EDITOR’S LETTER
Why we’re one of the few completely impartial voices in the industry
Why we’re a voice that can be trusted
JUDGING by the reaction on social media to our choice of Anthony Joshua as British Fighter of the Year in last week’s issue, one would think we’d gone all out and given Conor Mcgregor the honour. Of course, we wouldn’t do that because he’s Irish and would not be eligible, and anyway, being toyed with by Floyd Mayweather wasn’t quite enough to merit consideration.
But Joshua’s efforts, even if you felt someone else deserved the award, certainly were. While some grumbled at our failure to put a snap of our International FOY, Srisaket Sor Rungvisai, on the cover, the decision to showcase Joshua in a British magazine, after the year he had, was a no-brainer.
Joshua’s leap in class to Wladimir Klitschko, even the 41-year-old version, from the Briton’s previous three opponents (Charles Martin, Dominic Breazeale and Eric Molina) was far bigger than any other contenders made: Ryan Burnett jumping from European class to Lee Haskins and Zhanat Zhakiyanov – two solid world titlists but far from accomplished at elite level – was impressive but not vast; yes, Billy Joe Saunders dominated David Lemieux on away turf, but a close look at the Canadian’s record and style shows why the WBO 160lbs boss was favourite.
Also consider the manner in which “AJ” rebounded from almost certain disaster to unify two titles against a future Hall of Famer, and getting an entire nation talking about boxing in a way they haven’t since Ricky Hatton’s peak is no small achievement, either.
All that said, Joshua was merely our choice and nobody at Boxing News would abuse anyone who disagreed. Speaking personally, life is too short for such nonsense and I have better things to do with my precious time than argue with nameless strangers on Twitter who claim to know more about everything than everyone.
“Jokers! You bunch of amateurs don’t know anything about boxing!” squealed one troubled soul. “I bet Tyson Fury wasn’t FOY when he beat Klitschko,” said another. “That’s a commercial decision, you should be called Matchroom News,” another snorted (and probably dribbled). And while I’m aware the vast majority probably don’t read Boxing News – you lot are far more intelligent, frankly – it certainly gives me a chance to get some things off my chest.
While the declaration that we’re clueless about boxing, despite immersing ourselves in the sport for a living, is debatable, the growing belief that we didn’t give Fury his due is a blatant untrue. I remember writing several columns championing Tyson after his victory over Klitschko, and of course we named him Fighter of 2015. If we haven’t given Fury much credit recently, that’s simply because he hasn’t fought for two years after being embroiled in charges of taking illegal substances, and not because we ‘prefer’ the current champion.
The accusation that we favour Matchroom, or any promoter, also grates. Upon taking the role of editor almost three years ago, I made a decision to not be too friendly with anyone in the industry because it might affect my ability to do my job correctly, and that – in my mind at least – is to provide an objective voice and honest coverage, both positive and negative, without fear of offending anyone. On these pages I have regularly questioned several of Matchroom’s policies, and recently addressed Team Joshua’s claims that social media messages to Eddie Chambers were supposedly the result of being hacked. Similarly, some recent complaints that we have been singing Frank Warren’s praises too loudly would be passionately contested by the man himself.
Our coverage has to be about the fighters, about playing fair and being treated fairly, and the fans who effectively pay their wages. But trying to please everyone is an exercise that will ultimately please no one, least of all our priority at all times: you, the reader.
In short, question Boxing News’ opinion by all means, but our integrity is not up for debate.