Have you read the editorial in todays boxing news regarding Haye-Harrison? I thought Boxing News was the trade paper for Boxing? No? Then why was the editor waxing non-stop about the Haye-Harrison 'event'? What ****in event was that then? Does calling something an event excuse the magnitude of hollowness that overcame punters on Saturday night? Does it excuse Audley Harrison throwing only one punch in his destiny fight to become a world champion? Does it excuse the disturbing betting claims of Haye after this farce, where he didnt throw a punch until the third round that was bet on? Does calling it an event excuse the disgraceful coverage of the PPV whereby punters on got to see one live undercard fight? Today's Boxing News editorial was dripping with a know-it-all 'I told you so' theme - even though you didnt, well not exactly. Dixon, like others, made it perfectly clear in a prior editorial that he had warmed to Haye-Harrison and essentially liked it. The problem with that is you have to take a position of whether you back the fight or not and then live or die with what unfolds. Trying to palm it off with 'I told you so' guff tells me that he just runs with the popular opinion. Perhaps, this is what made the editor fall into line with the growing pre-fight theme of 'I am starting to like this fight' when he stated it in his editorial and in the aftermath the mantra has been 'if you expected any better - more the fool you are etc'. Sorry, but both arguments don't reconcile, not even with the straw man argument that is attached with the 'event' bull****. On to the free pass afforded to Sky in this shambles - not a word about the PPV presentation and only showing one fight. He assured the readership that Sky will do better - no doubt - effectively becoming a cheerleader. Conveniently, many of the themes from the editorial coincided with that of the guest columinst - and who was that? Mr David Haye himself. On the whole I have enjoyed Boxing News, it has improved its features and is essential reading, but I was aghast at this week's editorial as it has little credibility and appeared like a love-in with Haymaker and Sky. The two fall back positions from experts remain: 1. It was merely an event - not the fight i.e we only backed the event, the fight - wasnt the focus of our good words for Haye-Harrison) 2. If you expected any more from Haye-Harrison then you are deluded, you shouldnt have expected that etc etc.....
Wrong... ...and wrong, but you seem a passionate guy and I don't want to get on your bad side... (hides)
Was Saturday overrall a good or bad night for boxing. Bad. Everyone including myself should admit they were wrong for having enough unwarranted faith in audley for it to be a good enough fight that 'the event' wouldnt be sullied. The problem with the boxing media is there are too many fanboys who don't see the bigger picture. After this will a haye fight against anyone bar a klitschko do better or worse? Does it make the public more or less cynical the next time boxing hypes up a massive fight?
lets face fact. Boxing News no longer represents the hardcore boxing fans opinion. Simular to Bunce they just try and tell us were wrong when they should be getting behind us.
I usually like reading Tris Dixon's page but gasman is right. He did hype Haye v Audley. He said it wouldnt be a major shock if Audley won, Aud has a chance, yatter yatter yatter. Like gasman says they should not come with the 'i told you so' attitude now.
To the guy who thinks we (BN) exist to tell fans they are wrong you must be reading a different mag. We are guided by the fans not solely because we respect our readers - although we do - but also because it makes logical financial sense - producing content readers want in theory increases copy sales. With that in mind, the preview issue with Haye-Audley on the cover and 18 pages inside on that fight, is our biggest selling issue of the year and sold far better than the previous week. The increase was such that it could not be a coincidence. Over 15,000 people attended this fight with an estimated 750,000 paying for the show on TV, plus we received an unprecedented amount of letters regarding the headline fight. People were massively interested in this fight and whether you agree with Tris' column or not you cannot deny the fight deserved the extensive coverage it received. Regarding this week's cover, it was an easy choice - do we go with Haye-Audley which a big audience watched and which almost EVERY boxing fan in the UK was talking about - albeit for the wrong reasons - the next day? Or the Manny fight which had less viewers and - rightly or wrongly - was garnering far less attention among our core readership? we can wait for the sales figures but I think we got it right. I'm more than happy to answer any questions anyone has because we DO listen to the readers - assuming you are still readers. Flex
Sorry but if you look at the front cover of this weeks BN "The Farce Show" - you would expect that this would somehow correspond with the voice of BN inside the pages i.e. editorial. The editors letter begins with unwarranted positive spin "the only way is up" and despite not having a shred of evidence to justify it - we also have the a hightlighted quote "The paying public demands better and will get it". Tell me this what is the EVIDENCE that we will get it? Specifically, in relation to Haye where is the evidence? It is quite plain from last nights Ringside that Booth wants to go ahead with the mandatory of Chagaev - so this spin about things will get better is utter cheerleading for Haye and Sky. Ok, everyone got paid well on the back of the Haye-Harrison event - good for you. But after your role in hyping the crap out of it and supporting it do not expect that anyone will not notice when the editor goes into retreat mode and tries to dust off the hype and bull**** that his magazine profited so well from and supported. To start the editorial with "I realise I am going to be in minority because I cannot be mad about Saturday night" is pretentious (based on the support that BN provided to Haye-Harrison event) and lamentable (showing a disregard for the huge numbers of people that bought a ticket and a PPV). The guest columist from Haye with the headline of "I told you show' merely completed the farcical commentary from BN. And to round-up the defence of the event and try to add more positive spin, the panel were offered the wildly optimistic question of "Are there any positives to take away from the Haye-Harrison fight?".atsch Anyhow I am looking forward to BN's bumper edition on Froch's unprecedented run of 50-50 fights (certainly by a British fighter in the modern era) at world level. There is a real fighter, who gets in the ring backs up his talk by fighting real contenders - that is what boxing is all about, not cooing about 'events' that stink the place out.
