Radio Rahim- Salute for asking the real Wilder question (interview)

Some fighters only want an echo chamber. They only sit with guys who always agree with them and big them up. Crawford's one, Wilder's one, the Charlos, Teofimo, etc. You pinpointed the fighters that are the main culprits, especially Wilder.

I feel that Deontay has answered all the questions that needed to be answered, over a month ago. The critics, notably old-media may have not been satisfied with the platform in which these questions were addressed ( the LDBC, ESNEWS, PBC etc. ), or who asked the questions. It must eat at Radio Raheem that Fred the 'Barber' can do a better job than a so called 'professional' 'journalist'. If it wasn't for charming, friendly and unjudgmental reporters like Elie Seckbach, the boxingscene would not have anything to write about, as far as Deontay Wilder is concern. If these boxing forums depended on Radio Raheem, they be out of business. But he clearly didn't do a better job than RR because he didn't ask those questions :lol1: and that's why he has a shitty little channel that no one watches.

This always seems like a weird way to look at it to me. Like its not investigative journalism we are doing here. Its a guy living in his moms basement half the time asking a pro boxer a lame ass question he's been asked 50 times in the last week probably. Granted Radio is a higher caliber guy with higher level questions & probably doesn't live in his moms basement anymore, but idk that the goal should be to try to start a argument with everyone you interview. I also don't like the softball questions, but I think there is a middle ground one would rather find that makes them look good & the interviewee look good. Its not really a combative thing. And I actually thought Malik turned it around on him by answering yes or no towards the end. Plus it seemed like they both had fun with it in the end so its probably a whatever thing wherever you land on argumentative interviews. Instead of asking fighters/their teams real questions about the insane allegations they've constantly done over the past 18 months whilst refusing interviews in that same time period, we should just accept a 'yo how's camp man, deontay looking sharp to smash fury' :lol1: ? That's some elie seckbach shit right there. I don't roll with that.

No, that would be a stupid question. I have never agreed with any of the dumb stuff Wilder has been saying when it comes to what happened that night. Thats the sort of question he has been asked since he came back. He has been giving this sort of answers to dumb interviewers like this. They have been very careful with who he gets interviewed by, because as seen here, he would be asked those tough questions that the real fans wants answers to. All of those things that he said, the trainer spike his water, the referee was a crab in the bucket, gloves had egg weights, costume (Which his interviewer fans denied until Kevin Iole released the tapes of him saying it), he confirming he TOOK LESS MONEY to fight Fury when he had better offers to fight Joshua on the table.. Those were the things he would have been asked, but I don’t feel sorry for his yes men like Scott, the same guy who took a dive for him in their fight. If anyone cannot see that Wilder needs help and he isn’t helping himself if the people he has around him then they are not helping his well-being at all. Saying the interviewers are “Argumentative” is purely laughable, if you don’t say ridiculous things then you wouldn’t give them any ammunition for them to ask you leading questions.

He was clearly trying to be argumentative, you saw it on the dumb back and forth they had about decapitating Fury. You do get that talk of decapitating an opponent is, in and of itself, exceptionally dumb? That's the point Raheem was making. There would be no dumb back and forth if Scott could simply say 'That's Deontay's way of talking, personally I wouldn't have put it that way myself, but I back my guy and you'll see him beat Fury on 24th' As I said above, the problems in this came from Scott being forced to defend the words of his fighter, because said fighter was nowhere to be seen when it came to fulfilling his responsibilities to the promotion. It's astonishing to me that even after Wilder is rude to the comperes and blanks the media that people are then complaining when his trainer is asked a couple of non softball questions. These are supposed to be grown men remember. Actual adult males. Warriors even! Are they not even able to withstand a semi tough question any more? Wilder has made statements about snakes (plural) in his team. He fired Breland for allegedly spiking his water and removed Jay Deas as head coach, blaming Deas's inexperience, and racial prejudice on the part other unnamed people, for Fury being allowed to fight with egg weights in his gloves. Scott was a background member of Wilder's team while all these alleged shenanigans were supposed to have been going on. Now Wilder has made him head coach in place of Deas. Damned right that puts Scott in an awkward position! Exactly. None of this is of Malik's making, but on the shameful treatment of Mark Breland in particular, it's fair to ask the question and see if he's man enough to distance himself from his employers actions. That question has been answered in the negative. Rahim asked the questions that everyone following the Wilder/Fury saga wants answers to. Everything has consequences, and one of the consequences of a high profile sports personality making allegations of cheating by his opponent, treachery by his coach, and racial prejudice by other unnamed persons, is that journalists are going to try to find out what the hell has been going on. It's bizarre to me that some don't seem to want those questions answered. Like Wilder is a little baby that mustn't be upset or he'll throw a temper tantrum, instead of a grown man that can't take responsibility for his own actions and whose response to adversity is to look for someone to throw under the bus.

