BoxRec

banjo wrote:Was Jim Neilly the one who said "He looked great until he got knocked out in the first round" :??

I think it was him who during the Barrera v Tapia fight said something like "Barrera has enourmous respect for Tapia which is why he has his name on his shorts"



Absolute prat.

lirva wrote:

banjo wrote:Was Jim Neilly the one who said "He looked great until he got knocked out in the first round" :??

I think it was him who during the Barrera v Tapia fight said something like "Barrera has enourmous respect for Tapia which is why he has his name on his shorts"



Absolute prat.

yeah I remember that. He was a real idiot. Couldn't even pronounce fighters names. "Evander Holly Field"

liamlion wrote:

hurlock wrote:i like mckenzie he say's how he reads into it,the man is probably one of our finest champions. & is intellectual & knows alot more then me & you,& yes does get it wrong at times.
i like how he's not all praise & talk for the house fighter.
it did look like murray was in a hurry & was lightly to shoot his bolt.

How exactly do you gauge his intelligence??...because he wears glasses (it cant surely be on the basis of what he says!!)?? Commentating on a fight is about observing the fight and relaying what is actually taking place. Without fail his commentary often makes me think that he's watching a different fight completely.

The bloke may have been a world champion and with that certainly comes great insight into the fight game. But lets not forget he’s also taken more punishment to his brain than me and you, which has clearly affected his ability to interpret what he sees and be able to communicate it affectively.

The amount of times he gets a cle-shay completely wrong is embarrassing and nothing short of cringe worthy. To me, he often comes across as confused. Ian Darke is a top drawer commentator (who pisses all over McKenzie in respect of commentary) and to my knowledge he hasn’t boxed in his life. Great fighters don’t necessarily equate to great commentators and to suggest that fight fans cant criticise the short-comings in McKenzie's commentary because of his ring achievements is nothing short of ridiculous.

stujones wrote:

caffrey wrote: x 2

do these ex fighters have like a job interview to become a pundit/commentator.Some are fantastic-lennox lewis,roy jones,bernard hopkins.but the ones forced down our throats such as mckenzie and mcguigan are teriible

I find Lennox adds nothing to a broadcast, seems to say very generic responses. I find Roy hard to understand... Hopkins is good though.

I don't mind McGuigan, but some of McKenzie's comments are just baffling.

Jim Watt is the master, it sometimes hard to believe he was actually a boxer, thats how good he is.

banjo wrote:Was Jim Neilly the one who said "He looked great until he got knocked out in the first round" :??

I think it was him who during the Barrera v Tapia fight said something like "Barrera has enourmous respect for Tapia which is why he has his name on his shorts"



Absolute prat.

stujones wrote:

liamlion wrote: Great fighters don’t necessarily equate to great commentators and to suggest that fight fans cant criticise the short-comings in McKenzie's commentary because of his ring achievements is nothing short of ridiculous.

Yes, but my old man often says to me "does this guy know anything about the sport"... well the obvious answer SHOULD be yes - 3 weight world champion.... but both me and the old man are often just lost for words with the things he says. Its not his presentation or communication skills we are questioning, but it appears his general lack of knowledge (and I aint talking facts and figures) about the sport... strategy, fight awareness etc..... surely such an intelligent boxer, I mean in the ring, cannot be that bad.

The worst display I've seen for McKenzie was for the PRE RECORDED (which I think is an important factor) Froch vs Taylor show. He just contradicted himself time and time again and I think even said that Taylor and Froch were stylistically similar but Froch the boxer