BoxRec

It’s certainly appearing to be that way, I think Paulie must have been thinking ffs these Brits are unbelievable bias.

95gerog wrote:

roy wrote:I usually think that Jim Watt reads a fight pretty well but,last night, he was appalling. He seemed to make up his mind how the fight was going after the first few seconds and stuck to it, regardless of what was actually happening in the ring. Let's face it, the fight didn't start until round 5. Everything before then was just a feeling out process and you could hardly separate them.

So true i didnt guve a round to anyone till 5

I know what you are saying, but you don't score a fight like that and the judges had to decide on how to score it and I highly doubt we had 3 cards of 40-40 after four rounds.

Watt, Malignaggi and Ed Robinson clearly thought Froch was being the ring general, Khan thought otherwise. Personally I had Groves up but can see why people had Froch up.... as you say nobody did nothing to really dominate any of those rounds - but you don't have 4 drawn rounds.

stujones wrote:

95gerog wrote:

roy wrote:I usually think that Jim Watt reads a fight pretty well but,last night, he was appalling. He seemed to make up his mind how the fight was going after the first few seconds and stuck to it, regardless of what was actually happening in the ring. Let's face it, the fight didn't start until round 5. Everything before then was just a feeling out process and you could hardly separate them.

So true i didnt guve a round to anyone till 5

I know what you are saying, but you don't score a fight like that and the judges had to decide on how to score it and I highly doubt we had 3 cards of 40-40 after four rounds.

Watt, Malignaggi and Ed Robinson clearly thought Froch was being the ring general, Khan thought otherwise. Personally I had Groves up but can see why people had Froch up.... as you say nobody did nothing to really dominate any of those rounds - but you don't have 4 drawn rounds.

If you don't believe either fighter out boxed the other then you score the round 10-10. I personally struggled like hell to split the first 4.

I don't really see why people get their knickers in a twist over commentators, whether its biased or not. Just read the fight as you see it and believe in your own ability to judge the scoring. Who really cares what Jim Watt say's or anyone else, they are only there to try add to the atmosphere for those watching. What Jim Watt say's has no relevance at all on what the referee is thinking or how the three judges are scoring the fight. Some people judge a fight on how aggressive a fighter is and some judge a fight punch for punch. You will always get clowns like Bunce who sit on the fence pre fight and then seconds after the fight ends will say " I was talking to blah de blah last week about how Froch could well knock out Groves " etc etc zzzzzzzzzz and the all the rest of it. Who cares ? Judge a fight how you see it. Personally i think that Groves was up by about three rounds when Carl landed the bomb and as a few others have said, the first four rounds were pity pat punches and feeling each other out ( so to speak ). Jim Watt at el can say that Froch won all the rounds etc, but if the fight had gone to the cards, it was the three judges at ringside who would have decided, making Watt's opinions futile.

Incompetent. The most frustrating thing for me was I was watching with mates who are only casual fans & were completely swayed by Watt's constant bleating about Froch. Watt is no longer fit for purpose.

columbo wrote:Im guessing everyone was forgetting how biased Watt's commentary was towards Groves's in the first fight. Groves was bossing Carl for the majority in the first fight but Watt still ignored every little bit of success Carl had.

Couldn't agree more. Watt is absolute shite - he gets an idea stuck in his head and repeats it over and over again ad infinitum to the exclusion of everything that's actually happening in front of him. I laughed my head off when Khan refused to follow script and said what was obvious, that Groves was in control of a very close fight at that stage (end of round 5 I think). Watt seemed to be totally oblivious to the infrequent but sharp and clean straight right hands bouncing off Froch's head in the first 5 rounds of the fight.

dookus wrote:

columbo wrote:Im guessing everyone was forgetting how biased Watt's commentary was towards Groves's in the first fight. Groves was bossing Carl for the majority in the first fight but Watt still ignored every little bit of success Carl had.

Couldn't agree more. Watt is absolute shite - he gets an idea stuck in his head and repeats it over and over again ad infinitum to the exclusion of everything that's actually happening in front of him. I laughed my head off when Khan refused to follow script and said what was obvious, that Groves was in control of a very close fight at that stage (end of round 5 I think). Watt seemed to be totally oblivious to the infrequent but sharp and clean straight right hands bouncing off Froch's head in the first 5 rounds of the fight.

I have a feeling he flipped his bias allegiance because of the fact he was seen as being bias in the first fight.

Watt had froch 4 up after 6 rounds. He then gave groves round 7 which was clearly correct. So he had froch @5-2. So he was only a maximum of being one round out from two of the judges who also had froch up??? So that doesn't sound too unacceptable?

Watching it a Wembley my pissed as a fart scorecard was 4-3 froch for what its worth.

I watched whole show back on TV today and thought watt was fine.

He gave props to both men and was fair. Round 7 and 8 he was really complimentary to groves

I thought Froch was up by a whisker as well......Groves remained the challenger and that means making things happen and having to win the round by always doing just by that little bit more.

George was not doing enough to seal the rounds and nudge himself ahead in my opinion, sure he was often getting himself in the right position to unload punches and looked good dong it, but he was not releasing the trigger often or conclusively enough and Froch was running the centre of the ring as well.