Just watched the interview. No idea why Malik is in this position. Seems like they truly believe that if you take away drugged water, heavy suits and egg weights that they'll win. ​​​​​Wilder's found the only guy that says he believes him and has made him his head trainer.

They want questions like “They did you dirty champ?” Yeah Yeah yeah… we all know about that right? Is that even!!!! I don’t even know what to say :rolleyes: No, that would be a stupid question. I have never agreed with any of the dumb stuff Wilder has been saying when it comes to what happened that night.

Radio Rahim is a clown when he wants to be one and this was one of those interviews, and I only say that because he is purposely attempts to start arguments. Hard questions is not the issue. The issue is he ask leading questions attempting to get negative or augmentative answers. He does it the very first two questions. "Things must of been awkward with you being the lead trainer", instead of saying 'How is it being the new trainer" then the next question... "Wilder blamed his Camp", no he did not and Rahim knows this, he had issues with one guy. Those are loaded question ment to start arguments. Then after Scott answers the second question about the problems with Breland not being on his mind, what is Rahim response? "It's not on your mind, so you say" said in a way to question if Scott is telling the truth about how he feels. Wilder has made statements about snakes (plural) in his team. He fired Breland for allegedly spiking his water and removed Jay Deas as head coach, blaming Deas's inexperience, and racial prejudice on the part other unnamed people, for Fury being allowed to fight with egg weights in his gloves. Scott was a background member of Wilder's team while all these alleged shenanigans were supposed to have been going on. Now Wilder has made him head coach in place of Deas. Damned right that puts Scott in an awkward position! Rahim asked the questions that everyone following the Wilder/Fury saga wants answers to. Everything has consequences, and one of the consequences of a high profile sports personality making allegations of cheating by his opponent, treachery by his coach, and racial prejudice by other unnamed persons, is that journalists are going to try to find out what the hell has been going on.

They probably cursed him out after the interview. Wilder is living in his own little bubble world. They would revolve his interview privileges like they try to do with Paulie when he claimed that Fury won the first fight. They literally want to live in a bubble, a bubble created for the fragile minds. I mean look at people saying this are “Argumentative questions” nope they aren’t, they are questions that were put out their by Wilder words and behaviour over the last 16 months. Hence why he is avoiding the real media and getting interviewed by those stans like Elie

I don't think you're representing his questions accurately. He starts by congratulating Scott, but drawing attention to his prior involvement with the team and asking if it was awkward for him to then be head trainer specifically in relation to Mark Breland. That's a legitimate question given Wilder has thrown Breland under the bus and Scott had been there during that time. Scott tried to answer his question by answering another one, a classic politician's trick. He starts rambling about his relationship with Wilder as a brother and a trainer and looks to deflect the Breland aspect. Raheem picks him up on it, as he should. Is this something that team Wilder want to go anywhere near? No, of course its not. Should they then get a free pass and it not be mentioned? No, of course they shouldn't, unless you want to watch a cheerleading session? Later on Raheem makes the point when Scott tries to talk about 'a bad day at the office' that it's not the media that's at fault for the negative press after the second fight. It was Deontay Wilder that threw his trainer under the bus, that talked of tainted water, heavy costumes, refereeing, injuries, dodgy gloves etc. Some of that isn't in Breland's purview by the way, he doesn't ok the ridiculous headdress for instance. So Wilder did blame his camp along with his opponent and the ref and seemingly anyone other than himself. He does add the 'so you say' to indicate he's not convinced, but he accepts the answer and moves on. As it happens I wasn't convinced either and I'll bet if you were honest neither were you because anyone with a brain can understand that Scott is in impossible position trying to pick up the pieces from some badly handled business that wasn't of his doing. As it happens he did an ok job and they parted on good terms. This wasn't a hostile interview by any means, it just wasn't a complete softball waste of everyone's time like so many seem to want to watch. They want questions like “They did you dirty champ?” Yeah Yeah yeah… we all know about that right? Is that even!!!! I don’t even know what to say :rolleyes:

