BoxRec

What is it with BN?

The last few years it just gets less and less the `trade paper` it was.
They seem to be targeting the `armchair fan` more and more.

The Jon Thaxton press statement concerning Simon Blocks disgusting and seemingly bias towards Khan gets a tiny paragragh or two .. this is good British boxing news that deserved to be covered properly.

Also - you`d think BN were on the payroll of SN with their over hype of Khan also.
Under the headline it states `Gary St.Clair had more success against world champions Corrales and Harris than he did against Khan`... this is true but as always there are big-big differences that should also have been mentioned.

Harris had fought St.Clair 3yrs before he was world champion .. in his 16th fight .. and a full 8yrs previous before Khan.

Corrales fought St.Clair almost 10yrs earlier .. and at s-feather

And it was 26fights since Harris .. thats almost a career worth of fights in itself.

Its not often I like what Colin Hart writes - but yesterday he wrote a fair assesment of the Khan v St.Clair fight.
Comparing Khan to Errol Christie

I`m thinking he`ll be getting the seat that SN used to give to BN when they used to be more unbiased

Every paper in every sport is slightly political, even if they try not to be.

I still find BN the best boxing mag/paper in the world

Old bones Ian wrote:Every paper in every sport is slightly political, even if they try not to be.

I still find BN the best boxing mag/paper in the world

It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

tonyevs wrote:Under the headline it states `Gary St.Clair had more success against world champions Corrales and Harris than he did against Khan`... this is true but as always there are big-big differences that should also have been mentioned.

You're referring to the sub-headline, which does its job of telling the reader the most important/enticing aspect of the story in as concise a format as possible. The full details reveal themselves when reading the story.

I like BN, but they lack bollcoks, or at least Abrahams does.

The Blade wrote: It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

Very true.

TerribleTerry wrote:

The Blade wrote: It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

Very true.

Yep, couldn't agree more. Claude and co tiptoe round SN on egg shells, seemingly terrified of saying anything that Uncle Frank might take offence to.

TerribleTerry wrote:

The Blade wrote: It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

Very true.

Problem is, with boxing becoming more of a niche sport and with popular writing becoming more and more Americanised; most Boxing writing these days is terrible.

There are no dedicated boxing writers of any real quality.

Hugh McIlvaney writes for the SUnday times in general on sport and when he writes boxing he is excellent.

That Tris Dixon is awful as is that zachary Levin - they spend more time talking about themselves than the subject at hand (witness this weeks's Siki 'review' - which wouldn't even be printed in a polytechnic student rag.)

I like Daniel Herbert, Bob Mee knows his stuff, Graham Houston (when he's not repeatedly using the phrase 'proverbial'), the guy that used to write time for the old timers was good (can't remember his name but RIP.)

Glynn Evans similarly just waffles on and talks about himself (witness the excrutiatingly awful 'www.boxing'smostwell-endowedwriter.com editorial.)
Which was trying to make a good point but was just dreadful.

remember the old rule; to Nullify, Marginalize or do away with something or someone..." just ignore them and they'll go away"

well in Journalism (because Journalists are expected to say something - and the more pressing the people or situation, the more expected), they, the Journalists " say No More than they have to or Nothing al all."

too many people afraid to Rock the Boat in this Kiss Ass day & age, they will down play it 'silently' saying very little or nothing at all untill it becomes a non-entity... Unless of course Thaxton can bring them to court, which he may be doing already (?).

jimglen wrote:remember the old rule; to Nullify, Marginalize or do away with something or someone..." just ignore them and they'll go away"

well in Journalism (because Journalists are expected to say something - and the more pressing the people or situation, the more expected), they, the Journalists " say No More than they have to or Nothing al all."

too many people afraid to Rock the Boat in this Kiss Ass day & age, they will down play it 'silently' saying very little or nothing at all untill it becomes a non-entity... Unless of course Thaxton can bring them to court, which he may be doing already (?).

Why on earth would Thaxton be taking them to court? His beef is with Simon Block.

MightyWarrior wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote:

The Blade wrote: It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

Very true.

Yep, couldn't agree more. Claude and co tiptoe round SN on egg shells, seemingly terrified of saying anything that Uncle Frank might take offence to.

Harry had rows with Duff, Warren, Eastwood. He was banned from their shows, threatened, even sued. But when he died he had the love and respect of the boxing world. Barney Eastwood, with whom Harry was at loggerheads for years, turned up at his funeral to pay his respects. I understand allegedly made a point of befriending Harry in the last months of his life. Harry is still missed by all who remember him, and would be horrified at the non-grammitical wafflings that now find their way into his publication. And how he would hate the apparent unwillingness to upset the status quo. At times, this site is a better read.

E wrote:
Problem is, with boxing becoming more of a niche sport and with popular writing becoming more and more Americanised; most Boxing writing these days is terrible.

There are no dedicated boxing writers of any real quality.

Hugh McIlvaney writes for the SUnday times in general on sport and when he writes boxing he is excellent.

That Tris Dixon is awful as is that zachary Levin - they spend more time talking about themselves than the subject at hand (witness this weeks's Siki 'review' - which wouldn't even be printed in a polytechnic student rag.)

I like Daniel Herbert, Bob Mee knows his stuff, Graham Houston (when he's not repeatedly using the phrase 'proverbial'), the guy that used to write time for the old timers was good (can't remember his name but RIP.)

Glynn Evans similarly just waffles on and talks about himself (witness the excrutiatingly awful 'www.boxing'smostwell-endowedwriter.com editorial.)
Which was trying to make a good point but was just dreadful.

The style of the writing doesn`t really bother me as such - Zachary Levin is a writer who`s style I like - he`s like a contemporary Nat Fleischer in style - and Fleischer never appealed to everybody also.

