Srebmun wrote:For anyone who's done so, of which I know there's plenty of yous.
I remember reading recently that it's better to actually watch a fight on the telly box, from someone who's been ringside plenty of times, I can't remember who tho'.
The only time I've been anywhere near actual ringside is at amateur bouts.
But I'd really love to go to a big fight and sit ringside, proper ringside.
May I ask those who've had/have the pleasure, what it's like?
Please.
TV or ringside? "Proper" ringside cannot be beaten. By this, I mean a fairly centrally placed seat (not too far off to the end of the row) and no more than, say, eight rows back.
Things have changed over the years. Nowadays we have two video-camera operatives with those shoulder-held video cameras standing in corners at opposite sides of the ring, which partly obscures the view of spectators seated behind these corners. People now seem to take this as the norm, taking the view: "Well, TV rules, what can you do?"
Banks of photographers have long been a problem for the ringside press seated behind them. The late Harry Mullan told me he was ringside for Minter-Hamsho in Vegas and could hardly see a thing due to photographers rising up to shoot from over the bottom rope rather than crouching down to shoot from UNDER the rope. (If you look at ringside shots from the old 1950s fights, black-and-white photography era, I think you will notice that the photographers with their flashes were invariably crouched down and shooting up so that the views of spectators wouldn't be blocked.)
The atmosphere on-site is fabulous, a real tingle of electricity, and up close (or fairly close) you can get a better sense of both the progress of a fight and the psychological state of the fighters (a boxer's discouragement, or distress, for instance, always seems in sharper focus at ringside than from watching on TV).
TV is great for replays of confusing incidents, although on-site in Vegas one can see the replays on the big screens in the arena. TV commentary can be distracting and one or two commentators are borderline unbearable, especially one in particular who thinks that shouting dramatises the moment.
At one time, in Britain certainly, the arena lights were turned off during a fight so that the ring was bathed in white light from the overhead ring lights while all around was darkness or semi-darkness. This provided an amazingly dramatic effect. (I suppose that today lights cannot be turned off for security/insurance reasons).
You simply get a different perspective of a fight from ringside, but to get an accurate impression one must be able to get a good view of the proceedings. At one time the press were seated on the four sides of the ring so that none of the writers considered "important" would have a bad view. Now, in North America certainly, the writers are seated on just one side of the ring, and at a big event the first two or three rows are taken up by the various TV commentary teams and technicians. I now tend to report on-site only from venues where I am pretty sure I will be allocated a favourable position: I'm getting too old for on-site hassles.
Often, media types are disappointed with their seats, and complain. One famous anecdote, possibly apocryphal, concerns a U.S. reporter who complained about his seat, only to be told by the credentials chief: "Look, you're here to cover the fight, not to f---ing watch it!"
