Eubank Jr v Benn feels like a mistake – bad TV pretending to be good sport | Barney Ronay

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Eubank Jr vs Benn: A Controversial Match Highlighting Boxing's Commercialization"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.8
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The upcoming catchweight boxing match between Chris Eubank Jr and Conor Benn has sparked significant media attention, but many observers question the legitimacy and purpose of the event. The author draws a parallel to Ivan Pavlov's experiment with his dog, illustrating how the buildup to this fight elicits a confused response. Although marketed as a pivotal moment in British boxing history, the event appears to lack a coherent narrative, with Eubank and Benn being at different stages in their careers and having no real animosity towards each other. The fight is framed as a family feud, yet the reality reveals a lack of genuine stakes, as both fighters do not have a shared history or rivalry that would typically warrant such a match. The promotional language surrounding the fight feels disingenuous, suggesting a manufactured sense of hatred rather than a legitimate competitive spirit.

As the event approaches, the author expresses concern over the implications of the fight being promoted as entertainment rather than authentic sport. The involvement of major media outlets and the financial interests at play, particularly the connection between Dazn and News Corp, suggest that the fight is more about generating clicks and revenue than delivering a meaningful sporting contest. This commercialization of boxing raises questions about the future of the sport, as it risks prioritizing spectacle over genuine competition. The author reflects on how the current state of boxing contrasts with its more dangerous and unrefined past, highlighting the potential dangers of mismatched fights and the pressures of corporate sponsorship. Ultimately, the Eubank-Benn match seems to encapsulate a troubling trend in sports, where the lines between entertainment and genuine athletic competition become increasingly blurred, leaving fans to grapple with what constitutes real sport in this modern context.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article provides a critical perspective on the upcoming boxing match between Chris Eubank Jr. and Conor Benn, suggesting that the event is more about entertainment than legitimate sportsmanship. It uses a metaphor involving Pavlov's dog to illustrate the confusion surrounding the fight, questioning its authenticity and purpose.

Purpose and Intent

The piece seems to aim at exposing the superficiality of the boxing match and its promotion, arguing that it is marketed as a significant sporting event while lacking the genuine competitive spirit that characterizes true sports. By comparing the fight to Pavlov’s experiment, the author implies that the public’s reaction is manipulated by the media hype rather than the quality of the sport itself.

Public Sentiment Creation

The article intends to evoke skepticism and critical thinking among readers regarding boxing promotions that prioritize entertainment over authenticity. It challenges the audience to reconsider what they view as legitimate sports, thereby creating a discourse around the commercialization of sports entertainment.

Concealment of Issues

While the article does not explicitly hide information, it highlights the absurdity of the fight, indirectly suggesting that other significant issues in sports might be overlooked in favor of sensationalized events. The focus on Eubank Jr. and Benn could divert attention from more substantive boxing narratives or issues within the sport.

Manipulative Elements

There is a degree of manipulation in the article, particularly through its language and metaphorical comparisons. The use of Pavlov’s dog serves as a vivid analogy that may lead readers to feel a sense of confusion and disappointment about the fight, encouraging a negative perception without presenting balanced arguments.

Authenticity of the Information

The article appears to be grounded in a legitimate critique of the current state of boxing and its promotional tactics. It raises important questions regarding the nature of sports entertainment, making it a credible piece for readers who value authenticity in competitive sports.

Societal Perception

The narrative fosters a perception that modern boxing is increasingly driven by celebrity culture and entertainment, which may resonate with audiences who share concerns about the integrity of sports. It potentially aligns with those skeptical of the commercialization of traditional sports.

Comparative Connections

When contrasted with other articles discussing sports entertainment, this piece emphasizes the disparity between traditional sporting values and current trends focused on marketability and spectacle. This thematic connection can be seen in discussions about fights involving personalities like Jake Paul, which are often critiqued for their lack of sporting legitimacy.

