BoxRec

I don't like the fella for several reasons....

Firstly he's unprofessional, i remember when he tried to pass off a fight report on a Chris John fight a couple years back, when in fact he hadn't even bothered to watch the fight.

I also find it totally unprofessional how he has now started labelling Haye 'Ducker' at the same time as he sidles upto the Klitschko's. Just wrong for a high profile reporter to display such obvious agenda. But i recall him also calling Calzaghe a ducker when Joe broke a hand against Ashira and had to pull out of the original date for the Lacy fight.

I think Rafael also displays what i think is a clear bias against British fighters. He's bashed pretty much all of our leading lights in recent years. Its probably just the usual 'we're just better than you at the end of the day' arrogant attitude that he and many of his countrymen have towards fighter who aren't American. But whatever his reasons i don't like it.

And i'll be honest, his weight bothers me too. Yeah i know it sounds mean, but i think if you report on sport(especially a sport like boxing) and are relatively young, then you really should make an effort to be in a presentable shape. Its hard listening to some glutton talking bad about fighters knowing the sacrafices fighters make in the ring and in their lives.

I hear that he's now joined the Ringside team on SKY..i know he was on the other day, but i hope its not going to be a regular thing. There are plenty of American based reporters out there who are far better at their job than Rafael.

Thought he came across well on ringside myself

I thought he seemed alright, he obvisouly knows his stuff and loves the sport! I thought it was a cracking episode of Ringside, it was good to get the US perceptive

Rafael (why the hell it's pronounced 'Ray-feel' is beyond me, never hear that with other Rafaels) being used like that is pretty much ripping the format of ESPN's MMA magazine show, 'MMA Live', where each show has a televised link to Gareth A Davies in London for a British perspective. No bad thing though, it works. Another rip off was Ringside's '11 for 2011' thing, a theme Ian McNeilly introduced in BM a few years back, when it was '7 for 2007' or something. Luckily for BM we dropped that theme (bored with it, moved on) otherwise we'd have been accused of ripping Sky when they were actually ripping us!

Not a great deal of original thought at Sky at the moment, it seems, but what they are doing — and doing well — is lifting the right ideas (IMO) from elsewhere, such as with 'Behind the Ropes', which is essentially '24/7' or 'UFC Countdown'. I'm not criticising the Magpie approach, believe me — if the Sky team haven't got any fresh ideas of their own then I actively encourage them to go out and plagiarise, because I want Sky's boxing programming to move far away from the staid nonsense of old, the shows that got boxing the reputation of being 'your dad's sport'.

Thought Hatton and McGuigan were excellent guests — passionate, honest, down to earth, articulate and knowledgeable. Tris Dixon came across well also, I'd like to see him used more often. All in all a decent show that's moving in the right direction, I think.

jonny wrote:Thought he came across well on ringside myself

x 2

I know he's a Haye Basher the best of times, but he was rather quite constructive.

Hey Glyn, just read your latest analysis on Ringside, which was damning with faint praise if ever I heard it! I agree, a two way with a guy in another studio isn't exactly ground breaking TV but it's hardly an idea stolen from a MMA show, they weren't the first either. I can't tell you the year because I'm not in the office today but on the original Ringside we had the 'x for 199x' title to look at prospects - I remember Michael Sprott being one of them, sadly not long before he lost for the first time to Harry Senior. I'm not saying that Ian stole it from Sky, it's just a title, it doesn't mean too much!

Boxing Monthly is a tremendous read but it would be churlish to criticise it for having a cover with a picture and a title, for starting with an editorial in the time honoured fashion, and a contents page or ratings and reviews....

Agreed - Behind the Ropes is very much influenced by the success of other shows.

I've been on here in the past to ask opinions on way to improve Ringside, one thing that kept coming across was that we did not have people on the show who were impartial or willing to offer a different perspective. Speaking to an 'independent' journalist in Tris Dixon and to Dan Rafael, a self confessed Haye naysayer, is a direct response to that.

Another criticism was that Ringside ignores fighters that aren't on Sky. Something else that I don't think anyone could level at us watching Thursday's show.

We are responsive to any ideas, in fact we've got a meeting early next week to discuss new ways to take the show forward. Personally I've got a few of my own and will certainly mention any of note that have been made on here, some of which I think have been excellent.

he hates boxrec - and is unprofessional - personally i think he's a prick but i dont mind him being on tv, makes it more interesting and he is a clear fight fan. Him and bunce on the same show would be great viewing. opposite ends of the spectrum and all that!

Sometimes i'd rather listen to a guy i disagree with rather than someone who wont give their oppinion. Fence sitters arent worth watching.

Can I ask the forum, I'm sure Ed will be very interested. What do people think of how the PPV repeat is now formatted since the introduction of ringside.

Very different to before, kind of gives the result away but seems to have more analysis and after thought of the main event (maybe less attention to the undercard fights).

What's peoples thought?

stujones wrote:Can I ask the forum, I'm sure Ed will be very interested. What do people think of how the PPV repeat is now formatted since the introduction of ringside.

Very different to before, kind of gives the result away but seems to have more analysis and after thought of the main event (maybe less attention to the undercard fights).

What's peoples thought?

I prefer it to be honest. It's a bit like a few years back when the replay later in the week was like a considered analysis of the fight four of five days down the line, rather than just Dave darts doing a short link in between each fight.

And realistically, hardly anyone is going to be watching these replays on a Thursday and not no the result of the fight. The kind of fights that make it to SBO are very hard to avoid the results for that long, unlike a typical SFN. I don't think it matters they give the result away. Plus, as the result is already known, the chances are people are tuning in for a fresh perspective on the fight. I watched the Ringside after Khan v Maidana even after paying for the show, as having Khan and McDonnell in the studio made the programme worth watching. If it was just Dave doing links, then it probably wouldn't have been.

Srebmun wrote:

jonny wrote:Thought he came across well on ringside myself

x 2

I know he's a Haye Basher the best of times, but he was rather quite constructive.

I think people are slightly missing the point here. I'm not criticising his performance on Ringside the other day. But why should we take this man seriously in what he says on Ringside while he's busy 'tweeting' abuse and generally slamming the Brits any chance he gets in his articles?

The SKY team ought to have asked him about his 'ducker' comments regarding Haye.

Instead we just got the tame boring stuff. We learnt nothing new off Rafael. He was playing the polite company man there, but its an act. A look over his articles from the last few years reveals what he's really all about.

He's a Brit basher and has been for years....yet he gets given work off SKY when there are far more qualified and impartial people they could have got opinion from.

Some of the articles he writes are questionable for sure but I thought he was good on ringside. With regards to the being fat issue, in general I don't like to see people so overweight. No excuse for it IMO. You don't need to be rich to be healthy. But at the same time, you don't need to be in good trim to be a good boxing pundit. See Ricky Hatton (in the past, though he's looking in good nick now) and to a lesser extent Nicky Piper.

lurkyshaka wrote:

Srebmun wrote:

jonny wrote:Thought he came across well on ringside myself

x 2

I know he's a Haye Basher the best of times, but he was rather quite constructive.

I think people are slightly missing the point here. I'm not criticising his performance on Ringside the other day. But why should we take this man seriously in what he says on Ringside while he's busy 'tweeting' abuse and generally slamming the Brits any chance he gets in his articles?

The SKY team ought to have asked him about his 'ducker' comments regarding Haye.

Instead we just got the tame boring stuff. We learnt nothing new off Rafael. He was playing the polite company man there, but its an act. A look over his articles from the last few years reveals what he's really all about.

He's a Brit basher and has been for years....yet he gets given work off SKY when there are far more qualified and impartial people they could have got opinion from.

He seemed fine to me.

its difficult really isnt it as we know most of the news from America now because of the internet, but in the same way that Sky go to Ed R for a round up of the latest boxing gossip from the UK media it makes sense for them to go to someone in America especially as we've got fighters either breaking into their market or wanting to fight their superstar fighters. Maybe not for the likes of the people who are on here every day and read boxing monthly/boxing news, but for the more casual boxing fans too who aren't as obsessed as us lot !!

He seemed strangely nervous to me and yes of course he didn't tell us anything we don't know, but as I said there are plenty of less fervent boxing fans who would have found some of his stuff interesting.

Apparently Haye snubbed Rafael at a fight not so long ago and since that Rafael ramped up his slating of Haye. Having said that though, everyone negotiating with Hayemaker seems to be having problems making big fights and, for instance, both DeGale and Klitschko have made it clear they want the fights to happen so it's starting to look like there's no smoke without fire in the 'ducker' camp!!!

Anyway back to the point, Ringside is a breath of fresh air and I look forward to it now each week. The format depends on the quality of the guests for insight and it's been absolutely outstanding at times in that manner - getting Klits manager on the line when Booth was on was fantastic (why not do that with Booth and FW!!!!), this week McGuigan and Hatton were tremendous, Cleverly is a great shout, Smigga after the announcement of the DeGale fight was great, and DeGale being on too -

would be great to see rivals on the same show if they would agree it - Clev and Bomber, Steve Foster Jr and Ricky Burns, DeGale and Groves etc - obviously doubtful but it would certainly be great TV. Those moments of Benn and Eubank in the 80's on the same shows were absolutely classic.

