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

[Combat Talk Radio]

If it wasn't for charming, friendly and unjudgmental reporters like Elie Seckbach

You just lost all credibility by praising a clear race-baiter.

We're done.

[eco1]

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

[Holler]

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.

[Eff Pandas]

Why is he too argumentative? He's asking real questions in a non confrontational manner that forces Malik Scott to answer for some of the ****** **** wilder has said

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.

[Holler]

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.

[Damn Wicked]

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?

[CLUE]

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.

[Carpe Diem]

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

[Holler]

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.

[CLUE]

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.