Anna Woolhouse - Sky boxing presenter

[Ezzard]

I think she's good and as deserving as anyone else.

[Counter-puncher]

Always looked very tight at that weight,think a move up to cruiser would of benefitted her.

hahahaha

[dalcumly]

Ezzard comments that she's as deserving as anyone else - how would anyone know if she didn't go through the same selection process as male applicants ?

[Counter-puncher]

You think they have a selection process?

Have you read a single word on this thread?

Have you ever watched Sky boxing!

Do you think Adam Fvcking Smith got through a fvcking selection process?

[TopGun]

if its all about equality they should put some obese birds on too

[SteveDow]

Tyan Booth is brutal about her on his youtube videos!

[black panther]

You think they have a selection process?

Have you read a single word on this thread?

Have you ever watched Sky boxing!

Do you think Adam Fvcking Smith got through a fvcking selection process?

[ILikeBeer]

They should have gave the job to a black transvestite with disabilities.

Honestly this PC shït is a disgrace. The Martin Luther King speech contains the line that a person should be judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin; a principle that seems to be lost in the modern political climate. Big media companies are employing people on the basis of serving an equality quota rather than who is best at the job. E4 even have a voice over guy with a fvcking speech impediment. He has 1 job and you can hardly make out a word the guy says.

Is that true? I watch E4 a fair bit, I've not noticed him.

[ILikeBeer]

I've just read an article in last weeks edition of Boxing News in which Miss Woolhouse describes how challenging her job has been since joining the Sky Sports Boxing Team.
She's not bad at what she does and I wish her good luck, and I'll be supportive of her position if all of the following steps have been taken.
Did she see an advert for a vacancy with Sky, apply with CV, interviewed with others and then perform well in her role.
Did a vacancy then arise within the Sky boxing team and was the post advertised. Did Miss Woolhouse apply, again submit her CV, was she interviewed with others and was she then offered the post after a successful performance.
If the answer to this is yes, great, well done, and all the best.
But what annoys me is this pressure to appoint females into posts on the grounds of equality, when in fact it's not equality , it's discrimination against equally competent men.
If she didn't go through this process then why was she chosen. I certainly would support female commentators/ presenters for female boxing, but why this need to appoint female presenters with no previous involvement in boxing.

I mean, who cares?

I don't know how Sky decides who to present their shows, but if I had to guess, I'd say they picked her because she's fairly decent at her job and easy on the eyes for a predominantly male audience.

This is the TV business. All televised sports do it. We've probably all seen sports pundits brought in because they're famous names to casual viewers, rather than because they're decent pundits. It's just what sports channels do. They'll boost ratings in any way they can.

It's not like Woolhouse is crap at her job, she's actually pretty good. There's male pundits who are there because of their name, or because who they know in the business, but are woefully inept at what they do. Shouldn't we be more upset about those guys, then get our panties in a wad about one that is fairly decent because they happen to be female?

Anyway, it's not like as guys we have it rough when it comes to employment. Often men get promoted above equally deserving women, or get paid more for doing the same job. It's hard to get upset about the one or two times it happens to a female.

[ILikeBeer]

Charlie Webster

I remember watching her on the Eurosport coverage of the first Klitschko fight they showed. At one point in the live broadcast, she was going; "Errrrr..... Sorry, I forgot your name then for a minute". (Didn't she go to allegedly and improve though? Or am I thinking of someone else?)

Based solely on that Eurosport performance, I'd have thought she was a better candidate for the being hired for beauty and not talent criticism. Not that this particularly bothered me either. Because it was on Eurosport, rather than a bigger budget more mainstream channel like Sky.

[Ezzard]

On the odd occasion I watch live on a Saturday night then it helps the wife not feel like she's watching an event she's not invited to.

I accept that token diversity can be tiring and counter-productive but in Anna's case I think it works. She's good.

[overhand_right]

Threads like this are interesting just to see the hysterical way some people totally overreact to valid questions.

