Is Jim Watt retarded?

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » 13 May 2006, 21:45

During the Aiken/Peirerra fight tonight when Peirerra won a round but was deducted a point, Watt gave Aiken 10 points for the round saying that he had to because it was a 10 point must system although he didn't deserve it.

Now, my understanding of scoring is that you would score the round as normal and just deduct a point from whatever fighter that infringed which would make it a 9-9 round. But Watt is saying that a fighter has to get 10 points no matter what because it is 10 points must. What happens if both fighters are deducted points?, neither can reach 10 then. So in essence Watt gave Aiken a 2 point advantage when there should of only been one.

Is Watt retarded?

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » 13 May 2006, 22:15

Amateur night at Sky.

The host guy (I always forget his name) just made a joke that Matthew Hatton can brag to his brother that he made his American debut first if only by a few minutes.

Neri · Post by **Neri** » 13 May 2006, 22:16

I was a bit confused by that comment too. i agree with a 9-9 round.

E · Post by E » 13 May 2006, 22:23

Cannibal wrote:Amateur night at Sky.

The host guy (I always forget his name) just made a joke that Matthew Hatton can brag to his brother that he made his American debut first if only by a few minutes.

Right - Ricky boxed twice in te states earlier in his career........

The guy is called Paul Dempsey Ithink.

lirva33 · Post by **lirva33** » 14 May 2006, 00:59

Cannibal wrote:During the Aiken/Peirerra fight tonight when Peirerra won a round but was deducted a point, Watt gave Aiken 10 points for the round saying that he had to because it was a 10 point must system although he didn't deserve it.

Now, my understanding of scoring is that you would score the round as normal and just deduct a point from whatever fighter that infringed which would make it a 9-9 round. But Watt is saying that a fighter has to get 10 points no matter what because it is 10 points must. What happens if both fighters are deducted points?, neither can reach 10 then. So in essence Watt gave Aiken a 2 point advantage when there should of only been one.

Is Watt retarded?

score the rounds the same and deduct the points at the end.

the point deductions don't come into it until you are totalling your card. Then you deduct them./

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 May 2006, 06:48

I find that 10 point must rulling law confusing. I think Livra has got it right, but do you call in 9-9 or 10-10. Ian Darke called it a 10-10 round, so therefore he was wrong also.

Have to say though, Jim and Ian seemed to be having a right old ding dong about that fight's outcome, I thought Jim was spot on and Ian was over the top - I don't like to see a DQ for what seemed to be accident low blows, but I thought if any fighter deserved it for that it was Perriera, how many did the ref miss also.

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 14 May 2006, 08:05

Lirva, unbelivably, is right (I'm pretty sure anyway).

Not sure what happens under different scoring system but under the ten point must system, you have to give one, or both, fighters 10. By the side on the scorecard you put (-1) by the name or (-2).

Unfortunately, Jim's electronic scorecard doesn't allow for that facility!

The reason why some people think Jim Watt isn't very good is because they don't understand boxing themselves. Watt has forgotten more than the rest of us know...put together.

He's the best analyst on TV...but I stress, under pressure, we are all capable of talking shite at times.

JimmyJamJerusalem · Post by **JimmyJamJerusalem** » 14 May 2006, 09:03

The ten point must system is gutting!! I watched a scrap on Eurosport (I forget who), the house boxer dropped the other fella twice in a round, but had a point deducted at the end of the round for low blows.

Essentially it would have been a 10-7 round, but due to the rule it had to go 9-10. Basically giving the dude who went over 4 points!!!!

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 14 May 2006, 09:30

Cannibal wrote:.The host guy (I always forget his name) just made a joke that Matthew Hatton can brag to his brother that he made his American debut first if only by a few minutes.

I agree Paul Dempsey was talking some nonsense last night/this morning.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 14 May 2006, 10:19

Jim Watt is not retarded thats ridiculous.

He is one of the best UK commontators around.

mattym · Post by **mattym** » 14 May 2006, 10:51

the 10 point MUST system. So even if you are winning 10-6, some would say that if you have a point deducted you lose 10-9 because someone has to get 10. I think this shows how important it is the point/s are deducted from the end total, so the round is scored fairly, and you dont lose 4 points for a foul.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 14 May 2006, 12:10

Cannibal wrote:Amateur night at Sky.

