BoxRec

Watt did a good job last night. He was bang on the money.

Watt was bloody awful as usual, negative from the get go, then whinge all the way through creating an unpleasant ordeal atmosphere to the fight. Generally leaving all casual punters thinking they had witnessed the worst fight in history, which is complete bollocks.

stujones wrote:

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote:I'm a Watt fan, and I thought he had it fantastically correct last night.... Now Rawling had a shock of all shockers IMO.... Cheer leading for Haye so much.

Rawling was willing a bad decision.... and when Emmanuel Steward try to gee up Klitchsko by implying the fight was close - he actually said "well, maybe this fight is close" - it was as if he just didn't know how to score a fight.

Utter rubbish. Steward was saying this to Klitschko, and Rawling was ensuring the viewers heard it. He was also reflecting what we all knew, namely that Haye had a puncher's chance. He scored the fight much the same as Watt from how I heard it. There is a difference between not knowing how to score a fight and trying to maintain interest for viewers. He clearly knew Haye was schooled.

Come on CC - he called the performance "brave" before the toe revelation. On the Steward thing had that have been Ian Darke he would have called it like it was and said something like "surely thats just to gee up Klitchsko" instead of basically saying that MAYBE Watt/Sky are calling it wrong. He kept reverting to George Foreman's card and again insinuated that if Foreman is seeing it close, maybe it is close - it gave the impression that he didn't have a clue how to score it.

The toe revelation colours judgement. Remember Haye did have Klitschko holding on in the last round having landed a big shot. Maybe it was "to gee up Kitschko," but Emanuel has been around forever and is not noted for entering into verbage unless it is called for. Manny also berated the ref, worried that Haye was buying favours, and realised that Haye was dangerous as long as he was nthere. As for Foreman's card .. the man was an analyser for HBO for years and has been around, so is surely worth quoting ... even if eveyone can see nhe was wide of the mark. Remember he did a bit in the ring as well. Maybe Rawling rightly resisted the temptation of saying the old boy might have taken a punch too many. Maybe he was just trying to keep viewer interest going in a disappointing fight. If he had criticised, the naysayers would have said "he and Watt were negative," as it is you refer to the "shock of shockers." Not sure you know what you are talking about.

Jim Watt is by far the best boxing expert on tv. He might be dour , but hes usually spot on. I dont understand why people would campaign to get him booted off tv. it would be our loss if he was to go. also, you need the older generation to give current boxing a bit of perspective

jimcook wrote:Jim Watt is by far the best boxing expert on tv. He might be dour , but hes usually spot on. I dont understand why people would campaign to get him booted off tv. it would be our loss if he was to go. also, you need the older generation to give current boxing a bit of perspective

Thank God. Just when I thought this forum was being overun by morons, a man with sense. (And if Jim Cook equals James Cook the fighter, a bloody good one you were!)

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote:

carrotcruncher wrote:

Utter rubbish. Steward was saying this to Klitschko, and Rawling was ensuring the viewers heard it. He was also reflecting what we all knew, namely that Haye had a puncher's chance. He scored the fight much the same as Watt from how I heard it. There is a difference between not knowing how to score a fight and trying to maintain interest for viewers. He clearly knew Haye was schooled.

Come on CC - he called the performance "brave" before the toe revelation. On the Steward thing had that have been Ian Darke he would have called it like it was and said something like "surely thats just to gee up Klitchsko" instead of basically saying that MAYBE Watt/Sky are calling it wrong. He kept reverting to George Foreman's card and again insinuated that if Foreman is seeing it close, maybe it is close - it gave the impression that he didn't have a clue how to score it.

The toe revelation colours judgement. Remember Haye did have Klitschko holding on in the last round having landed a big shot. Maybe it was "to gee up Kitschko," but Emanuel has been around forever and is not noted for entering into verbage unless it is called for. Manny also berated the ref, worried that Haye was buying favours, and realised that Haye was dangerous as long as he was nthere. As for Foreman's card .. the man was an analyser for HBO for years and has been around, so is surely worth quoting ... even if eveyone can see nhe was wide of the mark. Remember he did a bit in the ring as well. Maybe Rawling rightly resisted the temptation of saying the old boy might have taken a punch too many. Maybe he was just trying to keep viewer interest going in a disappointing fight. If he had criticised, the naysayers would have said "he and Watt were negative," as it is you refer to the "shock of shockers." Not sure you know what you are talking about.

spot on.foreman and holyfield are just two persons who had it a close fight in terms of haye was in it all the way to the 12th but LOST.Hayes power kept wlad wary to the end. ultimately i think the huge backlash has been due tpohayes own big mouth

Huge admiration for Jim Watt.
His knowledge of the fight game is unrivalled in my opinion.
The way he managed his own career (in a sense) was very well done and he always speaks with clarity, common sense and with no airs or graces.
You may have the odd difference of opinion for some fights (Haye/Valuev) but if you can find someone who agrees with all your opinions you can probably turn the fish and loaves trick.

