BoxRec

For the first time in a while I picked up Boxing Monthly this week and I have to say I've never been so disappointed with a piece of journalism as I was with this. Whilst the general standard was low (a lot of meaningless filler) one particular thing really drew my ire, namely the awful puff piece which passed for a preview of the upcoming DLH-Pacman fight, which merely regurgitated as fact some pretty average whinings from the incredibly wealthy one who, BM comes dangerously close to presenting as fact, has only ever lost fairly to Hopkins and then only because he was fighting a much much bigger man (the irony!). Truly awful!

I haven't read the BM this month - but you should have read the editorial piece a few weeks ago on this fight. It goes ballistic (IMO a tad OTT) on the issues on the fight... it was very negative on it. Perhaps the piece, and I haven't read it, over compensates for the previous pieces on the fight.

There's a cracking interview with Dean Francis in there, I can tell you that. 8)

You need to be a bit more specific about 'meaningless filler' too...which bits?

I don't bother with it anymore - they could do with sorting out their site, I can't believe how poor it is.

Captain Hook wrote:I don't bother with it anymore - they could do with sorting out their site, I can't believe how poor it is.

The editorial team of the magazine has feck all to do with that, including Glyn, by the way.

Who said they did? I just said it was crap - which it is.

Captain Hook wrote:Who said they did? I just said it was crap - which it is.

Seeing as the initial post was referring to the shit quality of the editorial, I just thought I'd make the distinction clear. If that's OK with you.

You must be getting Glyn Leach syndrome mate. He gets very tetchy when you say anything about BM as well. I'll put it down to the lack of sleep

As one of the few people who bothers to support BM's guestbook, as I have for many years along with only a handful of others, I feel justified in my comments.

The site has not been given one tiny bit of attention. Perhaps Glyn, or someone on the editorial side of things, might want to give them a kick up the arse. I would if it was my publication.

They have a lot of readers who are not being served with online content.

Then again I suppose we could just point them in the direction of BBN....

Captain Hook wrote:You must be getting Glyn Leach syndrome mate. He gets very tetchy when you say anything about BM as well. I'll put it down to the lack of sleep

As one of the few people who bothers to support BM's guestbook, as I have for many years along with only a handful of others, I feel justified in my comments.

The site has not been given one tiny bit of attention. Perhaps Glyn, or someone on the editorial side of things, might want to give them a kick up the arse. I would if it was my publication.

They have a lot of readers who are not being served with online content.

So you say 'Who said they did?' and 'tis I who is getting tetchy? Hmmm.

Yes, my sleep is being restricted somewhat...

Don't read too much into it me old China.....then again as a fellow editor/news editor I know you will scrutinise every word :)

I'm off chaps, enjoy your evening.....

Leach's editorials are worth reading, especially on controversial issues like the GBP/HBO relationship, and such horrible catchweights as DLH-Pac and Hopkins-Pavlik, and Sky putting on the Khan PPV. I don't have any time to read mags, and it's more tempting just to go online and pick up current news. But if I'm going past WHSmith I'll have a little read. In other hands, the mag might take the "it makes sense it makes money", "that's boxing", timid/conservative approach.

I can't see what lows BM is sinking to. When boxing sinks to lows, it's up to mags like that to point it out, and they have done at times.

Autobarn wrote:Leach's editorials are worth reading, especially on controversial issues like the GBP/HBO relationship, and such horrible catchweights as DLH-Pac and Hopkins-Pavlik, and Sky putting on the Khan PPV. I don't have any time to read mags, and it's more tempting just to go online and pick up current news. But if I'm going past WHSmith I'll have a little read. In other hands, the mag might take the "it makes sense it makes money", "that's boxing", timid/conservative approach.

I can't see what lows BM is sinking to. When boxing sinks to lows, it's up to mags like that to point it out, and they have done at times.

From an editorial point of view i've always enjoyed it, though it's expensive. Then again it's not seeling a million copies is it - shame.

PS apart from McNeilly's stuff, which is crap.

Ta ra......

Fear not, Tykemania. Our leader has asked me personally to inform you that a DLH-Pacman preview is booked for the December issue. If you have any other issues, I suggest you take them up with Mr Leach, who will be only too happy to help.

Tykemania wrote:For the first time in a while I picked up Boxing Monthly this week and I have to say I've never been so disappointed with a piece of journalism as I was with this. Whilst the general standard was low (a lot of meaningless filler) one particular thing really drew my ire, namely the awful puff piece which passed for a preview of the upcoming DLH-Pacman fight, which merely regurgitated as fact some pretty average whinings from the incredibly wealthy one who, BM comes dangerously close to presenting as fact, has only ever lost fairly to Hopkins and then only because he was fighting a much much bigger man (the irony!). Truly awful!

