What's it like Ringside at a fight?

[Srebmun]

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.

[whiskey]

McCracken told me he's been ringside for plenty... but you cant beat the TV.

Ive done loads and agree that for coverage you cannot beat the broadcast... but for atmosphere, no comparison.

[whicker]

Some ringside views can be awful- if you pay £100s for a ringside seat, you can still be give a corner position and actually be able to see bugger all.

Floor seats are often a waste of time.

[neil hibbert]

been ringside at many fights and sometimes its a twt especially if theres a cameraman right in front of you or people around you havent got a clue about boxing, other hands its great when u sit next too the famous people and feel special, ringside at hatton lazcano was quality, row behind tyson barrera and de la hoya etc!!

[Srebmun]

McCracken told me he's been ringside for plenty... but you cant beat the TV.

Ive done loads and agree that for coverage you cannot beat the broadcast... but for atmosphere, no comparison.

That's it, it was either something I read by McCracken, or you yourself have said it before on here.

May I ask what the biggest fight you've been ringside yourself?

[bobmee]

Ringside every time for me, especially for the big fights, but from the television seats on the ring apron or one or two rows back at most. You can soak up the whole ringside atmosphere, the mood of the corners, and the subtleties of how a fighter reacts. Some writers' seats for a big US fight can be a dozen rows back, which is more difficult. Television view depends on the broadcaster. Sometimes it's very good, sometimes a bit more remote.

[Spud]

Ringside everytime - its hard to explain but when seeing a fight ringside and then watching a fight on TV it can seem a lot more different.

For example - I have come away from a fight ringside thinking bloody hell that was a good fight for you lot on here to slate it.

The buzz of a show cannot be beaten in my view - love it.

[bobmee]

Yes, I agree with that. Sometimes I've come away from ringside, feeling I've just witnessed a really fascinating, enthralling fight, only to find just about everybody else thinks it was boring.

[taffytoon]

Where you from srebmun?

[Glyn Leach]

Ringside is always a risk, IMO, even from a reporter's perspective. 'Ringside' can mean anything. As my BM colleague Graham Houston once wrote, he was 'ringside only in that I was on one side of the ring'. As one who very very rarely reports fights these days, I prefer TV every time — there is no danger of being stuck behind a ringpost, a TV cameraman, a judge, security men, a bank of photographers standing in front of you, having some know-nothing football writer talking bollocks in your ear ... There is nothing more frustrating than 'missing a moment' because of such things.

That said, were I to report a fight, I would still have to be ringside. But, whether we like to admit it or not, atmosphere can affect the perspective of a fight in terms of scoring — which it shouldn't, a fight should be judged on what the boxers do in the ring, not what the crowd does and what effect that might have on you. But it depends what you actually want from the experience of watching a fight, I suppose.

IMO TV with the sound off is probably the most reliable way to get an accurate impression of a fight, or should I say the safest bet in terms of guaranteeing you the opportunity to judge a fight as a fight, unhindered by the possible obstacles mentioned above.

No option is perfect, but it's all good, and that's what counts. Happy Xmas and good new years to you all. 2010 should be fun, wherever we watch from.

[Srebmun]

Where you from srebmun?

London.

[kevo]

Floor seats are often a waste of time.

Had floor seats for Hatton - Magee. Waste of f*cking time indeed.

[Srebmun]

Ringside is always a risk, IMO, even from a reporter's perspective. 'Ringside' can mean anything. As my BM colleague Graham Houston once wrote, he was 'ringside only in that I was on one side of the ring'. As one who very very rarely reports fights these days, I prefer TV every time — there is no danger of being stuck behind a ringpost, a TV cameraman, a judge, security men, a bank of photographers standing in front of you, having some know-nothing football writer talking bollocks in your ear ... There is nothing more frustrating than 'missing a moment' because of such things.

That said, were I to report a fight, I would still have to be ringside. But, whether we like to admit it or not, atmosphere can affect the perspective of a fight in terms of scoring — which it shouldn't, a fight should be judged on what the boxers do in the ring, not what the crowd does and what effect that might have on you. But it depends what you actually want from the experience of watching a fight, I suppose.

IMO TV with the sound off is probably the most reliable way to get an accurate impression of a fight, or should I say the safest bet in terms of guaranteeing you the opportunity to judge a fight as a fight, unhindered by the possible obstacles mentioned above.

No option is perfect, but it's all good, and that's what counts. Happy Xmas and good new years to you all. 2010 should be fun, wherever we watch from.

Do you think there's scope to have boxing judges watch and score on a TV monitor (well... 50" HD or something) as opposed to ringside, with the sound off etc.. all 3 watching from different camera angles or something??

[Srebmun]

Floor seats are often a waste of time.

At Prizefighter Heavyweights I was looking at the peeps who had floor seats, the back ones, and I thought why on earth would anyone want to sit there.

I do hope I get a chance one day to watch a decent bout quite close to the action.

[lowersmiths]

you can only get a real sense of how hard the punches are when you are sitting at ringside.

there are a million things you see at ringside that the tv misses, the shifts in momentum, the emotion, the moments in close where the cameras can't get.

[jonp]

hmm a lot of ringside isnt that good i quite like first row in first tier straight veiw to ring.Ringside can be hit or miss.

Doing the corner is good if you get hold of the stool just sit there head under the rope almost lol
I got to help in corner for recent fights Skelton v Rogan and Renda v Samuels and that couldnt be beaten to be fair great veiw and tension.

[ERIC GUY]

Sometimes when I take pics at ringside its great, and most times when I am filming its even better as I mainly get a great position, and dont get people pushing into me, for atmosphere, its sooo much better to be at ringside!!!