Watt and Woodhall are both great, IMO.

maninthemiddle wrote:Huge admiration for Jim Watt.
His knowledge of the fight game is unrivalled in my opinion.
The way he managed his own career (in a sense) was very well done and he always speaks with clarity, common sense and with no airs or graces.
You may have the odd difference of opinion for some fights (Haye/Valuev) but if you can find someone who agrees with all your opinions you can probably turn the fish and loaves trick.

Jim has not been doing this for over 30 years by accident. He speaks with authority and calls it as it is. He is over 60, sharp as a tack, fit as a man 20 years his junior, and somebody who is not swayed by promoters and favouritism. Wish they were all the same.

mugabi wrote:

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote: Come on CC - he called the performance "brave" before the toe revelation. On the Steward thing had that have been Ian Darke he would have called it like it was and said something like "surely thats just to gee up Klitchsko" instead of basically saying that MAYBE Watt/Sky are calling it wrong. He kept reverting to George Foreman's card and again insinuated that if Foreman is seeing it close, maybe it is close - it gave the impression that he didn't have a clue how to score it.

The toe revelation colours judgement. Remember Haye did have Klitschko holding on in the last round having landed a big shot. Maybe it was "to gee up Kitschko," but Emanuel has been around forever and is not noted for entering into verbage unless it is called for. Manny also berated the ref, worried that Haye was buying favours, and realised that Haye was dangerous as long as he was nthere. As for Foreman's card .. the man was an analyser for HBO for years and has been around, so is surely worth quoting ... even if eveyone can see nhe was wide of the mark. Remember he did a bit in the ring as well. Maybe Rawling rightly resisted the temptation of saying the old boy might have taken a punch too many. Maybe he was just trying to keep viewer interest going in a disappointing fight. If he had criticised, the naysayers would have said "he and Watt were negative," as it is you refer to the "shock of shockers." Not sure you know what you are talking about.

spot on.foreman and holyfield are just two persons who had it a close fight in terms of haye was in it all the way to the 12th but LOST.Hayes power kept wlad wary to the end. ultimately i think the huge backlash has been due tpohayes own big mouth

People are lining up to trash Haye. The same people who said he would win. Perhaps they feel let down and want to vent their feelings. Two of the best ever heavyweights say Haye was in it. Of course he was ... people who think otherwise should watch that 12th round again. Well said Mugabi. Jeez, there are some prats on here.

carrotcruncher wrote: fit as a man 20 years his junior

Completely disagree.

I'm 20 years his junior and he's far fitter than I am

carrotcruncher wrote:People are lining up to trash Haye. The same people who said he would win. Perhaps they feel let down and want to vent their feelings. Two of the best ever heavyweights say Haye was in it. Of course he was ... people who think otherwise should watch that 12th round again. Well said Mugabi. Jeez, there are some prats on here.

Yes, watch the 12th round again...and ask yourself where the hell he was between rounds four and then. That's what is annoying a lot of people.

mugabi wrote:

carrotcruncher wrote:

stujones wrote: Come on CC - he called the performance "brave" before the toe revelation. On the Steward thing had that have been Ian Darke he would have called it like it was and said something like "surely thats just to gee up Klitchsko" instead of basically saying that MAYBE Watt/Sky are calling it wrong. He kept reverting to George Foreman's card and again insinuated that if Foreman is seeing it close, maybe it is close - it gave the impression that he didn't have a clue how to score it.

The toe revelation colours judgement. Remember Haye did have Klitschko holding on in the last round having landed a big shot. Maybe it was "to gee up Kitschko," but Emanuel has been around forever and is not noted for entering into verbage unless it is called for. Manny also berated the ref, worried that Haye was buying favours, and realised that Haye was dangerous as long as he was nthere. As for Foreman's card .. the man was an analyser for HBO for years and has been around, so is surely worth quoting ... even if eveyone can see nhe was wide of the mark. Remember he did a bit in the ring as well. Maybe Rawling rightly resisted the temptation of saying the old boy might have taken a punch too many. Maybe he was just trying to keep viewer interest going in a disappointing fight. If he had criticised, the naysayers would have said "he and Watt were negative," as it is you refer to the "shock of shockers." Not sure you know what you are talking about.

spot on.foreman and holyfield are just two persons who had it a close fight in terms of haye was in it all the way to the 12th but LOST.Hayes power kept wlad wary to the end. ultimately i think the huge backlash has been due tpohayes own big mouth

And how many other 'experts' had it as close as Foreman and Holyfield?

