Why isnt Froch bigger in Britain?

Bit of a nothing article really, tells us nothing we didn't already knew. And a shocking use of the word 'tragic' there. First rule of journalism is something is only a tragedy if somebody dies or is seriously, seriously injured.

Unfortunately there have been far too many tragedies in boxing over the years, and while it is a shame Froch isn't more well-known, it is far from tragic, and ridiculous to call it so. Somebody on boxing news needs to do a better job of checking articles.

 

So would you take umbrage with a report that called the Eubank-Watson fight tragic? Or Benn-McLellan? I think these are situations that the use of the word tragic is justified.

I am honestly curious as to where you heard this "first rule of journalism". Are you a student of journalism?

 

Ok, I see you edited the post, fair enough. But also tragic is how many boxer's lives turn out after the finish fighting. I think you're being too limited in your use of the word.

 

His constant commenting on Calzaghe maybe had something to do with it.

 

You know, those fights were going through my mind as I typed that response, and was wondering whether or not to add "or seriously, seriously injured" I left it out in the end obut edited it back in. To be honest I would conside the injuries suffered by Watson and McLellan to be tragic, but at the time of the fight you wouldn't neccesarily report "Tragic conclusion to Eubank v Watson fight" as it would assume that one of the fighters had died. However, once it had been established what had happened, and the consequences, it would be applicable to refer to them as tragedies from a journalistic perspective. It's a tricky one, and I would say for the most part-bar exceptions like the fights you mentioned-you only refer to a tragedy if somebody has died.

Either way, the fact Froch is fighting in front of a die-hard audience on an obscure PPV channel is absolutely nowhere near a tragedy.

Somebody on some website I can't remember wrote an article recently about the tragedy of no boxing on terrestrial TV, or something like that. I brought it up with the editor who promoted the article on boxrec and he defended the writer's usage of it, which I thought was ridiculous.

And yes, I am a 'student of journalism', and it was literally one of the first things they told us when I started my degree. Every newspaper or broadcast outlet I have done work for has agreed with this point of view, so I am surprised when so many jobbing journalists resort to using it on poorly subedited websites in order to get work published.

Apologies for the essay of a post, but I hope you've got my point.

 

That's a very one-dimensional definition of 'tragic.' Yes, in a news story it would be off to call something 'tragic' if the consequences were not very serious because if people do not know what has happened then as you say, they would fear the worst at the ring of the word 'tragic.'

However, in a more circumspect comment piece where obviously everybody knows there was no massive calamity with Froch-Abraham you can surely use 'tragic' in its more literary sense. I don't see a problem with it. It strikes me as the difference between broadcast journalism and more literary journalism.

 

Yeah, travesty would be a better word for the TV situation, not tragedy for sure.

That's all fair enough. I agree with sloppy and lazy editing, one of my major gripes. There have been several times I have pointed out simple yet clear mistakes to editors on some sites. A bit of pride in your work never goes amiss.

In fact it's only a few days ago I brought it to the attention of the BN website that their caption was wrong.

Anone? I think it should be anyone. That's minor, fair enough. But the article makes no mention to him beating Barnes at all. In fact I don't think he did beat him. He boxed him - yes. Beat him? Don't think so. Butcher says if he got Barnes again, he reckons he could beat him so surely he lost 1st time out...?

 

Exactly, the clue is in the word "promoter". He happens to be ****ing crap at it.

 

but they should show the best of British Boxing ...not showing a British World Champion dont make sense..

 

Sorry, I see your point but I have to disagree with you. A last minute defeat in a football matchcertainly isn't a tragedy, a disappointing KO in a fight isn't a tragedy, and there is no way in a million years, comment piece or not, that Froch's lack of exposure could be considered tragic. It might be a very one-dimensional view of it, but 'tragedy' has a very narrow meaning.

As CDM says, travesty would be a much better choice of wordage.

 

Does he talk about Calzaghe any more?

 

Cos he doesnt come across very well imo. And obviously cos hes not on sky thanks to that cowboy hennessy

 

I think Froch comes across really well he seems intelligent, witty, says things how he sees them, doesnt duck anyone, nearly always in exciting fights and holds the WBC world title it really is amazing he isnt more well known. If anyone deserves a big deal with Sky the cobra does.