Tweet
As I see it, boxing media is saturated in the three following categories.
Interview channels
iFL TV, Elie Seckbach, Michelle Joy Phelps are prominent examples. The questioning varies in quality and relevance. It will often just involve relating a comment from a rival to the interviewee and recording a reaction. The video is then given a title like "Eddie Hearn RAW on Frank Warren's choice of cologne".
Some interesting information is occasionally drawn out by these channels but it's not in any way systematic. It's often content for content's sake.
Talking heads
A group of three or four heads (one of whom is often Paulie Malignaggi) are brought together to discuss a subject. It's often pure speculation based on nothing. Like one I saw about a supposed Canelo - Munguia fight based on "our sources out of Mexico".
I see very little value in this content and find a lot of it cringe because boxing media is replete with poor orators.
Lone opinion channels
Rummy and Hatman Strikes Back are examples. They often pull together a graphic or short sequence of videos and give their opinion in a narrative style. Obviously for anyone to be successful in this space they need to be a good speaker.
I can occasionally find some entertainment in this type of content on the eve of a big fight. Hatman responding to every Fury pronouncement is tedious in the extreme, though.
Absent from all of the above is any true investigative journalism. UK weekly Boxing News will occasionally put together an investigative piece based on some documents obtained from relevant parties (e.g. the BBBofC). ESPN are known to do similar in the US sometimes. Not enough resources are put towards this type of journalism, either because they're not available or commercial decisions have been made to favour clickbait/engagement harvesting type content.
Boxing is a sport ripe to be investigated. Commissions, sanctioning bodies and doping agencies all have documentary evidence which could in theory be obtained via Freedom of Information (or equivalent) requests. The sanctioning bodies, being my bete noire, are in desperate need of being held to account and a few dogged investigative journalists could achieve this.
If you're aware of anyone doing this valuable, if not glamorous or profitable, work please name check them in the comments.
Interview channels
iFL TV, Elie Seckbach, Michelle Joy Phelps are prominent examples. The questioning varies in quality and relevance. It will often just involve relating a comment from a rival to the interviewee and recording a reaction. The video is then given a title like "Eddie Hearn RAW on Frank Warren's choice of cologne".
Some interesting information is occasionally drawn out by these channels but it's not in any way systematic. It's often content for content's sake.
Talking heads
A group of three or four heads (one of whom is often Paulie Malignaggi) are brought together to discuss a subject. It's often pure speculation based on nothing. Like one I saw about a supposed Canelo - Munguia fight based on "our sources out of Mexico".
I see very little value in this content and find a lot of it cringe because boxing media is replete with poor orators.
Lone opinion channels
Rummy and Hatman Strikes Back are examples. They often pull together a graphic or short sequence of videos and give their opinion in a narrative style. Obviously for anyone to be successful in this space they need to be a good speaker.
I can occasionally find some entertainment in this type of content on the eve of a big fight. Hatman responding to every Fury pronouncement is tedious in the extreme, though.
Absent from all of the above is any true investigative journalism. UK weekly Boxing News will occasionally put together an investigative piece based on some documents obtained from relevant parties (e.g. the BBBofC). ESPN are known to do similar in the US sometimes. Not enough resources are put towards this type of journalism, either because they're not available or commercial decisions have been made to favour clickbait/engagement harvesting type content.
Boxing is a sport ripe to be investigated. Commissions, sanctioning bodies and doping agencies all have documentary evidence which could in theory be obtained via Freedom of Information (or equivalent) requests. The sanctioning bodies, being my bete noire, are in desperate need of being held to account and a few dogged investigative journalists could achieve this.
If you're aware of anyone doing this valuable, if not glamorous or profitable, work please name check them in the comments.
Comment