The host guy (I always forget his name) just made a joke that Matthew Hatton can brag to his brother that he made his American debut first if only by a few minutes.

It was a rather silly comment, I agree, Ricky has fought there before - Ian Dark by the way

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 May 2006, 12:12

KOJOE90 wrote:Jim Watt is not retarded thats ridiculous.

He is one of the best UK commontators around.

Here Here, not just one of the best in the UK... He is one of the very best full stop.

When Barry was a guest analyser for a Friday Night Fights, I got a fair few emails saying how lucky us brits are to have such an articulate, well spoken, knowledgable guy like Barry on UK TV on a regular basis... I agree, but Jim is even better.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 14 May 2006, 15:42

stujones wrote:
KOJOE90 wrote:Jim Watt is not retarded thats ridiculous.

He is one of the best UK commontators around.
Here Here, not just one of the best in the UK... He is one of the very best full stop.

When Barry was a guest analyser for a Friday Night Fights, I got a fair few emails saying how lucky us brits are to have such an articulate, well spoken, knowledgable guy like Barry on UK TV on a regular basis... I agree, but Jim is even better.

A mother of a very close friend of mine who is from Glasgow born and bread actually met Jim Watt just after Jim lost his World Title.

She was in a restuarant in Glasgow with her sister and sat next to them was Jim, his wife and kids etc. Anyway my friends mother got talking to Jim and his wife and she said Jim Watt was an absolute gent, he even bought them a big bottle of Champagne when he heard it was her sisters Birthday.

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 14 May 2006, 15:58

The problem I have with Jim Watt's commentary is that far too often he seems to get a bee in his bonnet about a fighter - and regardless of what is happening in the fight, he seems to constantly focus on that fighter's fault often to the point that he appears a little obsessed, and detached from how the fight is actually panning out.

I prefer the old combination of Ian Darke and Glenn McCrory.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 May 2006, 16:03

liamlion wrote:The problem I have with Jim Watt's commentary is that far too often he seems to get a bee in his bonnet about a fighter - and regardless of what is happening in the fight, he seems to constantly focus on that fighter's fault often to the point that he's appears a little obsessed, and detached from how the fight is actually panning out.

I prefer the old combination of Ian Darke and Glenn McCrory.

No, I just prefer Jim full stop - I'd rather Adam and Jim than Glenn and Ian.

No disrepect to Glenn, whose commentary is excellent, and an excellent analyser - but Jim sees commentary wise sees things quicker than anything else... He is also damn good with body language and psychology of a fighter.

He might do (occasionally) what you said, but he is often right and what he says usually pans out correct in the end.

TheGoods · Post by **TheGoods** » 15 May 2006, 14:02

Jim Watt is the dogs. Best soundbite in sport is when he pipes up with the immortal:

"aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm punches".

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 15 May 2006, 15:25

liamlion wrote:The problem I have with Jim Watt's commentary is that far too often he seems to get a bee in his bonnet about a fighter - and regardless of what is happening in the fight, he seems to constantly focus on that fighter's fault often to the point that he appears a little obsessed, and detached from how the fight is actually panning out.

I prefer the old combination of Ian Darke and Glenn McCrory.

yeah he does go on sometimes.

sometimes u feel like muting the sound.

Razor · Post by **Razor** » 15 May 2006, 16:29

It wasnt his best commentating by far, but i suppose they all have shitty nights.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 16 May 2006, 08:30

as mentioned before jim watt is an absolute master in getting over
what a fighter is going through psychologically. yes i agree about him getting a bee in his bonnet about one particular thing but he is usually right about this being a factor in the outcome of the fight.
McCrory's pretty good, watt is a master.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 May 2006, 08:32

TheGoods wrote:Jim Watt is the dogs. Best soundbite in sport is when he pipes up with the immortal:

"aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm punches".

"he needs to put a bit morrrrrrrrrre devil intae his waaarrrrrrrrk"

"I dinnae think he wanted to cut Hagglerrrrrrrr it's just mad him angrrrrrrry"

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 16 May 2006, 09:14

The Billy Conelly type sounding Scotish accent is the funniest.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 May 2006, 10:06

Glaswegan.....

"Jojoba.....Jojoba! When I was a wee lad that was the month before November!"

"Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum......."

Chris Eubank giving someone his phone number....

Is Jim Watt retarded?

Is Jim Watt retarded?

Re: Is Jim Watt retarded?