Impact on Broader Contexts

While the immediate focus is on boxing, the implications of such events could influence public interest in sports, sponsorship dynamics, and the media's role in shaping sporting narratives. It may also reflect broader societal trends regarding celebrity culture and consumerism in entertainment.

Community Support and Target Audience

This critique is likely to resonate with sports purists, boxing enthusiasts, and individuals concerned with the integrity of competitive sports. The article may appeal to those who feel disillusioned by the spectacle of celebrity boxing matches.

Market Influence

In terms of financial markets, the article may not have a direct impact on stock prices but could influence the sentiment around brands associated with the fight. Companies involved in sponsorship, media rights, or merchandise may be affected by public perception shaped by such critiques.

Global Power Dynamics

Although the article focuses on a specific sporting event, it taps into larger conversations about the commercialization of sports within a global context, reflecting societal values and concerns about authenticity that resonate beyond the boxing ring.

AI Usage Speculation

There is no clear indication of AI involvement in the article’s composition, as the writing style appears consistent with human editorial standards. However, if AI were used, it might have contributed to the organization of ideas or the construction of metaphors to enhance the narrative style.

Manipulation Analysis

The article employs language that might skew reader perceptions, particularly through its critical tone and provocative analogies. Such techniques can serve to shape public opinion against certain aspects of sports entertainment.

Ultimately, the article serves as a commentary on the state of modern boxing, encouraging readers to reflect on the authenticity of what they consume as sport. Its critical approach is effective in conveying skepticism about the convergence of sports and entertainment.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Back in his pomp as an era-defining, generational dog-torturer, the great Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov did an interesting experiment with shapes. This involved showing a dog called Vampire a combination of circles and ovals. Circles meant he was about to be fed. Ovals meant no food and possibly, maybe, at a push, being electrocuted.

Before long Vampire was showing the familiar conditioned response, salivating when he saw a circle, shying away from the oval. At which point Pavlov began to show him shapes that were weirdly pitched between the two, not quite an oval, not quite a circle, half a food promise, half something else, until eventually Vampire snapped, yelping and running around in circles, unable to interpret the truth of the thing in front of him. So, top work there everyone. Another dog successfully confused.

I was reminded of this weird tableau watching the buildup to Saturday’s catchweight fight between Chris Eubank Jr and Conor Benn, object of an astonishing full-wallpaper level of media coverage, and not just a grotesque event, but a deeply confusing one.

What is this thing? What are we looking at? Actual sport? Boxertainment? Circles? Ovals? Total bullshit? Semi-bullshit? Here we have a fight that carries the trappings, the talk, the styling, the salivating advertisements of a legitimate sporting event, sold on TalkSport radio as “a moment of British boxing history”.

And yet of course the briefest glimpse behind the staging reveals a spectacle that leads nowhere and is made of nothing. These two fighters are different weights, years apart in age, and on entirely separate career trajectories. Sport doesn’t need them to intersect. Without their fathers’ surnames there is zero chance any of this would be happening.

At least with a Jake Paul event you know what he is, an expertly drawn cartoon, a provocateur, the perfectly evolved internet-human, with a face that is both simultaneously infuriating, moreish and global‑logo recognisable, a button you just have to click. By contrast Eubank Jr-Benn feels like a category mistake, bad TV pretending to be good sport.

Even talking about who might win seems pointless. Aguy who has starved himselfagainst a guy who probably isn’t ready. Who cares? And yes, it could still be a good fight, because both are gifted boxers. Benn’s best chance is to go for the blitz, to get those high-speed angles and combinations going early. Eubank, if he’s not too drained, can probably wear his man down.

But it already feels like everyone gets to lose here in the end. Even the strap-line Fatal Fury is tactless, alarming and inaccurate. Tactless because both men’s fathers were involved in properly-matched, deeply scarring fights that almost led to actual fatalities. Alarming because in order to make this novelty show happen Eubank has had to agree to a “rehydration clause” that makes his brain additionally vulnerable to injury.