All Dalcumly was saying was that Anna was complaining about how hard her job is because of all the stick she gets online. Given that she’s moaning about what is one of the sweetest sinecures on earth, you can’t help but ask, ‘love, did you actually earn the job?’ There’s an obsession with ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ in TV right now, loosely translated as ‘less white men’, and a lot of people are being put in positions they haven't worked for, and don’t necessarily have the right skillset for, as a sort of virtue signal by channels and production companies. It’s pretty obvious that Anna is there as some cynical window dressing rather than to serve as an authoritative Paul Dempsey type presenter, so when she complains about how hard her job is, when she looks more suited to waving round cards in a bikini, it’s only natural that some people will be irritated.

That being said: Anna is not terrible. But she’s not that good either, and for that reason I can’t help but feel that she should be grateful for the opportunity the boxing gods have bestowed on her. She also needs to understand that criticism isn’t exclusive to her. Literally all the pundits on Sky get berated unmercifully. I accept I’m old fashioned, but I prefer the Howard Cosell type production, where the presenter may look like a baboon in a wig but at least brings a certain presence, gravitas and drama that I think buxom peroxide beauties like Anna lack.

It’s a fair point that the current standard of male presenters and commentators across all boxing broadcasts is at an all-time low, and the reason why this is probably deserves its own thread.

[ILikeBeer]

That being said: Anna is not terrible. But she’s not that good either, and for that reason I can’t help but feel that she should be grateful for the opportunity the boxing gods have bestowed on her. She also needs to understand that criticism isn’t exclusive to her. Literally all the pundits on Sky get berated unmercifully. I accept I’m old fashioned, but I prefer the Howard Cosell type production, where the presenter may look like a baboon in a wig but at least brings a certain presence, gravitas and drama that I think buxom peroxide beauties like Anna lack.

How many threads have you started asking if male pundits have had to go through a recruitment process?

[dalcumly]

Overhand right - got it in one.
I never for a moment said she was bad at her job - she's OK. It was the unfair process to how she got there.

My daughters are mild feminists and they continually batter me but I'm not giving in.

There's the female ex- footballer on SKY ( sitting between Graeme Souness and Jamie Carragher) supplying us with her wisdom and insight into top level football. She played for Chelsea Ladies ( average attendance less than 1,000) and she gets the job. Blyth Spartans get a bigger home gate , but I don't see any of their players being given the opportunity. That's my point.

If presenters are getting the job simply because they're female then its wrong - but more importantly the executives are actually doing a disservice to women,by patronising them.

[ILikeBeer]

Threads like this are interesting just to see the hysterical way some people totally overreact to valid questions.

You say people are hysterically overreacting, but you then agree that she's "not terrible", and also with the point that "It’s a fair point that the current standard of male presenters and commentators across all boxing broadcasts is at an all-time low".

So what exactly is the problem? You keep saying diversity means that you don't employ white males any more. But are you seriously suggesting that there are no white males who are Sky boxing pundits?

[Boxerbeetle]

Remember when Carl Froch - live on a flagship Sky PPV - didn’t even know the name of one of the headliners (‘Spencer’) ?

But yeah, let’s have a thread about Anna instead, regardless of everyone agreeing that she is, at minimum, actually competent at her role.

[ILikeBeer]

Remember when Carl Froch - live on a flagship Sky PPV - didn’t even know the name of one of the headliners (‘Spencer’) ?

But yeah, let’s have a thread about Anna instead, regardless of everyone agreeing that she is, at minimum, actually competent at her role.

I wonder how many Tweets Carl Froch gets about his physical appearance compared to how many Anna Woolhouse gets?

[the_doctor]

If presenters are getting the job simply because they're female then its wrong - but more importantly the executives are actually doing a disservice to women,by patronising them.

But they aren't getting the job simply because they're female. They're also pretty good. As many have already pointed out, often better than their male counterparts. It's not as if they've just dragged some random woman off the street, given her a microphone and shoved her into the O2 on fight night. She's got a degree in Journalism!

Plus, when every other face on the screen is male, is it not perfectly legitimate to ensure there is some variance? You're banging on about equality but your solution seems to be have a 100% male staff

[overhand_right]

How many threads have you started asking if male pundits have had to go through a recruitment process?