I do think he’s confrontational. That’s the problem. I’ve seen him overstep the mark on a few of his interviews. When you asked the real tough questions, it can be seen as confrontational. The issue with boxing is asslickers who are just fanboi or stans. I mean Elie sechback is meant to be an interviewer, but what do we really get from his interviews? Nothing…

I don't think you're representing his questions accurately. He starts by congratulating Scott, but drawing attention to his prior involvement with the team and asking if it was awkward for him to then be head trainer specifically in relation to Mark Breland. That's a legitimate question given Wilder has thrown Breland under the bus and Scott had been there during that time. Scott tried to answer his question by answering another one, a classic politician's trick. He starts rambling about his relationship with Wilder as a brother and a trainer and looks to deflect the Breland aspect. Raheem picks him up on it, as he should. Is this something that team Wilder want to go anywhere near? No, of course its not. Should they then get a free pass and it not be mentioned? No, of course they shouldn't, unless you want to watch a cheerleading session? Later on Raheem makes the point when Scott tries to talk about 'a bad day at the office' that it's not the media that's at fault for the negative press after the second fight. It was Deontay Wilder that threw his trainer under the bus, that talked of tainted water, heavy costumes, refereeing, injuries, dodgy gloves etc. Some of that isn't in Breland's purview by the way, he doesn't ok the ridiculous headdress for instance. So Wilder did blame his camp along with his opponent and the ref and seemingly anyone other than himself. He does add the 'so you say' to indicate he's not convinced, but he accepts the answer and moves on. As it happens I wasn't convinced either and I'll bet if you were honest neither were you because anyone with a brain can understand that Scott is in impossible position trying to pick up the pieces from some badly handled business that wasn't of his doing. As it happens he did an ok job and they parted on good terms. This wasn't a hostile interview by any means, it just wasn't a complete softball waste of everyone's time like so many seem to want to watch. He was clearly trying to be argumentative, you saw it on the dumb back and forth they had about decapitating Fury.

Radio Rahim is a clown when he wants to be one and this was one of those interviews, and I only say that because he is purposely attempts to start arguments. Hard questions is not the issue. The issue is he ask leading questions attempting to get negative or augmentative answers. He does it the very first two questions. "Things must of been awkward with you being the lead trainer", instead of saying 'How is it being the new trainer" then the next question... "Wilder blamed his Camp", no he did not and Rahim knows this, he had issues with one guy. Those are loaded question ment to start arguments. Then after Scott answers the second question about the problems with Breland not being on his mind, what is Rahim response? "It's not on your mind, so you say" said in a way to question if Scott is telling the truth about how he feels. I don't think you're representing his questions accurately. He starts by congratulating Scott, but drawing attention to his prior involvement with the team and asking if it was awkward for him to then be head trainer specifically in relation to Mark Breland. That's a legitimate question given Wilder has thrown Breland under the bus and Scott had been there during that time. Scott tried to answer his question by answering another one, a classic politician's trick. He starts rambling about his relationship with Wilder as a brother and a trainer and looks to deflect the Breland aspect. Raheem picks him up on it, as he should. Is this something that team Wilder want to go anywhere near? No, of course its not. Should they then get a free pass and it not be mentioned? No, of course they shouldn't, unless you want to watch a cheerleading session? Later on Raheem makes the point when Scott tries to talk about 'a bad day at the office' that it's not the media that's at fault for the negative press after the second fight. It was Deontay Wilder that threw his trainer under the bus, that talked of tainted water, heavy costumes, refereeing, injuries, dodgy gloves etc. Some of that isn't in Breland's purview by the way, he doesn't ok the ridiculous headdress for instance. So Wilder did blame his camp along with his opponent and the ref and seemingly anyone other than himself. He does add the 'so you say' to indicate he's not convinced, but he accepts the answer and moves on. As it happens I wasn't convinced either and I'll bet if you were honest neither were you because anyone with a brain can understand that Scott is in impossible position trying to pick up the pieces from some badly handled business that wasn't of his doing. As it happens he did an ok job and they parted on good terms. This wasn't a hostile interview by any means, it just wasn't a complete softball waste of everyone's time like so many seem to want to watch.

They probably cursed him out after the interview. Wilder is living in his own little bubble world.