And inaccurate because there is no meaningful fury here. This is perhaps the most nauseating part. There is no logical reason for this fight to exist. To fill that hole it has been sold as “a hatred that’s in the blood” and a genuine family feud. “Thirty years in the making it all boils down to this!” Does it though?

This is now an event that rests entirely on whether to believe two people who have no reason to hate each other nonetheless genuinely hate each other. The most frustrating aspect here is that their fathers have made it clear in the past they actually love each other, that they feel like soulmates, bonded for ever by that brutal shared youth, one of the most moving stories from that badlands era of boxing history. Eubank Sr has said things such as “I have tasted his blood and he’s my brother”. Even if the two sons have somehow managed to summon up some actual hate for each other it still means nothing. Nothing is at stake, no actual shared history. No career paths are on the line, no title shots. This is just fake hate retailed for clicks. One of the radio stings has Benn saying “I’m going to end his career live on Dazn!” Really? Why?

The key lies in the last part of that sentence. It is no mystery why this is happening.Boxingis entertainment staged at great personal risk. It is, in its pure form, the greatest sport, all hard edges, extreme skill, non-negotiable heart and bravery. Take the money when it’s there. And good luck to all involved. The question is: why is this particular fight so particularly everywhere?

The answer to which is a very modern confusion of ownership, staging and product. The fight is being sold as a pay-per-view event by Dazn. The fight is also being promoted furiously by the Sun and by TalkSport. Only last month Newscorp, which also owns the Sun and TalkSport – keep watching the moving cups – took a 6% stake in Dazn, with a lot of chat about their new joint mission. Well, here it is. Every single click the News International side can eke out of the buildup to this fabricated event is money in the bank for their mutual ownership.

Sign up toThe Recap

The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend’s action

after newsletter promotion

Boxing is of course perfect for this overlap of interests. The people deciding what is important, what gets to happen, are basically agents. This makes sense up to a point, just as it is very hard not to like Eddie Hearn on a basic level.

He’s really good on TV. He’s handsome and convincing and probably really good fun at a barbecue. He looks like the sort of bloke who shouts out “Oi Oi!” when he walks up to a crowded urinal. But pretty much everything he says now sounds hilariously inauthentic, from “This is unequivocally the greatest card we have ever seen in the sport”, over the most recent Big Thing in Saudi, to the recurrent PR pump for Riyadh.

And Saudi is of course the key here. One hand always washes the other. But right now Saudi washes everyone’s hands, as an owner of Dazn, and thus de facto partner of the Sun and TalkSport, and mainly as the propaganda-state home of boxing’s world level future.

You can hardly blame Hearn and Warren for clinging on by their fingernails to the only train leaving the station. But that meshing of interests is also dangerous. Without actual jeopardy, without robust and open competition, as entertainment product intrudes, the whole spectacle basically starts to collapse.

So we have Fifa staging its own Dazn-sponsored Club World Cup, and telling us this is the greatest and the realest, because it has to be, because we say so, because Messi and perhaps even Ronaldo now have been gerrymandered in through the door.

This is the greatest threat to elite sport right now, the controlling whims of our billionaire overlords, the moment where suddenly all the circles and ovals start to look the same, when everything can be real if it makes enough noise and light. The conviction that, like dogs inside Pavlov’s box, we don’t actually need sustenance or hard content to make the juices flow, just enough of the staging.

In the end perhaps the most amazing thing about this Eubank-Benn is the way it makes the original, back when boxing really was untamed and dangerous, look noble and pure by contrast. By now even Eubank Sr’s deeply-felt refusal to turn up to the fight has been transformed into promotional energy.

I really hope he doesn’t go. Right now he seems like the only person with any sense around this event. Not to mention the only one pointing to its biggest giveaway, mismatched weights and the needless danger of a manufactured show.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian