Investigative boxing journalism

[dan-b]

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.

[jqSide]

True investigative reporting means you're on your own and never be too close to any fighter, promoter, or any boxing entity. Meaning, if you're too negative, you run the risk of not being invited in any press conferences, or might get banned entirely. So it's not easy to be on your own trying to piece things together.

[dan-b]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT - help me out here. Any real journalists in boxing or are we doomed to talk about Hearn and Wilder's 50 gorillion forevermore?

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

RJJ-94-02=GOAT - help me out here. Any real journalists in boxing or are we doomed to talk about Hearn and Wilder's 50 gorillion forevermore?

There’s not much. I think the biggest problem with the boxing media is they rely on access to the fighters/promoters so are afraid to ask tough questions and risk upsetting the hands that feed them essentially.

I’ve noticed that a lot of “journalists” focus more on being first than being right these days as well. It’s more about the clicks and views than actually producing a factual report.

There are a few exceptions, like the old school boxing writers like Hart or Powell in this country or Hauser in the states. There was some young British boxing writer too who recently wrote an article essentially outlining what you have in this thread, I’ve forgotten his name though. Was really refreshing to see it coming from a younger writer.

[QueensburyRules]

True investigative reporting means you're on your own and never be too close to any fighter, promoter, or any boxing entity. Meaning, if you're too negative, you run the risk of not being invited in any press conferences, or might get banned entirely. So it's not easy to be on your own trying to piece things together.

- - Might also get beat up!

[Zaroku]

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.

Nice thread bro!

[Tatabanya]

To my aging memory, the best investigative journalist in boxing was the late Jim Brady. If you never read it, his book Boxing Confidential: Power, Corruption and the Richest Prize in Sport is a treasure trove of materials concerning the issues you mentioned.

[rickJen]

We can't even have anything substantial on where PBC is going.
(I'm not too familiar with the UK scenario, so...)

[Eff Pandas]

Are there NFL or NBA investigative journalists?

I think this might be too deep of a hole for a sport to cover & very limited upside to monetize the idea which is most ppls endgame. I would agree there is room for a person who does this type of work in a multitude of worlds/professions to do so in boxing cuz there is a wealth of corruption & sketchiness in boxing to deep dive into & expose.

[661averagejoe]

Are there NFL or NBA investigative journalists?

I think this might be too deep of a hole for a sport to cover & very limited upside to monetize the idea which is most ppls endgame. I would agree there is room for a person who does this type of work in a multitude of worlds/professions to do so in boxing cuz there is a wealth of corruption & sketchiness in boxing to deep dive into & expose.

ESPN has shefter and woj they alway have inside info on teams and players