The Wonderful World of YouTube Boxing Media

The Wonderful World of YouTube Boxing Media

A thought-provoking article written by Elliot Worsell in Boxing News opened up much debate about the new digital media that is currently engulfing boxing and has changed the media landscape within the sport. Titled: ‘How the grooming of new media has helped facilitate an abuse of power in boxing.’ Worsell didn’t just dip his toe into the subject. He dived face-first into it.

‘It has become a mess of boxers and promoters being harassed by grateful fans with an ability to press “record” and “stop” but largely lacking any ability to get to the truth of the matter.’ Worsell wrote on April 7th. Many agreed with much of what was written. Others were insulted. Agree or not, it most certainly opened up a line of debate. Of that, there is no debate.

I am part of that world. A non-paid-up addition to that band of unlicensed renegades. At least to a point. I am a member of that new digital media world. I have resisted the YouTube route, I don’t believe I can add anything different to that genre. I am old school, I write, to what level is for others to decide. I am on the wrong side of life. I can remember Muhammad Ali in his decline and Sugar Ray Leonard in his prime. I turn up at a show, look around press row, and see the media section swamped with people who still have their youth. I might not yet feel like one-half of Statler and Waldorf, but I’m getting there. Give it a few weeks, and I will be there. The Muppet reference might be lost on some, but it highlights when my actual prime was. There was no Love Island for me, I had The Sweeney and Minder for company. Google it, kids.

I started my ‘media’ run in 2015, I stumbled into it, and I have fumbled around it ever since. I have contributed to outlets like Behind The Gloves, Boxing Social, and now Boxing News. But I mainly reside right here in my own outlet. Do I consider myself a journalist? Not really. I do think if you want to have a grand title like that, you have to earn it through qualifications. You can’t watch a couple of episodes of Casualty and then rock up at your local hospital with a First Aid Kit and start sowing severed arms back on. It is an extreme comparison, I know, but journalism is a trade, and one that everyone can now seemingly slip and slide into it. Buy a camera, start a blog, and you are in. I am one of them. Guilty as charged. There are exceptions to every rule I know. More on that a little later.

The YouTube world isn’t my world. I think like the sport of boxing itself, it has become oversaturated. There are hidden gems, but the quality is genuinely mixed at best. Everyone is after the same content. Everyone asks the same questions. There is little variety. You can watch thirty Eddie Hearn interviews, all but a handful of them will be more or less the same. I tend to seek out the one that dares to be different.

The rush and need for clicks generate misleading headlines. But they serve a purpose, but I do wonder to what extent. Do they really promote the show? Do they encourage potential punters to watch or buy a ticket? To a degree, I would say yes. But I do think now, in most cases, it is more about promoting the outlet or the person behind the camera rather than the show. I think the outlet needs the show, more than the show needs them. There are exceptions remember.

Craig Scott, the great Scottish wordsmith, his words not mine, is currently causing havoc every Monday evening. (Contaminated) Food For Thought is the name. Boxing Zombie is the home. Boxing dreads that 7:30 evening time slot. Will they be the victims this week? Most in the sport make time to read, including a few solicitors, no doubt. It really is quite wonderful stuff. And in a rarity for the sport, it truly justifies ‘brutally honest.’ Mr Scott even referenced Brookside in one edition. That alone deserves attention. And respect. He’s obviously too young to reference Dennis Waterman and John Thaw.

Scott can write and to an exceptionally high standard. My words, not his. He is one of the exceptions. Scott has no journalistic qualifications. In truth, he doesn’t need them. His work can be found on Boxing Social, Boxing Monthly, Boxing News, and anyone else who can afford him. But his greatest moment so far in his career is undoubtedly his one solitary previous appearance on FightPost. When one becomes two. I have remortgaged the house, and a one-article deal has been secured. Mr Scott, the biggest free agent in the sport, is back.