Could not agree with this more. I know it's a UK based publication, but come on, Manny was incredible! The performance was up there with Floyd over Gatti and Ali over Williams.
The one thing I thought was that Mr Dixon kept saying he expected it to be a terrible fight, so then why did he shamelessly decide to hype it up by dedicating 18 pages to the preview of this bout. I'd much rather see Mr Dixon admitting he 'sold out' and hyped it up, than trying to cover his tail. Or take a stand to a terrible fight by refusing to cover it.
The cover line reflected the fight report pretty well I thought, rather than the column. You talk about getting better and the Chagaev fight do you honestly believe a Chagaev fight isn't better than Audley? He'\s a former WBA champ who has only lost to a Klitschko outside of Wlad and Vitali it doesn't get much better. We didn't get WELL PAID off it, the magazine sold well and anyone who works in journalism will know that's not often the same thing. We do this job because we love boxing, not to get rich trust me. As for Tris' supposed retreat, I don't think making the case for Audley being competitive was a terrible thing and he certainly was not the only one who thought it. Anyone who writes a preview knows you have to make the case for both men before choosing a fight pattern and victor that you believe in. Tris didn't pick Audley to win or even last beyond the sixth (also claiming a win inside four would not be a shock). Wasn't far wrong was he? Hyping a fight as a big event for British boxing which it undoubtedly was is not the same as claiming it will be a competitive fight or a thriller. So to say the following week that Tris expected a Haye knockout and that the contest was more about the event than the fight itself is not hypocritical, it's virtually what he said the previous week. As for Haye's column we thought readers would like to hear him defend the fight that doesn't mean everyone will like what he said. On the subject of Froch, we've long given him more coverage than any other media outlet but less people far less will watch his fight than Haye-Harrison. I don't like it, it's not at all fair but it's a fact. Froch will be on the front next week but will it outsell Haye-Harrison not a chance because while his fight will be far better, he is nowhere near as well-known, the Abraham fight is on Primetime and Froch has not been publicised as well as Haye and Audley. We can go back and forth all weekend but I understand where you're coming from I just don't agree with your point of view.
Still waiting fir my BN to be delivered....supposed to get it on a Thursday but nothing yet so can not respond on anything about this weeks issue or the editors column.
Haye has had two easy defences, if you are claiming things will get better because Haye will fight Chagaev that is your opinion - I think it is a joke and Haye will continue to be a paper champion until he steps up to face Klitcho brother. Harrison is no yardstick for measuring championship contenders - people want to see the top fights and Haye-Chag isnt one. I agree making the case on paper for Audley to be competitive is not a bad thing, I did it myself (although I did pick Haye to batter Harrison in five rounds). But, that didnt stop me feeling very pissed off at the complete lack of effort on Audley's part especially with all his bull**** hype. I know a lot of respected commentators could see a pattern for Audley causing an upset, although most didnt go as far to predict that it would actually unfold. I cannot understand how anyone can sit ringside at Haye-Harison and claim to not feeling remotely annoyed or pissed off at the feeble showing that took place. Particularly the editor of a publication that claimed to have liked Haye-Harrison when it was announced, and included an 18 page extra suppliment on it. The pretentious/apologist guff coming out from the hype brigade (as I say in my first post there were others) is to make excuses, trying to scratch the bottom of the barrel for positives, looking for an angle to sugar coat the well-polished turd that was Haye-Harrison - rather than robustly call it like it was from the perspective of the paying punter (which is where I was coming from in my posts). Anyway, you are right we will only go back and forth on this - so I will leave it at that.