jim watt, why oh why oh why

fatman
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 206
Joined: 19 Jul 2005, 05:16

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by fatman »

Jim Watt is a tw@t of a commentator, i cannot stand him, he ruins the whole show.
nobby_nobbins
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 654
Joined: 22 Apr 2008, 16:07

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by nobby_nobbins »

bobmee wrote:"does anyone have the punch stats for nelson v de leon? "

For one brief, horrible moment, I thought - I've got the tape of that somewhere, it would be interesting to see if it was really as bad as all that... then I remembered Nelson-De Leon is the only fight I've just given up on scoring and decided 'whatever the 3 wise men decide is good enough, I just don't care any more'. Nevertheless.
I have that on VHS somewhere - it's a comedy classic :lol: Poor old Jim Watt sounded like he was in physical pain and said it was the worst fight he'd ever sat through. After a couple of rounds, the crowd were just wailing in misery. Nelson v Warring wasn't much better.
ERIC GUY
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1656
Joined: 30 Jan 2009, 21:13

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by ERIC GUY »

[/quote]amateur boxing places absolutely no relevance on how many punches you throw. only punches with the knuckle part of the glove on the target area receive points.
quote]
of course its relevant, if you throw 15 and score 15, it all counts!!! basic scoring...........
lowersmiths
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by lowersmiths »

ERIC GUY wrote:
amateur boxing places absolutely no relevance on how many punches you throw. only punches with the knuckle part of the glove on the target area receive points.
quote]
of course its relevant, if you throw 15 and score 15, it all counts!!! basic scoring...........[/quote]

i think it has gone over your head.

if my auntie had bollocks she would be my uncle etc etc
matthewcb
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 35
Joined: 06 May 2009, 06:16

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by matthewcb »

I'm sure in the old days with Reg Gutteridge he was far more laconic.

And he was all the better for it, it's almost as if he's paid by the word now...

Less is more Jim!!
Chambers2
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 6499
Joined: 24 Feb 2004, 07:24

Re: jim watt, why oh why oh why

Post by Chambers2 »

matthewcb wrote:it's almost as if he's paid by the word now...

Less is more Jim!!
I'd have willingly paid him to STFU on Saturday.

I was talking to a mate who's a casual fan and he said he turned the Sky commentary off and put radio 5 on for their commentary
Post Reply