Scott has very kindly donated his time, for a hefty fee, of course, none of which is earmarked for his favourite charity, the search for Jimmy Corkhill goes on severely underfunded, to delve into the wonderful world of YouTube boxing media.

It is too easy to critique the new breed of boxing media harshly. There are faults and plenty of them, but they offer coverage of the sport not previously seen. The print media are rarely seen, except for the big nights, and when they do show, some of the digital media who are there week in and week out are ungraciously pushed to one side. I understand why, but despair at the same time.

In his May 15th menu of hard truths, Scott wrote:

‘I don’t have a degree in journalism, and I’ve never referred to myself as a journalist – I’m gate crashing, respectfully. A lot of us are. And as a result of that, a lot of us aren’t up to their standard and are stealing time and views from industry experts who’ve dedicated years of their lives to doing this properly and impartially. We need to be comfortable with that – it’s fine. Creating those opportunities, kicking the door down without credentials, or permission is an art in itself.’

The words are difficult to argue with. I am not sure if I am part of the problem, although I undoubtedly am. I don’t consider myself a journalist for reasons already explained, but yet, I live part-time in that world. Or, as a certain Derek G, would say, semi-pro. Maybe the search for Mr Corkhill can be replaced by one for a badly missed mischievous Twitter account. I have always wondered how nice Derek really is. I might now never know.

There is a certain imposter syndrome when I sit alongside proper journalists. You know people who have earned the right to call themselves exactly that. At a recent show, I was seated alongside John Dennen and a well-respected BBC scribe. The imposter feeling was made worse when I opened up a pack of Jammie Dodgers right alongside them. I could feel their disdain as they typed away. I should have got my coat and left at that very moment.

Press row in the new age is dominated by the equally unqualified. They don’t carry around little packs of biscuits, they come armed with video cameras. Mr Scott and I might not share a love for Iron Bru, but there is harmony, if not total peace, in our thoughts of the brave new world of boxing media. What do they do right, I asked him:

“Their access is pretty constant. Their content, whether it’s news, interviews, or gym visits, can all be consumed instantly once uploaded. I think they’ve provided a ‘Cribs’ level of access to fighters and their lives that we never had before unless tuning in for a broadcast special in the lead-up to a huge fight. People enjoy that. They want to peer behind the curtain and let themselves in.” 

Scott is right, although in truth, is he ever wrong. Those pesky solicitors will hope one day he is. It might be a long wait. The coverage the YouTube brigade provides is extensive. Fighters, who wouldn’t even get a line of print in the old days, get endless air time on the seemingly never-ending YouTube channels. That has to be a positive. The days of managers and promoters begging for a couple of words in a tabloid are long gone. The landscape has changed and is a lot better for it. Although the frustration that some fighters still fail to see the opportunities out there for them still lingers for this old imposter.

Mr Scott is not the only person who will make a guest appearance in this ever-increasing piece. But the contractual demands of the Scottish keyboard wizard have blown my entire budget and restricted greatly who my next guest will be. For the money I was offering, even Barry Jones wouldn’t do it. Like me, Steve from Boxing UK is one of the elder statesmen of the new kids on the block. I’m not sure if he is Statler or Waldorf, I’m cool with either. We are like two grumpy old men when the media guy of the respected promotion inadvertently sits us together at a show. Although I am not sure if it is by accident, judging by the number of times it happens. I can imagine the conversation, “Stick those two old buggers together, so nobody else has to endure their cynicism.” I swear, I am convinced that actually happens.

It’s now becoming something akin to The One Show, but Steve has accepted my below-minimum wage offer and kindly taken his seat on the imaginary sofa to offer his thoughts. Boxing UK sits quite nicely in the middle of that muddled world of boxing media. An underworld giant, you could say. There are no expensive hotels come the end of fight night, not that he has admitted to anyway. There have been far too many nights sleeping in his car after a show. A long drive home is the usual way of finishing his night. Or more accurately, the early hours of the following morning. Time has been invested, and plenty of money also.