Be great to get some of the best trainers in the country on too (and internationally)

I'm not a fan of him. I've read some of his stuff on Haye and it's childish, to say the least. I find the title of the topic quite funny, because Dan Rafael gives too many of his opinions where I'd rather have none, and just have the facts.

The problem with Ray Feel is he is from that school of American boxing hacks who wrongly believe they are big, better and more important than the actual fighters.

These kind of guys think the words "balance" and "Objectivity" are swear words. This guy's blog on ESPN is very much in the "look at me" mould.

As well as this, his writing ability is average at best.

Wake up call wrote:The problem with Ray Feel is he is from that school of American boxing hacks who wrongly believe they are big, better and more important than the actual fighters.

These kind of guys think the words "balance" and "Objectivity" are swear words. This guy's blog on ESPN is very much in the "look at me" mould.

As well as this, his writing ability is average at best.

Thats exactly what i'm talking about! Good post.

ed robinson wrote:Hey Glyn, just read your latest analysis on Ringside, which was damning with faint praise if ever I heard it! I agree, a two way with a guy in another studio isn't exactly ground breaking TV but it's hardly an idea stolen from a MMA show, they weren't the first either. I can't tell you the year because I'm not in the office today but on the original Ringside we had the 'x for 199x' title to look at prospects - I remember Michael Sprott being one of them, sadly not long before he lost for the first time to Harry Senior. I'm not saying that Ian stole it from Sky, it's just a title, it doesn't mean too much!

Boxing Monthly is a tremendous read but it would be churlish to criticise it for having a cover with a picture and a title, for starting with an editorial in the time honoured fashion, and a contents page or ratings and reviews....

Agreed - Behind the Ropes is very much influenced by the success of other shows.

Note to Glyn: 'All praise of Sky must be fulsome and unequivocal in future!'

Ed, you're bridling at my having pointed out what Sky are obviously doing, but then launching a defence of your right to do it! No need mate, not as far as I'm concerned anyway. As I said in my original post, I actively encourage you to do it in the absence of innovations of your own. It's the best way to go, and in my opinion, as I wrote, you are picking the right ideas to 'assimilate' (do you prefer that word?). Rather like in music, where sampling of other songs has long been standard practice, the producers who do it best are the ones who pick the best things to sample. In that sense, as executive producer of your shows, Adam Smith is the Dr Dre of British boxing TV! And I doubt anyone ever thought they'd hear that comparison!

But the point about BM having a cover with a picture and a title on it, a contents page, editorial, reviews isn't churlish, it's plain silly. Every magazine of every kind has these things (obviously with the exception of fighter ratings) as a matter of necessity; every TV programme of every kind does not have a transatlantic correspondent and doesn't need to - but yours does, as does the only other combat sports magazine show on British TV, MMA Live. But as I said, that's no bad thing, it works.

As regards the '11 for 2011' thing, your comment - 'it doesn't mean too much' - betrays a disturbing but all too familiar attitude. I'm well aware that TV magazine shows consider themselves a law unto themselves and above the printed form — one actually went as far as to call itself 'Boxing Monthly' in the 1990s and I had to take legal action (for the only time in my life) against it to get it to stop using the name (they changed it to Boxing First). Before I got legal, the attitude of the generic TV executive we met with (what TV company was it now, can't remember) was: 'So what?' Here's what, fella, the name's mine, I've been using it for years, so fuk right off and think up your own name.

Your attitude towards the use of the name of a feature BM had been using for years is exactly the same as theirs — and your defence that a long defunct show called Ringside, the name being the only relation it bears to your six month old programme, that stopped broacasting over 10 years ago once used it last century doesn't hold water. BM picked up something that wasn't being used and hadn't been used for years, you picked up something that BM had used as recently as '10 for 2010', but thankfully did not use this year. And it's not as though you had the courtesy to check whether BM was going to use it this year - obviously you didn't see the need.

I feel the need to explain something to you Ed, and trust me, as by far the longest serving boxing editor, TV or otherwise, of today (amazingly I've now been in the job longer than Harry Mullan was at BN and Steve Farhood was at The Ring - maybe in another 20 years I'll be half as good as them), I do know what I'm talking about. Please take what I say on board otherwise we will run into problems that we needn't run into.

