Boxing Commentating

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 21 May 2006, 10:10

Is it just me, or has the standard of commentating gone to the dogs over the last few years? I would really be interested in other people's opinions.

koomey · Post by **koomey** » 21 May 2006, 12:26

Maybe.

The likes of Ian Darke are VERY god at their job, research done properly and emphasis as and when required during the bout.

The biggest thing that pisses me off is the constant ad breaks during rounds, this is usually a good time for some short analysis during the break, but for the likes of ITV this is the perfect time for advertising, sadly.

Koomey

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 May 2006, 03:24

Darke and Watt are usually good

So are Rawling and Duke - if it's a good fight. otherwise they tend to gloss over naff fights. I must say they did a far better job than HBO for Toney-Jirov, who were arse sucking Jirov and saying that Jirov won. The Brits, on Sky, called it as it was, a brutal fight with Toney winning with clean counters

JC · Post by JC » 22 May 2006, 05:03

Teddy Atlas on ESPN is probably my favorite.

I don't dislike the current ITV guys, but at the same time I feel they very rarely add anything to the fight with their commentary.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 22 May 2006, 05:07

Have to say Rawling was terrible the other night on the Khan Bill, he kept getting everyone's name wrong all the time and tripping over his words. I don't know what was going on, but he was making a right pig's arse of it, maybe he just had an off night, and to be fair, he is a journalist primarily, and a good one at that. McKenzie was as usual, bit repetitive, but with some good insights.

Commentating is a hard job though, and it's hard to please everyone.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 22 May 2006, 05:13

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Have to say Rawling was terrible the other night on the Khan Bill, he kept getting everyone's name wrong all the time and tripping over his words. I don't know what was going on, but he was making a right pig's arse of it, maybe he just had an off night, and to be fair, he is a journalist primarily, and a good one at that. McKenzie was as usual, bit repetitive, but with some good insights.

Commentating is a hard job though, and it's hard to please everyone.

i can't comment on sat, cos i didn't even bother to watch. warren shows are generally dull apart from last march

punchers chance · Post by **punchers chance** » 22 May 2006, 05:33

Agree Rawling is a good journo – but he was really poor commentating on Sat.

There were the slips of the tongue e.g. Eamonn Magee ‘fighting out of his Manchester gym’ – but even worse were the poor reading of what was happening in front of him. At the end of the Tak v Magee fight when Tak went to the Magee corner and had a few words with Magee – you didn’t need to be a genius to gather that a downcast Magee didn’t want to speak to him. Rawling however assured all viewers ‘these two are really the best of friends.’ ????!!!???

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 22 May 2006, 10:08

Let's face it, scoring is so subjective, and we all think we're right, because it's never made clear what the criteria are. Commentators do often though look for evidence to support their pre fight thoughts, thus commentating on the shots landed by one fighter, and ignoring their opponents. I thought Magee was pretty awful, he landed very few punches, Takaloo wasn't landing much himself, but enough to swing it in the rounds I saw.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 22 May 2006, 11:30

Steve 'Squeaky' Bunce , his voice goes so high when he's talking only dogs can hear him!