Its more about them covering `Boxing News` .. no matter in what style - its just important they cover anything of interest in an unbiased fashion.

I forget who wrote the report - but when BN 1st did a report on a Jane Couch bout it was an honest report - no bullshit or politics just an opinion of how the reporter viewed it.

I`m sure Harry Mullam would have given more column inches to Jon Thaxtons grievance than Tysons dinner date in S-Africa or the Woods V Tarver hype to sell tickets that generated a full page piece each ..

Thaxtons predicament raises serious questions of how todays boxing game isn`t so far away from the corrupt days of yester-year

the Board NOT the BN mag...

The Blade wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Every paper in every sport is slightly political, even if they try not to be.

I still find BN the best boxing mag/paper in the world

It was damn site better when dear old Harry Mullan was at the helm: a man who was prepared to take on the promotors and hang the consequences. He would never have swallowed so much of the bull that is now pedalled as fact. Also, he could turn a very much more elegant phrase than the current staff writers.

Well said.

The Blade wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:

TerribleTerry wrote: Very true.

Yep, couldn't agree more. Claude and co tiptoe round SN on egg shells, seemingly terrified of saying anything that Uncle Frank might take offence to.

Harry had rows with Duff, Warren, Eastwood. He was banned from their shows, threatened, even sued. But when he died he had the love and respect of the boxing world. Barney Eastwood, with whom Harry was at loggerheads for years, turned up at his funeral to pay his respects. I understand allegedly allegedly made a point of befriending Harry in the last months of his life. Harry is still missed by all who remember him, and would be horrified at the non-grammitical wafflings that now find their way into his publication. And how he would hate the apparent unwillingness to upset the status quo. At times, this site is a better read.

BN would definitely benefit from a competent proofreader.

Stop making statements that were NEVER said... I don't understand why your allowed to badger people Collins...

ONE OF Scotland's greatest, Scotland's greatest Bigman,
One of Britain's greatest middleweights
One of Boxing's finest fighters

Stop trying to CHOOSE YOUR words to cheat other good posters from the respect they deserve. A LOOK Through MY Posts WILL SHOW - I have always RESPECT everybody and never said the things you try to pass off as mine.

Moderators WHY do you let this man taunt people like a devious child, No One else on the Board acts like this guy...and he's getting away with it!

jimglen wrote:Stop making statements that were NEVER said... I don't understand why your allowed to badger people Collins...

ONE OF Scotland's greatest, Scotland's greatest Bigman,
One of Britain's greatest middleweights
One of Boxing's finest fighters

Stop trying to CHOOSE YOUR words to cheat other good posters from the respect they deserve. A LOOK Through MY Posts WILL SHOW - I have always RESPECT everybody and never said the things you try to pass off as mine.

Moderators WHY do you let this man taunt people like a devious child, No One else on the Board acts like this guy...and he's getting away with it!

Terrible isn't it.

Boxing news, like a lot of mags, suffers from competition from the internet. Reviews of shows are usually online within a few hours, so waiting almost a week to read a review in a magazine seems a bit pointless. Likewise things like schedules, rankings etc- there is little need for these to be published when they can be put online- and kept much more up to date.

That said, however, a good amgazine CAN survive, but printing cutting edge and interesting, readable articles.

oliverfennell wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Under the headline it states `Gary St.Clair had more success against world champions Corrales and Harris than he did against Khan`... this is true but as always there are big-big differences that should also have been mentioned.

You're referring to the sub-headline, which does its job of telling the reader the most important/enticing aspect of the story in as concise a format as possible. The full details reveal themselves when reading the story.

What a sub-headline should never do, in a specialist publication like BN, is give a misleading impression (and because it ignores context and timeframe that's exactly what it does). In this respect it doesn't do its job.
The handling of the Thaxton issue was also pitiful.

since claude took over, BN has often paraded dubious sub-heads. but all in all a mag, especially one with the small circulation of BN, has to survive. riding on the khan carousel is a good way to do this. although they know it may alienate or merely brass off their core readership, they will probably gain a few who were brought to our sport by AK.
its a shame. i really enjoyed the argy bargy between the paper and FW that resulted in claude being invited to a fwannk show only to find himself in a seat behind one of the pillars.
personally, i have not read BN for a couple of years. Connelly's reading of fights was getting increasingly strange and he wasnt alone but i felt i didnt need it any more, unlike under harry mullans editorship where i felt it was a part of me.

oliverfennell wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Under the headline it states `Gary St.Clair had more success against world champions Corrales and Harris than he did against Khan`... this is true but as always there are big-big differences that should also have been mentioned.

You're referring to the sub-headline, which does its job of telling the reader the most important/enticing aspect of the story in as concise a format as possible. The full details reveal themselves when reading the story.

Your point is?
The full details didn`t mention any of the major points I mentioned .. just basically hypes Khan more like the `sub-headline` did .. so what other details did you imagine it `revealed`?

Like the lion's share of boxers and boxing fans alike - i really don't care whether or not the apostrophe is marking plurals correctly.

All i am bothered about is the meat & potatoes of a particular article.

I'd rather read something meaty and interesting, yet poorly written (in an academic sense) than some cleverly written, but ultimately self-serving dull tripe by some academic wordsmith.

Ideally it's nice to have both, but it's Boxing at the end of the day and not Science Weekly.

tonyevs wrote:What is it with BN?

The Jon Thaxton press statement concerning Simon Blocks disgusting and seemingly bias towards Khan gets a tiny paragragh or two .. this is good British boxing news that deserved to be covered properly.

told you so

Harry Mullan was a gifted writer; Claude Abrams, I'm afraid, is useless.

Mullan was great. Claude used to write good articles for Mullan and he seems to do a competent job editing the mag in the corporate, unwilling to upset the apple cart way things are today.