“Some of us are doing this because of a genuine, lifelong deep love of the sport and not to be known, famous or infamous. This still costs me a fortune most weeks, Steve says. “The biggest wrong is the criticism we get from the establishment. We are all lumped in the same bracket – let’s see how the sport flourishes left only to the likes of Bunce or Boxing News. As good as they are to our generation, their written medium is fast becoming out of date and irrelevant.”

More time was given up on Friday to travel to Scotland for the latest Wasserman offering:

“I was one of only three channels at the Edinburgh card on Friday…where else would that show and the pre-TV victorious fighters have gotten any publicity? Similarly, in Newcastle the weekend before. And Ritson Davies. And Rainton Meadows before that.” A point Steve makes that is lost on some.

But there are faults also, Mr Scott gives his thoughts:

“I think too many of these outlets, interviewers, etc. are inclined to be ‘friendly’ with boxers. The younger generation – the TikTok generation – may enjoy that kind of thing. But it’s not for me, and I’ve been quite open about it. I think they also get to this weird juncture where they NEED to be churning something out. Look at Big John Fury, Eddie Hearn’s Brentwood office, the old Dave Allen interviews every other day. I understand the access is great and at our fingertips, but do we need five of those each week.

“I think it’s hard not to become emotionally driven by your own preference and immediately slam the things you don’t like. I don’t enjoy the ‘Charlie Parsons v Eddie Hearn banter.’ But I like Charlie, and we chat regularly. I respect his content for what it is – I just have no desire to watch it – but I’m not his target audience. I don’t have TikTok, I don’t know what the ‘kids’ say these days… He’s making money and building an enormous following from people 10, 20 years younger than me. And that takes intelligence, as well.” 

Everything in life is one of preference. I echo much of what my esteemed colleague has said. The opening segments of an interview that is driven by banter and talk about the latest clobber aren’t to my taste. But judging by the views, it works. Parsons is living his best life, and good luck to him. He is travelling the world interviewing the superstars of the sport. At his age, I was watching Superstars wishing I was Brian Jacks. Google time again.

The baying Twitter mob still complains and with much venom. It always amuses me the amount of time the ‘trolls’ spend on hating. Just unfollow and watch something else. The choice is unlimited. And it’s free. Life really is too short.

But how could the so-called new media improve, I again ask Mr Scott: 

“Consider what you’re asking. And why you’re there with a camera in the first place. Are you there to provide cutting-edge, breaking news? Or are you there to present a fighter/their camp in an entertaining light? Fair enough. Too often, it seems to me like these guys turn up after being granted 45 minutes with Hearn, for example, and just fumble their way through it. They have too many views and too much money riding on that access, and it dilutes what they ask and how they ask it.” 

Boxing UK offers his thoughts on the access that some of his contemporaries have been rewarded with:

“Access favouritism to easily manipulated young reporters. It can’t be a numbers game as we match or outperform the vast majority of channels most weekends (see Friday, for example).“

The chosen few are granted red-carpet invitations to Warren Towers or the Hearn Palace. But I wonder at what cost? Are the questions asked safe enough to protect that privileged Gold Star access and hard enough to satisfy the Twitter mob? Do you just end up with a mixed bag of blandness? This is what Worsell was alluding to when he wrote. ‘Largely lacking any ability to get to the truth of the matter.’ That access comes at a cost. It just has to. I am not sure it is down to a lack of ability, although in some cases, it is exactly that. But I do think it is down to protecting the golden goose. I get both points.

I do think you do have to separate the hard-hitting journalism from the YouTube guys. And again, there are exceptions. A fighter under the suspicion of doping, for example, shouldn’t expect or demand a soft interview. And an interviewer shouldn’t go the soft route just to get that interview. But on the whole, I just think they operate in separate fields. But I think we should be moving away from just giving a major promoter a platform to spout anything they want unchallenged. That platform just becomes a mouthpiece for that promoter. The ‘he said’, she said’ between rival promoters, content is playground journalism, and is a regrettable side of the new media. It’s lazy, and at least in my opinion, does a disservice to the sport and, more so, the interviewer. Have a little pride in how you get your views.

