bengulnaci1 wrote:Steve Holdsworth is flippin' ace and criminally underused. Him and that Ronald fellow would make a decent team. Jim McNeily and Woodhall are dire, if I am honest. Appallingly biased and blinkered if they favour one guy (which they do 99 times out of 100). The commentary of these 2 has seriously ruined any enjoyment I was experiencing watching it.
I find myself switching over to something else, it gets so bad. At least Ronald does tend to reign in Woodhall's bias as he does actually mention the 'other fighter' and his good work. I am sure Ritchie is a decent bloke, no doubt but commentating on the Olympic boxing was a bad choice. Including McNeily was probably worse.
Love Steve Holdsworth, he has so many legendary moments as a commentator that he's hard not to like...him ripping into Sedrick Fields however is likely why he doesn't get on to the BBC or Sky
Woodhall is a croo, just like the others. Remember him shouting John Rawling down in the booth to score in favour of Cazlaghe over Hopkins, and calling Calzaghe 'obviously a clear winner'. A clear winner in that fight? Sure Richie.
Look at Joshua tonight. He knocks the China man down mainly due to the latter being off balance, recovers straight away, and yet still in round three Richie is claiming 'he's still hurt! He's not recovered!"
I find Steve Holdsworth to be marmite personaly, I do also think he is better at calling the action when he is alone. When he has a co-commentator he usually just tends to agree with them all the time.
His attempts to prove he is actually at the venue, when I am sure most realise he is just overdubbing in a studio are quite cringy at times also. I doesn't matter if you are there or not Steve, just tell us about the fight.
Richie Woodhall is okay, but certainly has his biasness. The Calzaghe vs Hopkins one is a prime example of this.
