn
Deserter wrote:I'm a Glyn Leach fan, but I think the latest BM is a shabby offering. Pagination is way below what you'd expect for a £3.60 product and even in that limited offering there's a lot of filler content, most notably 'Quotes of the Year' - would have had value as a single page feature, but has been stretched over something like six pages.
It's also commercial stupidity to publish the week after the biggest fight British boxing has seen in years and yet contain no review or post-fight coverage. Before anyone jumps in, I work in the industry so I'm fully aware of issues like Christmas deadlines, but I would have delayed the on-sale date to include Vegas-related coverage.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how BM is going to survive in the internet era. One thing they've done well is assembled a strong line-up of columnists/writers such as Bunce, Borges and Farhood, but this alone is not going to be enough.
Very poor value for money at the moment, imo.
I don't like the mag any more - not really bought it for years. I like Leach's editorials and there's nothing wrong with the features. Houston's reports are all off his own site, so chances are many ppl will have read 'em already etc.

I think it's become too Americanised as well.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 10:09
by lowersmiths
i used to have a subscription but cancelled it a couple of years ago.

i wouldnt say that is down to the internet because i hardly read any features on the internet.

BM just seems to be missing something and the price is way too high.

Since Boxing News added more features and interviews I'm quite happy just with that and reading messageboards for breaking news and opinion.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 10:35
by Autobarn
I think if you're on the internet, then there's only so much a monthly mag can do for you.

Re: NEW BOXING MONTHLY - VERY POOR

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 12:54
by Deserter
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Deserter wrote:I'm a Glyn Leach fan, but I think the latest BM is a shabby offering. Pagination is way below what you'd expect for a £3.60 product and even in that limited offering there's a lot of filler content, most notably 'Quotes of the Year' - would have had value as a single page feature, but has been stretched over something like six pages.
It's also commercial stupidity to publish the week after the biggest fight British boxing has seen in years and yet contain no review or post-fight coverage. Before anyone jumps in, I work in the industry so I'm fully aware of issues like Christmas deadlines, but I would have delayed the on-sale date to include Vegas-related coverage.
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see how BM is going to survive in the internet era. One thing they've done well is assembled a strong line-up of columnists/writers such as Bunce, Borges and Farhood, but this alone is not going to be enough.
Very poor value for money at the moment, imo.
You mean the likes of McNeilly, Bunce, Borges and Farhood, surely?

In doing our 'fights we'd like to see in 2008' we were a bit tied because we couldn't really comment on Haye (though Elliot did) or Hatton due to deadlines. It's a tricky call on deadlines, as you know, but I take your point.

Hopefully your faith will be rekindled next year.
Sorry fella, no slight intended. :TU:
I hope the mag is turned around but I personally think the publishing strategy is wrong at the moment. You simply can't justify that high a price point for so little content, particularly when some of it is filler material or old news e.g. what was the point in running a fight report on Vargas-Mayorga weeks after the event, when anyone who cares would have read it online or in Boxing News?
Editorially, it doesn't appear to have repositioned itself at all to minimise web-based competition or even offer much in the way of differentiation when compared to BN.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 13:05
by n1ebf
well I'm gonna commit blasphemy now and say that I don't care much for Ring Magazine either.
It's a fortune and always 2 months , not one, behind. I appreciate why of course in that's it's published in the US.
There seems to be write ups every month (not that I buy it) of random fights from years gone by of little relevance. The rankings are a bit of a joke in that you don't have a straight 1 2 3 4 etc but rather "champion" then 1 2 3 4 , I understand that they, as as magazine, elect a champion of their own ala WBC or something, otherwise it would make even less sense.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 13:23
by Deserter
NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:well I'm gonna commit blasphemy now and say that I don't care much for Ring Magazine either.
It's a fortune and always 2 months , not one, behind. I appreciate why of course in that's it's published in the US.
There seems to be write ups every month (not that I buy it) of random fights from years gone by of little relevance. The rankings are a bit of a joke in that you don't have a straight 1 2 3 4 etc but rather "champion" then 1 2 3 4 , I understand that they, as as magazine, elect a champion of their own ala WBC or something, otherwise it would make even less sense.
You're completely right and it's simply surviving on the power of its brand name. Though now Golden Boy have bought it it's going to be interesting to see what they try and do with it....

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 13:28
by Mario
I love the features in BM but that alone isn't worth £3.60 which is why i only buy it occasonally now rather than every month as soon as its released. You usually get around 5 or 6 pages of fight reviews which i always skip as i dont feel the need for yet another perspective on a fight i watched days or weeks earlier. The previews are usually well done and in depth but i much prefer the Boxing News previews, although thats probably cos i read them the day before or on the morning of a fight, which is always preferable to weeks in advance.

NEBFs comments about Ring magazine are spot on. Its expensive, full of filler, and what i've always found very strange about it is that a typical issue would be billed as a February issue, released in December, and have reviews from October. Fair enough that its American but its so out of date by the time it reaches us that its not worth reading.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 19:27
by E
Glyn Leach is awful, simply awful.......Farhood is terrible as well in his sh1t-eating American style.


Graham Houston is decent but BM is bvasically sh1te.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 19:47
by rhino222
i just read it in my local WH Smith library.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 20:20
by E
It has good pictures actually granted...... but that just makes it more slippery when wiping your arse.

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 20:30
by Mario
rhino222 wrote:i just read it in my local WH Smith library.
Haha smiths is great for that, you can be there for an hour reading anything you like and they wont tell you get out. Unlike my newsagent

Posted: 16 Dec 2007, 20:41
by n1ebf
Mario wrote:
rhino222 wrote:i just read it in my local WH Smith library.
Haha smiths is great for that, you can be there for an hour reading anything you like and they wont tell you get out. Unlike my newsagent
yes it's weird how Smiths works isn't it, where else in life could you openly peruse the f*cking merchandise, nay, wipe your slimey little fingers on it and bend the clean , crisp pages, of say, a BoxingMonthly you have absolutely no intention of parting with 3.60 for, just to glimpse the latest rankings?
Personally I believe these kind of people are shameless fcking freeloaders. Especially the ones that ACTUALLY STAND READING ABOUT THE FCKING RAILWAYS OR MY PC OR MY PET GUINEA PIG, WHILST STANDING RIGHT IN THE FCKING WAY OF OTHER PEOPLE THEREBY BLOCKING THEIR ACCESS.
That's why when I stand in Smiths and read the magazines, I always stand politely to one side while I read the mags, it's an admittal that yes, whilst I am a freeloader, I respect the fact the store is still trying to trade and I might actually be in the way of someone wishing to make a genuine purchase. :TU:

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 07:00
by dondada
E wrote:It has good pictures actually granted...... but that just makes it more slippery when wiping your arse.
Now come on, that's rather harsh.

Magazines are a very tricky market these days what with the net and all. Then again, however good the net gets, I'll always buy hard copy of stuff because I just like them. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

As for Farhood, I've always liked him and his rather off beat style. One of my faves.

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 07:09
by Autobarn
I like Leach but don't like Farhood. Leach has been spot on in his criticisms of Hatton and calzaghe in his editorials. It's a good mag but because of the net I don't really read many mags any more.

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 09:55
by Deserter
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
E wrote:It has good pictures actually granted...... but that just makes it more slippery when wiping your arse.
Now come on, that's rather harsh.

Magazines are a very tricky market these days what with the net and all. Then again, however good the net gets, I'll always buy hard copy of stuff because I just like them. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

As for Farhood, I've always liked him and his rather off beat style. One of my faves.
Apologies, as this might be too 'geeky' for some, but those of you who are interested in the challenges facing magazines might be interested in this piece by David Hepworth (a man who really knows his onions) that appeared in Media Guardian today:


A few weeks ago I asked a well-known, recently retired industry figure whether he would be looking to pick up any titles in the proposed Emap sale. "I wouldn't buy a magazine these days," he said. "Not even in a newsagent."

There was some gallows humour of that kind around this year, particularly from people who had been used to selling a lot of magazines to young men. Even in the world of women's magazines it was clear to those who were paying attention that the virtues of the medium might no longer be quite so self-evident. I talked to a number of people at the helms of household-name titles who were watching their sales base erode and having to fight harder for advertising in what is becoming, for everyone but the phone company, a small-portions world. The vessel of human attention has only a certain capacity and at some point someone has to shout "when!".

The indisputably candid statement of the year came from Darren Styles of Brooklands, speaking in April after he had closed the magazine Popworld Pulp within two weeks of launch: "Frankly, the magazine has bombed in a way nobody connected with it could ever have envisaged." Brooklands put out more than 100,000 of the first issue and sold fewer than 4,000.

This is not because it was rubbish. It is because the public has never taken more persuading to put its hand in its pocket and try something new. The Popworld closure took place just days after the equally premature demise of the upmarket property magazine So London, which also gave up almost before it had started.

Launches not working is nothing new but this indifference was. Ever since the spring there has been little going on in the launch area. It is as if all the publishers recognise that the curiosity gap in which they used to flourish has been colonised by other media and the only new titles that seem to get traction are big weeklies. These are ruinously expensive to launch and consequently few and far between.

What are the alternatives? On the face of it the policy of actually stuffing your magazine in somebody's hand seems to get round the problem of the public's unwillingness to sample. The success of the free sports magazine Sport encouraged Mike Soutar to come in with his general men's weekly Shortlist and, as I type this, there is talk of Open Goal, which is to be given away at Premier League football grounds, and even a Jewish glossy, Jlifestyle.

We must assume that some time soon there will be a free weekly celeb title given away at travel points. However, because these free versions are compelled to offer more copies than the paid-for titles (which, in the case of the celebrity market, would be a great deal) they are going to run into the mother and father of a littering problem. This is going to be an issue for the whole print industry before very long.

Last week the German publisher Bauer succeeded with a late bid for Emap's consumer magazines, which was not the move the industry was expecting. Whether it will hang on to the whole portfolio - which ranges from Grazia to Motorcycle News - or will seek to dispose of all the titles that do not fit comfortably alongside the likes of TV Quick and Take a Break, it is unlikely it will do anything in a hurry. Bauer is a privately owned firm and the disappearance of Emap leaves Future as the only publisher of consumer magazines that is publicly quoted and therefore has to answer the City's questions.

Felix Dennis offloaded his American operation in the summer, but his UK business remains strong thanks to the steady growth of The Week, which now sells 150,000 copies every week. The fact that its entire readership sits down with it for the same two hours on a Saturday morning and only a small number of copies go through the news trade could be a lesson for the entire industry.

People love magazines just as much as they ever did. It is just that they bridle at being driven into newsagents to pay for them and they need to have the habit of reading them re-established.

Other medium to large companies, such as Future and Haymarket, reported good progress, helped by strict cost control, investment in well-aimed web services and limiting their exposure to the costly slugfests at the news stand.

Once it had managed to establish the celebrity and shopping weekly Look, IPC did not do much on the magazine front, instead concentrating its efforts on Nuts TV, with NME radio and the like rumoured to be not far behind. These are likely to provide work for glamour models and third-party suppliers long before they produce work for journalists or ad revenue for the bottom line, but there is something to be said for having something new to talk to your clients about.

It has been the same with the web. You couldn't afford not to, but you couldn't honestly see how to. The chief executive of one big publisher of women's weeklies told me that he had given up pretending with investors and was prepared to confess that he could not see a way that his company would ever make money out of the internet. History will either see this as a hopeless lack of vision or admirable good sense, depending on how things work out.

The senior magazine executives (as a group, among the least web-savvy in the media) making all the grand announcements do not know how well it is going to go, any more than their counterparts in newspapers, television or radio do. "Mapmaking in an earthquake zone," they used to call it. And that is the way it's going to be for everybody from now on. Could be fun.

· David Hepworth is editorial director of Development Hell

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 12:10
by Tykemania
Autobarn wrote:I like Leach but don't like Farhood. Leach has been spot on in his criticisms of Hatton and calzaghe in his editorials. It's a good mag but because of the net I don't really read many mags any more.
I still like to pick up magazines because I spend an awful lot of time on buses and trains for work but I have to confess that Boxing Monthly will not be one I look to pick up in future. Its been getting slowly worse for the past year or so but the latest example is a disgrace. Quite aside from the woeful print quality (which I appreciate is as much the fault of the printers as the editor, but seems to happen far too frequently) I have to say that the range of "articles" was really poor.

Dream fights of 2008...wow, what genius...except, there was no demarkation as to whether we were talking pie in the sky fights like Haye vs Enzo or ones that had already been signed like Taylor vs Pavlik. The choices as well were so cliched.

In fact, the only thing that gets my goat more than the farce of BM 'o7 is the way the Ring continues to suck golf balls through drinking straws. I can just about tolerate the sickening American bias, but the borderline standard of literacy and grandstanding columnists make me want to puke!

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 12:33
by dondada
Tykemania wrote:Dream fights of 2008...wow, what genius...except, there was no demarkation as to whether we were talking pie in the sky fights like Haye vs Enzo or ones that had already been signed like Taylor vs Pavlik. The choices as well were so cliched.
Well, suggest some articles you would like to see then. You might be helping, you never know.

I also thought Haye v Enzo was pie in the sky but having talked to a 'Haye camp insider' last week, unbelievably, Haye might consider doing it if the money was right.

Not sure when Taylor v Pavlik was signed (probably straight after the first one, no doubt) but you'll be aware there is often a big gap between writing and you reading the said 'articles'.

And not all choices were cliched. I picked Woods v Dawson - I haven't really heard anyone shouting for that one. Could because it's only me who would like to see it, granted. Plus, I always go out to bat for the Brits in the mag.

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 15:18
by Tykemania
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Well, suggest some articles you would like to see then. You might be helping, you never know.
I'm not sure I can pitch particular articles for you, at least not off the top of my head. What I would say is that a monthly publication in the modern age needs to do more than regurgitate the events of the past month (or, more accurately, a four week period over a month ago) because the net result is a poor mans Boxing News some way after the fact.

Why not a bit more content on the history of the sport, great fighters of the past and the like - two of the best bits of boxing writing I can recall were a piece on the post-fight life of "Little Red" Lopez in the Times and a piece in your tome on the Benn-McClellan fight. Having recently read and enjoyed "If Only", I guess it would be an interesting retrospective to cover the most notable ring fatalities

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 21:10
by E
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
E wrote:It has good pictures actually granted...... but that just makes it more slippery when wiping your arse.
Now come on, that's rather harsh.

Magazines are a very tricky market these days what with the net and all. Then again, however good the net gets, I'll always buy hard copy of stuff because I just like them. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

As for Farhood, I've always liked him and his rather off beat style. One of my faves.
Understood, a bout the market... but I do wish for the days (possibly driven by juvenile nostalgia) when EG boxing News was a true trade paper - no gloss.

Posted: 17 Dec 2007, 21:34
by josh fg
I like boxing Monthly but I do think that if your going to have 6 pages of quotes then you can't sell it for £3.60 that takes the piss.

I think it'd be good to see a bit more analysis of the fighters styles etc. I like the fact that it is more critical of people taking shit fights than BN.

To sum up, more features cheeper but we like the rankings.