But the YouTube side of media will only get bigger. They are most certainly not going anywhere anytime soon. But what would happen to the sport if we didn’t have them:

“Fighters’ profiles definitely wouldn’t be AS BIG. Some boxers have managed to build a fan base on their exposure via these YouTube channels – Dave Allen was a prime example. But boxing news has been available, and features or interviews have been available for those who really want them, hasn’t it? Scott says. “Without YouTube, you wouldn’t suddenly lose integral outlets like Boxing News, formerly Boxing Monthly, BoxingScene, etc. Those guys were still there, and some diversified to add YouTube or video content without making it their ONLY form of media. Boxing would survive, and it would grow organically as the delivery of the media we’ve mentioned evolved. Maybe just not as quickly.” 

Every day, another ‘media outlet’ seemingly pops up. Zoom allows even more to join the biggest party of them all. The repetition increases. Very few of them look for a niche. They just copy. Scott agrees:

“There are very few USPs nowadays. What is unique about your content? Why am I watching your video – which is 16th rated – over one of the top five? That is doable, by the way. You can kick the door down. But too many of these outlets don’t think about that and aren’t willing to take a risk (think AGuyCalledHenry with his ‘Three Gifts’ concept).

Scott doesn’t have any journalistic qualifications. He doesn’t need them in fairness. The exception, remember. But are they really that important?

“Some of the best people doing it have no qualifications. But it’s impossible to discount that difference in quality when looking at writing, particularly. It’s very, very obvious that anybody can set up a WordPress page and publish whatever they like. I’ve been asked to help, advise, or even simply edit some really poorly written bits of work. That HAS to be solid before you can consider taking your work any further – in my opinion. If I’m reading something from a new contributor and it’s polluted with errors a few sentences in, I’m out; I’ve lost faith early. Qualifications can make a real difference when writing – not so much with interviewing on video.” Scott says, but honing your craft is a must, he adds:

“You should learn it in the sense that you should respectfully seek and adopt feedback from those who are more experienced or more seasoned. You should assess the feedback you’re receiving and actively try to improve whenever possible. If someone doesn’t like a certain part of your video/article, ask yourself why? What could you have done differently? How would that have been received? I don’t think that because you’ve enjoyed interviewing a few fighters, you need to sign up for Journalism 101 at night school, but you should be learning from everything that’s happening around you. Who do you enjoy watching or reading? Why? Why are you writing? What do you want people to feel when they’re reading or watching your content, and how do you get closer to that?”

Boxing needs the YouTube band of perceived misfits. They might be an annoyance to some, and I understand that. A lot of the content is not to my taste, but as Mr Scott says, it is not aimed at me. But nevertheless, there is some incredibly good and well-produced content out there, and you don’t have to look that hard for it. Pick your poison as they say. The two sides will probably never align. But do they really have to? Life will carry on regardless.

I think the last word should go to Mr Scott. Contractually, it has to. The closing words on the subject from his delightful May 15th piece are the perfect place to close the show.

‘We each have a choice when it comes to consuming content on boxing, sport or otherwise. You either switch your notifications on and watch it/read it when it drops – or you don’t. Worsell wasn’t wrong. Not a single bit. But that also doesn’t mean the young men or women turning up to every press conference should hang up their D3500. The issue isn’t that those aspiring journalists are producing content – the issue is that boxing’s hierarchy creates a bottleneck of limited opportunities for writers like Worsell; they mostly refuse to engage with an honest quest for truth, and thus lift-and-drop those with friendly microphones like pawns, moving their own agendas forward, one square at a time.’