I didn't start this thread. But to my knowledge none of the male presenters and pundits are moaning in interviews about how hard their highly paid glamorous job is because people say mean things about them online. It was Anna's moaning that prompted Dalcumly to start this thread. I think it's worthy of discussion, you don't: fine.

[overhand_right]

You say people are hysterically overreacting, but you then agree that she's "not terrible", and also with the point that "It’s a fair point that the current standard of male presenters and commentators across all boxing broadcasts is at an all-time low".

So what exactly is the problem? You keep saying diversity means that you don't employ white males any more. But are you seriously suggesting that there are no white males who are Sky boxing pundits?

You're conflating two separate points made in two separate paragraphs. How you could read my post and think I was suggesting Sky aren't employing white male boxing pundits is, quite simply, beyond me.

[overhand_right]

I wonder how many Tweets Carl Froch gets about his physical appearance compared to how many Anna Woolhouse gets?

He gets mocked all the time for his hair styles, his nose job and his metrosexual appearance. He gets mocked for these very things on this very forum every time he's on TV.

[ILikeBeer]

I didn't start this thread. But to my knowledge none of the male presenters and pundits are moaning in interviews about how hard their highly paid glamorous job is because people say mean things about them online. It was Anna's moaning that prompted Dalcumly to start this thread. I think it's worthy of discussion, you don't: fine.

Fair point, I'll apologise for that then. That was my mistake.

What I should've asked was, how many threads get started asking about how the men get hired? We all seem to just accept that they were hired fairly and squarely, even if they are utter gash.

Besides, the way TV operates is, I suspect Sky will always go for pundits who they think have the right look, or know the right people, or are more household names or whatever. I don't see that as a gender thing. Yes, I suspect the fact that Anna Woolhouse is good looking hardly counted against her, but that's the business. There's got to be loads of people out there, male and female, that would make excellent pundits, that are never given chances for reasons other than ability.

[ILikeBeer]

He gets mocked all the time for his hair styles, his nose job and his metrosexual appearance. He gets mocked for these very things on this very forum every time he's on TV.

If he gets as many Tweets as Anna does, and they're equal in terms of content and verocity, than fair enough. Twitter is a very vile place, where people will offer death threats, rape threats, insult people's children purely because they don't like them as television personalities.

But all the more reason why we shouldn't condemn her pointing it out when it happens to her. It's an issue that deserves to be talked about. Especially if it's racist or sexist in nature. Surely, she shouldn't be criticised for voicing these as a concerns, especially if the abuse she gets is sexist in nature.

[overhand_right]

Fair point, I'll apologise for that then. That was my mistake.

What I should've asked was, how many threads get started asking about how the men get hired? We all seem to just accept that they were hired fairly and squarely, even if they are utter gash.

Besides, the way TV operates is, I suspect Sky will always go for pundits who they think have the right look, or know the right people, or are more household names or whatever. I don't see that as a gender thing. Yes, I suspect the fact that Anna Woolhouse is good looking hardly counted against her, but that's the business. There's got to be loads of people out there, male and female, that would make excellent pundits, that are never given chances for reasons other than ability.

I would say that the continued employment of Adam Smith and big Ron McIntosh has baffled Boxrec for years (and presumably Twitter, I don't know much about it, but it sounds pretty brutal) and been the source of many debates. Isn't Smith there through nepotism or something? People frequently wonder why he has his job. It's definitely not talent. So I think in this case it's pretty equal!

Sky in the 90s looked like the Chamber of Horrors with the line up of Dempsey, McGuigan and Gary Mason with his giant sweaty head, but had the internet been around then I doubt anyone would be asking how they were in their job. They were very good, as was Darke.

[overhand_right]

If he gets as many Tweets as Anna does, and they're equal in terms of content and verocity, than fair enough. Twitter is a very vile place, where people will offer death threats, rape threats, insult people's children purely because they don't like them as television personalities.

But all the more reason why we shouldn't condemn her pointing it out when it happens to her. It's an issue that deserves to be talked about. Especially if it's racist or sexist in nature. Surely, she shouldn't be criticised for voicing these as a concerns, especially if the abuse she gets is sexist in nature.

I think unfortunately it's the reality of putting yourself out there. Fame and money comes at a price.