DLH crying like a bitch. He thinks there is a conspiracy against him and Golden Boy Fighters re: the judges.

Well.

DLH Vs Sturm. DLH lost but won.

Mosley Vs Mayorga ( Mosley was way ahead on the cards going into the 12th - in my book he was at least 3 rounds down!)

D Hopkins Vs Steve Forbes ( Steve Forbes was way ahead on my car, but they gave it to the Marquee GBP Fighter)

DLH?

Shut up.

Every month there is a post on here about the "lows" that BM is sinking to. I haven't noticed it at all.

glahn wrote:Every month there is a post on here about the "lows" that BM is sinking to. I haven't noticed it at all.

From the first issue to now (20 years?), DG still subscribes, there is no better endorsement.

I must admit I pick up and read Boxing Monthly in Eason's (like an Irish WH Smith's) for as long as I can get away with it before they kick me out.

Nothing personal against BM but one is only allowed a single boxing mag at a time and I have a cheap subscription to BN each week

Tykemania wrote:For the first time in a while I picked up Boxing Monthly this week and I have to say I've never been so disappointed with a piece of journalism as I was with this. Whilst the general standard was low (a lot of meaningless filler) one particular thing really drew my ire, namely the awful puff piece which passed for a preview of the upcoming DLH-Pacman fight, which merely regurgitated as fact some pretty average whinings from the incredibly wealthy one who, BM comes dangerously close to presenting as fact, has only ever lost fairly to Hopkins and then only because he was fighting a much much bigger man (the irony!). Truly awful!

Thanks for this.

Firstly, where does it suggest, not least say, the Oscar INTERVIEW was a preview? That's right, nowhere. It was an INTERVIEW, so your 'considered critique' hasn't kicked off too well. And the reason I allowed Oscar to whine in my mag was through a sense of fair play, my having slaughtered him and GBP so often in recent months FYI - you wouldn't know that if you don't read the mag. I was letting him have his say - and frankly I think giving him enough rope allowed him to further hang his wealthy self. There was a large degree of sarcasm and mockery in the headlines and bylines of this piece but such things obviously went over your head - probably just as well you don't waste your beer money on us, not much point if you aren't in tune with what we do, all the best to you.

For the information of anyone who wishes to know, the DLH-Pac preview will appear in the December issue, on sale 27 Nov, which will also include the Calzaghe report, and the DLH-Pac fight report will appear in the Jan issue with the free calendar (revamped and not heavyweights this year), which will also include the Hatton and Haye reports, on sale 18 Dec.

As regards the website, Ian summed it up. Personally I'm not web orientated, my interest is in print journalism. The BM site as it stands is basically an advertising tool for the mag and we get an awful lot of our subscriptions from it so it serves its purpose from our end. However, if anyone would like to get further involved with the development of the website, we're always willing to listen. (Hookie? Your support has been noted and appreciated over the years fella, wanna have a crack?)

Wasn't too tetchy was I? Thought I was just answering criticism, meself. ATB xxx

I still like BM, still makes good reading whilst i'm taking a dump. Some people will just try and find the slightest little things that they can have a good moan about.

Apart from the leading on some of the headlines, which is just sloppy in my opinion

Lenny wrote:I still like BM, still makes good reading whilst i'm taking a dump. Some people will just try and find the slightest little things that they can have a good moan about.

Apart from the leading on some of the headlines, which is just sloppy in my opinion

Like what? Where the two lines touch? Intended y'know, BN will be doing it in two years time lol

Glyn - wish I had the time mate, but I get your drift. Guestbook has started to pick up a little lately, some good guys post on there.

Print wise it's a good product IMO. Sometimes it's a pain reading about things you've already read about online, but that can't be helped, after all it is a monthly mag.

It does need an online presence to drive the mag though, and vice versa. Even a good revamp and a publicity push on the sites and in its editorial content would give it a lift.

They do a decent job though in the mag, and no Glyn, you weren't being too tetchy :)

I just wish I could get it in my local newsagent. Really pisses me off when you walk in and there are 3/4 publications covering sports like mountain biking, golf and fishing. I know they're popular to be fair, but seeing 7 mags covering weightlifting and one copy of BN or BM is hard to swallow.

It gets harder and harder for independent publishers like us to have a presence on the shelves Hookie, the big outlets like Smiths want to deal with maybe half a dozen publishing houses and freeze out the independents, and the smaller shops, understandably, only want what is ordered or a guaranteed sale. Very frustrating

I can imagine Glyn, some of the shit they have on their shelves.....embarrassing.

Keep plugging away, I'd rather sit with a brew and read a mag than sit reading online articles. I always will......and so will many others.

I've just moved from editing a weekly to the Daily Post. Online content is hugely important but a lot of our readers are a bit older and demand (and they get it) a good quality paper.

I'll look forward to the next edition.