Magazines of any sort should not rip each other so blatantly, it's a matter of journalistic etiquette and extremely bad form. Ourselves, BN, Buncey's radio show and all the internet outlets, operate in an extremely small field and we must respect each other's indentities and boundaries if we are all to get along, as I would like us to and as I think we do at the moment. Of course we will all do largely the same things — previews, interviews, etc — because we cover the same subject, and Ringside has every right to present a selection of prospects at the start of each year. But to directly lift the name and theme of such a feature from a magazine that has used it for years is as unnecessary as it is disrespectful. You just don't do that. It's a no-no.

As I told you last time we spoke, I am feeling incredibly positive at the moment. For once I feel that Sky, BN, BM and the internet, while not working together, are all working towards the same goal. That feels good and it can only be good for the future of the sport. OK, when we spoke I was three hours out of surgery, morphined off my nut, and mistaking my girlfriend for a nurse (not for the first time, but that's another story). But I meant what I said, we are all pulling in the same, positive direction. It would be a shame if Ringside was to conduct itself in a manner that would spoil that loose sense of camaraderie.

All the best, and good luck with '19 for 2019'!

Glyn, I take your points on board and do appreciate everything you say, negative, positive whatever. You know that I have great respect for your opinion, even when it's faintly threatening! Apologies regarding the 11 for 2011 if you feel that we had lifted the idea / title from Boxing Monthly. I worked on the original Ringside show for several years, it was a title we used before so we used it again, we really did not mean to plagiarise. I didn't chose it for the show on Thursday but must admit, when it was mentioned, Boxing Monthly didn't come to mind, I just thought it a quite generic title from the original show. A show that many of the present team worked upon. If I had associated it with Boxing Monthly I would certainly have suggested something else immediately. Again, genuinely, I'm really sorry it caused offence. I can see why you would be upset. I will also pass on the message, at least we have a year to think of something new!

Regarding the thread title, few could deny that Dan Rafael has his finger on the pulse of the boxing scene Stateside, personally I think his blogs are unmissable. He can be controversial, I don't always agree with him but he is also extremely well informed which is why he's on Ringside. He's over there, we're not, it's where the majority of international boxing news comes from, he has a more independent opinion. It's not a reaction to Gareth A Davies, honestly, if there are parallels then they are incidental. If that wasn't the case I'd just admit it.

It's been a very busy few months for us and we're still finding our feet. The show will improve...

I am just a boxing fan but would love to see Steve Bunce on the TV; he really comes across as being someone who loves the sport; that love and enjoyment comes across and he is most definitely not up his own bottom with self importance. He is a breath of fresh air and though he has a face built for radio he has a charisma just right for the telly.

Another question (sorry): Sky must have loads of undercard action they film when doing the SFN and never use. I have always though that with the amount of channels Sky sports now have it would be good to show some of this during the week rather than having it lost to the archives forever.[/quote]

Good point there are channels with F A on; even if the undercard or old stuff were broadcast through the night it could be recorded, it is a waste.

We always see Steve Bunce on telly - you know who I want to see on telly? Robpalmer135, Horse, Hagler2002 and the mighty DG! Thats who I want to see on TV - oh and Spud - last time he was on telly was him getting clocked off the nasty, brutish Paul King so it would be good to see him on ringside talking sense with his senses intact! (Ditch the baseball cap though... )

What I like about Ringside is that the format often changes depending on who's on and what they're covering so it's always interesting to see what they're going to do. It's still relatively early days for the new programme but I look forward to it every week.

In terms of ideas - what about following a select group of boxers year round? Bit of a variation on the behind the ropes theme. See how their year goes, follow their ups and downs - video diaries etc? Perhaps one prospect, one champ, one 'journeyman'?? Follow them in and out of boxing?

Was also thinking with matches not happening these days making as much news as the ones that do, wonder if any of the match makers or promoters would be up for maybe 'a day in the life'...would give a good insight into the politics and difficulties of making matches and the way match makers like Dean Powell etc have to pull it out of the bag often very late on??

Whatever you do though don't change too much because it's working!

And to answer the question, I thought Dan Rafael came across much better on tv than he does in print - I often think he abuses his position and fills his articles with personal gripes rather than reporting

In terms of ideas - what about following a select group of boxers year round? Bit of a variation on the behind the ropes theme. See how their year goes, follow their ups and downs - video diaries etc. Perhaps one prospect, one champ, one 'journeyman'? Follow them in and out of boxing?

That would be a great idea and ground breaking for a boxing programme.

See URL for more proof; http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=132038

He's had a bug up his ass about our records for years.

There's a reason a penis has an eye, but no mouth.

Oops, sorry Poncey -- I type slowly sometimes.