Frank Warren not happy with Dave Coldwell

Nothing is being misconstrued. In the weeks building up to to the Haye vs Harrison fight Boxing News and Sky Sports monthly could have been the same magazine. Tris Dixons support of the fight was paticuarly nauseating. and when Booth has been interviewed since he has not been questioned on why he made that fight despite the comments he made before hand.

 

They backed the fight because it made them money. I'm pretty sure someone said it was their biggest selling issue of the year. Money talks.

 

warren is a fat puff who needs a good slap

 

We highlighted the fight's value as an event which appealed beyond the boxing hardcore, an opinion vindicated by the impressive sales figures if the preview issue with extra pagination. We never said Audley deserved the shot, that the fight itself would be any good or that Harrison had a great chance. In fact Tris' preview prediction was pretty accurate. Many of the people who feel we should have been more critical probably bought the event and the mag. It's all about opinions

 

Haye and Booth's motives needed to be questioned. They have continually lied and and make false promises to the hardcore boxing fan that followed him from day 1 and will still follow him in years to come when he has blown all his money or cars and women. Boxing News as the voice of the fans should have been the one to do it but as I have said its not anymore.

Your right, it all about opinions, but Boxing News is the opposite to most fans and publications outside of the UK who see Haye for what he is.

 

I would suggest that while they may all be right (even Rafael?) as a UK-based publication we have greater access to Haye and his team than they do and get to hear their side of the story. As for being the voice of the fans, I think that's tougher than it sounds as fans have widely diverse opnions. Take the Warren criticism I made and subsequent banning. I felt I was representing the fans in highlighting what I believed represented a lack of value for money and indeed many agreed. But a significant minority felt the criticism was unecessary and even more went against us when we did not cover the next Warren show - believing I imagine that a principled stand was admirable but not once it affects our thirst for fight reports. Basically you cannot please all of the people all of the time. We highlight the issues we believe are important to the fans - we are all long-time fans ourselves don't forget - and hope we strike a chord with our readership. The best indicator of how successful we are in this pursuit comes in the form of sales figures and web stats both of which are doing well right now. And specifically regarding Haye not only did the preview issue sell very well we received very few letters criticising our stance on the fight.

 

Whole episode does make Boxing News look Mickey Mouse. Is hard for guys in 20s/30s to lead British boxing's voice but need to be seen to have some balls and not be fanboys which I think they are particularly guilty of with Haye.
Can't imagine Harry Mullan kowtowing in the same way.

 

Ah, there's nothing like a reasoned and balanced argument and that's what this is... Notghing like one . And age has little to do with it - Claude was around Tris' age when he became editor. It's more personal style - Harry was superb and a one-off but that doesn't make his way the only way. You will find plenty of bite in BN, especially now with the changes instigated by Tris to broaden the Comment section. Just because you believe we have not been sufficiently critical of Haye does not mean we lack moral courage or, as you so eloquently described it, balls.

 

Rafael goes over the top. It would be intresting if you could try and get an interview with him to find out why his opinion is so one sided. Or how about an article on how the respect level among the hardcore fans for Haye has diminished dramaticly in the last year.

Having greater access to Hayes team just means you have greater access to the BS they put out.

Booth and Haye have allot to answer for and Boxing News should be the ones asking those questions. It seems they have the head to far up there ass to ask them. Its clear when you go through this thread others agree.

• Why did Booth continually say Haye would not fight Audley Harrison and then make the fight?
• Why has Booth never returned any of Adamek's promoters phone calls?
• Why have the undercards for Hayes last 2 shows been so poor?
• Why did Haye turn down the exact same offer he was willing to accept for the July 2nd fight earliar in 2010 to fight Harrison?
• Why hasn't Haye backed up his bold claims he made prior to entering the division?

People want a different stance. These questions need to be answerd. When Haye and Booth start talking bull **** the boxing media just let it slide. its beyond a joke.

 

all valid points but you are something off a one-issue candidate lol, this thread isn't even about Haye. Pm me and Il answer all those points

 

Fair play to Danny for coming on here and explaining things, at least that shows he (Boxing News) are interested in hearing a fans perspective - so it is a bit unfair to accuse them of totally abandoning the fans views. They also publish a letters page in every issue and regularly publish fans critical views on some of their articles and stances etc.

However, the week after the Haye-Harrison fight, I expected the editorial to lament the ridiculous lack of coverage from the rest of the card. For a PPV, we only got one live under card fight (a great fight too) and that was an absolute disgrace. I was really looking forward to Hall-Davies and we never got to see that British Title fight live. There was no mention of this. Instead, it was largely a damage-limitation defensive piece imo, that took the populist line that 'if you expected haye-harrison to be a great fight - then that is your fault etc'.


My pennys worth on the Coldwell article is that Warren should not have been allowed a right to reply for an opinion piece. He is far too sensitive, and you would think with his experience he would learn to live with an other viewpoints. As pointed out by someone else, it is one way traffic with Warren - he doesnt appear to offer the same right to reply privilege in his Sun column.

 

I agree that the line of questioning should be more aggressive, but realistically Haye is the most popular boxer in the country at present, as reflected by the above average sales of issues with him featured. BN will criticize him, but when his fans buy the magazine to read about him, is this what they really want?
BN has to strike a balance between it's regular and casual readers, like any popular publication.

 

Agree with all this.

Boxing News is a fans magazine, not a tool for people like Haye to use to peddle their bull****/excuses/propaganda.

If fighters and promoters aren't doing it, the writers should be calling them out on it.

Rugby League World criticises coaches, commentators and television companies, Wisden Cricketer does much the same.

Boxing News could learn a lot from this, as could Boxing Monthly too.

 

Agree with most of this mate. Gasman v.good at summing it up.

 

Thats how Booth uses it. Even Sky Sports are more critical.