Radio Rahim is a clown when he wants to be one and this was one of those interviews, and I only say that because he is purposely attempts to start arguments. Hard questions is not the issue. The issue is he ask leading questions attempting to get negative or augmentative answers. He does it the very first two questions. "Things must of been awkward with you being the lead trainer", instead of saying 'How is it being the new trainer" then the next question... "Wilder blamed his Camp", no he did not and Rahim knows this, he had issues with one guy. Those are loaded question ment to start arguments. Then after Scott answers the second question about the problems with Breland not being on his mind, what is Rahim response? "It's not on your mind, so you say" said in a way to question if Scott is telling the truth about how he feels.

I can’t think of another boxing reporter/ interviewer that is better than Raheem. I’ve always found him to be intelligent and professional. I might have some bias because I like his personality and style, but I’m having difficulty finding fault with his questions directed at Malick. It seemed to me that Malick Scott was trying to avoid any meaningful, direct answers and he was being a little combative with Raheem. Does Wilder and his camp have some grievance with Raheem? I remember Wilder being very aggressive towards him in a past interview. It looked like Wilder wanted to knock his head off. I also seem to remember Virgil Hunter being really disrespectful to Raheem in an interview. Maybe I they have a bad history with the guy but I don’t think that’s the problem…Can anyone shed some light on this? From my perspective it just looks like Raheem is doing a great job and some of these fighters and trainers got a chip up their ass because they can’t handle his questions or they’re threatened by him because he’s smarter than them. Who knows?

This always seems like a weird way to look at it to me. Like its not investigative journalism we are doing here. Its a guy living in his moms basement half the time asking a pro boxer a lame ass question he's been asked 50 times in the last week probably. Granted Radio is a higher caliber guy with higher level questions & probably doesn't live in his moms basement anymore, but idk that the goal should be to try to start a argument with everyone you interview. I also don't like the softball questions, but I think there is a middle ground one would rather find that makes them look good & the interviewee look good. Its not really a combative thing. And I actually thought Malik turned it around on him by answering yes or no towards the end. Plus it seemed like they both had fun with it in the end so its probably a whatever thing wherever you land on argumentative interviews. The fighters and their teams want a PR experience that makes them look like fantastic professionals and the journalists want (or damn well should) to get the real answers to the difficult questions that their viewers want (or damn well should) them to ask. That's the game. These guys are attending a press conference and they're gaining privileged access to the fighter and his team in the time allotted to press. If you're the guy with the microphone you have a choice, either ask the lame ass questions everyone else did or do your homework, grow a set of balls and act like the journalist you're supposed to be. Raheem chooses the latter and he consistently comes up with entertaining and informative interviews which draw more out of their subject than they would otherwise wanted to have given. If anyone is uncomfortable watching people getting challenged on their words and actions they should find one of those softball channels that blow smoke up the ass of fighters or even better, just go to the promoters website or social channels and read what their PR team have put out about them. The rest of us should be supporting the likes of Radio Raheem who are taking their role in this seriously and putting the effort in to do a good job.

And it's not like this is the only time Raheem has done it. I called out in 2019 when Raheem hit Crawford with the tough questions too and celebrated it then - Crawford basically saying he's happy never to fight big names, he's already been unified and Raheem is like "yeah but not at welterweight doe". He's the ONLY legit interviewer left in the business. Sadly I think you may be right. Although in the UK I'd give an honourable mention to Rob Tebbut from Boxing Social who is a cut above IFL and their assorted imitators. Raheem is a sharp guy, quick to follow a line of questioning and smart enough not to let his own ego get in the way. I'd not be surprised if he's not headed for bigger things someday.

When you need to tell the interviewer that your fighter is mentally strong 5 times in the first 2 minutes of the interview , you know you are royalty fu cked

An you just wanting soft touch questions is exactly why Wilder's in this situation, why Manny lost to Floyd and Horn, why Crawford can't get big fights, why Gary Russell Jr. remains inactive, etc. ​​​​​​ I feel that Deontay has answered all the questions that needed to be answered, over a month ago. The critics, notably old-media may have not been satisfied with the platform in which these questions were addressed ( the LDBC, ESNEWS, PBC etc. ), or who asked the questions. It must eat at Radio Raheem that Fred the 'Barber' can do a better job than a so called 'professional' 'journalist'. If it wasn't for charming, friendly and unjudgmental reporters like Elie Seckbach, the boxingscene would not have anything to write about, as far as Deontay Wilder is concern. If these boxing forums depended on Radio Raheem, they be out of business.