[Tykemania]

Ringside can be great at certain venues - the Trent Arena in Nottingham on Froch nights is pretty special, and a fairly good bet seating wise as there is enough banking that pretty much everyone gets a good view. For atmosphere, or if you support a particular fighter, go live.

As long as it isn't at one of the bigger London venues, which suck!

[m1kee50]

level with the ring or above is cool, nottoo far away, but not craning the neck up.

Balcony at York Hall is a fantastic view, better than floor seats IMO.

[Poncey]

Ringside every time for me, especially for the big fights, but from the television seats on the ring apron or one or two rows back at most. You can soak up the whole ringside atmosphere, the mood of the corners, and the subtleties of how a fighter reacts. Some writers' seats for a big US fight can be a dozen rows back, which is more difficult. Television view depends on the broadcaster. Sometimes it's very good, sometimes a bit more remote.

x2

You see a completely different fight.

[dondada]

Do you think there's scope to have boxing judges watch and score on a TV monitor (well... 50" HD or something) as opposed to ringside, with the sound off etc.. all 3 watching from different camera angles or something??

No, not at all. Ringside judges don't have any of the problems 'ringside' punters have. For a start, when some people stump up a fortune for a big fight 'ringside' ticket and they've never done it before, you can see how gutted they are when they get there and there's several rows (TV, press, officials) in front of them. They think (understandably at the price) that they are almost going to be rinsing the champ's gumshield.

I got bumped at Haye v Klitschko from my original seat in favour of some obese teutonic tit but actually got moved forward. I was on the same row as the Sky Sports team and in front of all the printed press. But I was at the end and partly obscured by a corner post and a cameraman. So Glyn's right from one perspective.

Ringside is a double edged sword but not one I'd ever swap. You can observe a load of nuances (especially in the corner - I remember once seeing Clifton Mitchell hit Carl Baker harder than his opponent could manage - twice) that TV just doesn't pick up, as well as the far superior atmosphere. But you do get family and friends occasionally going completely radio rental and security is very, very rarely adequate - Haye in Germany being the most recent. It was a complete and utter bunfight after the verdict and the BBC radio lads did incredibly well to do their job.

One benefit is that it's easier to climb IN the ring if you have to. I've had to do this twice at riots.

[DavidPayne]

I wish boxing came with the same sound options as football.

So you could opt for Ringside Commentary, Fan Zone, Radio Commentary or here is my great idea, just the ambient/crowd noise in the arena with no commentary.

I hate commentators talking over ringwalks too.

[Matt W]

It's got to be SkySports for me - how could you enjoy it without having an update on the bookies' odds between every round?

As a sensitive soul I also like to avoid bad language so avoid live boxing where I can. At least Sky give you an apology when someone says F U C K.

[DG.]

Ringside is always a risk, IMO, even from a reporter's perspective. 'Ringside' can mean anything. As my BM colleague Graham Houston once wrote, he was 'ringside only in that I was on one side of the ring'. As one who very very rarely reports fights these days, I prefer TV every time — there is no danger of being stuck behind a ringpost, a TV cameraman, a judge, security men, a bank of photographers standing in front of you, having some know-nothing football writer talking bollocks in your ear ... There is nothing more frustrating than 'missing a moment' because of such things.

That said, were I to report a fight, I would still have to be ringside. But, whether we like to admit it or not, atmosphere can affect the perspective of a fight in terms of scoring — which it shouldn't, a fight should be judged on what the boxers do in the ring, not what the crowd does and what effect that might have on you. But it depends what you actually want from the experience of watching a fight, I suppose.

IMO TV with the sound off is probably the most reliable way to get an accurate impression of a fight, or should I say the safest bet in terms of guaranteeing you the opportunity to judge a fight as a fight, unhindered by the possible obstacles mentioned above.

No option is perfect, but it's all good, and that's what counts. Happy Xmas and good new years to you all. 2010 should be fun, wherever we watch from.

The bloody postman delivered the BM 2 days apart!

Got the Pacman/Cotto fight report cover (December) on the 9th December and Christmas edition on Friday 11th!

How the hell am I suposed to do any work done if I have to read all that back to back?



TV is best for me!

But Ringside can be great with radio in one air!

[Glyn Leach]

Ringside is always a risk, IMO, even from a reporter's perspective. 'Ringside' can mean anything. As my BM colleague Graham Houston once wrote, he was 'ringside only in that I was on one side of the ring'. As one who very very rarely reports fights these days, I prefer TV every time — there is no danger of being stuck behind a ringpost, a TV cameraman, a judge, security men, a bank of photographers standing in front of you, having some know-nothing football writer talking bollocks in your ear ... There is nothing more frustrating than 'missing a moment' because of such things.

That said, were I to report a fight, I would still have to be ringside. But, whether we like to admit it or not, atmosphere can affect the perspective of a fight in terms of scoring — which it shouldn't, a fight should be judged on what the boxers do in the ring, not what the crowd does and what effect that might have on you. But it depends what you actually want from the experience of watching a fight, I suppose.

IMO TV with the sound off is probably the most reliable way to get an accurate impression of a fight, or should I say the safest bet in terms of guaranteeing you the opportunity to judge a fight as a fight, unhindered by the possible obstacles mentioned above.

No option is perfect, but it's all good, and that's what counts. Happy Xmas and good new years to you all. 2010 should be fun, wherever we watch from.

The bloody postman delivered the BM 2 days apart!

Got the Pacman/Cotto fight report cover (December) on the 9th December and Christmas edition on Friday 11th!

How the hell am I suposed to do any work done if I have to read all that back to back?



TV is best for me!

But Ringside can be great with radio in one air!

What, I've got to deliver the fornicator too now lol?