Mugabi and Carrotcruncher - when I said "before the toe revalation" I actually didn't mean it as a criticism of Haye. I'm actually not condeming him for mentioning and I DO even think it would have impacted on his performance. HOWEVER, would you call it a brave performance as soon as the last bell rung? Maybe you can say "all things considered" it was brave, but Rawling was saying this before the toe thing became public - the man ran for most of the fight and threw next to f all.

My criticism of Rawling for citing Foreman's card was that it seemed to sway his own opinion. He would ask Jim Watt, then say his opinion (Klitchsko comfortably ahead) then cite the Foreman card and then say "maybe it is much closer" - stick to your guns. How many times would you hear Ian Darke condem Harold Lederman's card (who was always the fight scorer for HBO not Foreman) and say "not sure how he can read it like that" - now for me, thats what I prefer. Rawling was unintentionally questioning Watt's score card with every mention of Foreman's one possibly being accurate.

On to Manny Steward - I agree with partially what you said, but no Manny didn't think Haye was dangerous in the segments they went to his corner and Rawling referenced. Manny was begging Klitchsko to take more risks, to be more dominant and to throw more shots. Something he has actually done throughout their time together.... when Lewis fought Tyson, Manny was constantly telling Lewis to be wary right until the end of the contest practically. He was asking Wlad to throw more punches. Lets not forget Haye has won a close decision on away soil fighting a similar fight and doing lots of running, and Manny himself has been involved with a fighter who lost a decision (well, he got a draw) who was criticised for not throwing more meaningful shots in a fight in which he largely controled the centre of the ring.

Keeping viewer interest in a dissapointing fight, isn't exactly calling it as it - which is what I look for in a commentary team. Jim Watt called it spot on, never once did he say "come on Haye, your fighting crap" - he appreciated that Haye was dangerous, Haye seemed to have a gameplan of capitalising on a Klitchsko error and the gameplan, although looking back at the fight might seem daft, wasn't so bad because he demonstrated the power to hurt Wlad and did look always dangerous. There was never a moment in which Haye wasn't in the fight - so I disagree with the comments that he was over negative. However, Rawling was way over the top the other way - "brave performance".

when jim watt eventually goes its highly unlikely we will see his like on sky again.
He was trained in the old skool art of being impartial and proffesional in the manner lynam and inverdale also used to be when boxing was on the bbc. Of course the sky way, has been to encourage a "matey" cheerleading, "all lads down at the pub" type banter which detracts from the viewer receiving value for money. Watt has an inate ability to see a fight and tell viewers whats going on, everything about him the phrases such as "he fancies the job a bit more now"....the whole protestant mentality of the man he is decency and moderation personified.....barry mcguigan if he is steered in the right way i have always felt could become a tremendous commentator

I think Watt is great, really knows the game. Unlike all the Haye cheerleaders, he actually offered a realistic opinion. To listen to McGuigan and co, Klitchko had no chance and Haye was the second coming, not some guy who in his last 3 fights had beaten the worst heavyweight champion of all time, the perennial WBA's favourite son in Ruiz, who was ancient, and then the biggest disappointment of all time in Harrison, who landed 1 punch in the fight.

Woodhall is a top guy but so so biassed. I always remember Gavin Rees, being totally dominated by Kotelnik, and Woodhall scoring one particular round even, and Buncey just shaking his head in disbelief saying "What, you gave that round to Rees?" Woodhall's most annoying thing is he will British fighters to win rounds. After 2 mins 30 seconds in a round, British fighter whoever, will be behind, Woodhall will say "it's a close round, a good finish from (British fighter) and he'll nick it...oh good left jab (that was blocked) he just took the round on my card" drives me nuts.

Watt calls it as he sees it, and right or wrong predicted Haye's tactics of moving away, slipping outside, under, trying to land a fast 1-2 (which he did appallingly we all know), Mcguigan and Hatton had Haye turning into Mike McCallum, stepping in, blocking and throwing short left hooks over the right hand!

Was always curious how McGuigan had a shorter-armed Haye, landing short hooks what he doesn't posses, over a taller fighter with a high back hand and great spacial awareness?