Having said that - Jim now seems to be at odds with so many fight fans - and I don't think he always calls the progress of a fight as well as he used to. I'd move McCrory behind the ringside microphone and see whether someone more exuberant like Haye or Hatton would like to do the scene-setting, colour-commentary with Nelson.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:

liamlion wrote:

columbo wrote:Im guessing everyone was forgetting how biased Watt's commentary was towards Groves's in the first fight. Groves was bossing Carl for the majority in the first fight but Watt still ignored every little bit of success Carl had.

What success did Carl exactly have in the first fight?

You mean apart from the win, retaining his belts and a money spinning rematch, which he also won? Great question, we might struggle with this one.

Mate, the context of the discussion about success was in relation to punches actually landed in the first fight.

Froch didnt land anything significant in the first fight and was gifted the decision. Its as simple as that. But you carry on answering your own questions...

That musta been Paulie's easiest payday since [insert preferred opponent]

But im a big fan of Malignaggi the analyst but he seemed to be like he was used as a roaming reporter just giving snippets and you could tell he was preferring Groves work but didnt want to go too against Watt and co

However, when Ed Robinson spoke to Khan (who had Groves well up) he had to double check that Khan didn't have the names mixed up - so obviously Ed Robinson was scoring it similar to Watt.

That bit was incredible. 'You mean Carl Froch?' 'No, I mean George Groves...'

Jim watt is bad.

Malignaggi was actually ok I thought.

ApolloCreed wrote:

However, when Ed Robinson spoke to Khan (who had Groves well up) he had to double check that Khan didn't have the names mixed up - so obviously Ed Robinson was scoring it similar to Watt.

That bit was incredible. 'You mean Carl Froch?' 'No, I mean George Groves...'

That was cringeworthy. Made the Sky team look silly. To be honest some of them didn't perform with credit all the way through. Watt was talking like a madman, Johnny Nelson looked like he was going to wet himself and the main commentator was that bad he at one point got all excited about "Groves" knocking over Gonzalez.

I have to say I watch an awful lot of boxing and i thought Khan must have been high when he said that. Groves was really not doing an awful lot until about round 7. People claiming Watt is biased towards Froch are clearly operating on a different plain of reality. Watt is known for being on Froch's case constantly.

Many of you are also taking his scorecard completely out of context - he clearly said that the rounds were close but he was scoring for Froch because he was the aggressor, holding the centre of the ring and that if you want to fight on the back foot like groves you have to be seen to be doing a bit more. I had it closer, but for me that is an entirely legitimate analysis. He was clearly saying this is my card but the judges could have it very different.

Though far from faultless, I reckon Watt gets more of a hard time than he deserves on here. There were people seriously criticising him for saying John Murray was coming apart v Crolla, despite the fact that is exactly what happened!

p.s. Watt also predicted a Froch KO because the worst Froch still beat the best Groves. Sounds fairly bang on to me.

Trojans44 wrote:I have to say I watch an awful lot of boxing and i thought Khan must have been high when he said that. Groves was really not doing an awful lot until about round 7. People claiming Watt is biased towards Froch are clearly operating on a different plain of reality. Watt is known for being on Froch's case constantly.

Many of you are also taking his scorecard completely out of context - he clearly said that the rounds were close but he was scoring for Froch because he was the aggressor, holding the centre of the ring and that if you want to fight on the back foot like groves you have to be seen to be doing a bit more. I had it closer, but for me that is an entirely legitimate analysis. He was clearly saying this is my card but the judges could have it very different.

Though far from faultless, I reckon Watt gets more of a hard time than he deserves on here. There were people seriously criticising him for saying John Murray was coming apart v Crolla, despite the fact that is exactly what happened!

p.s. Watt also predicted a Froch KO because the worst Froch still beat the best Groves. Sounds fairly bang on to me.

If Froch was the one on the back foot, picking his punches carefully, to Watt he would have been landing the cleaner punches and better defensively, so he would have won the rounds. There's no consistency to his scoring, one fight he splits close rounds on work rate, the next he decides to favour cleaner punches, depending on who Sky want to win.

But that's clearly bullshit because he also commentated on his ring walk v Bute like Froch was entering the gates of hell and practically had a Grovesgasm every time George landed in the first fight. He even went on during commentary about how actually Froch had never been tested because he'd never fought a young guy in his prime.

Yeah clearly Jim doesn't give a damn about cheer leading the matchroom fighter, he may have his faults, but being a kiss ass to the boss is certainly not one of them.
As Trojans44 points out, he was 100% behind Groves in 1st fight, and was just calling it as he sees it this time round - and yes he really does get stuck in a rut while commentating these days, no doubt about it, once he sees it one way, he pretty much stays on message.

I was in a loud pub, so not really following Sky's all star line up of clownish commentators & presenters, but would tend to agree with Watt if he had Carl ahead: while George was landing, to me it never looked like Carl was going to lose this one, after the tentative start, he looked in charge all the way.

Froch showed the stuff of real champions on Sat night, but George will be back no doubt about it.

Yeah clearly Jim doesn't give a damn about cheer leading the matchroom fighter, he may have his faults, but being a kiss ass to the boss is certainly not one of them.
As Trojans44 points out, he was 100% behind Groves in 1st fight, and was just calling it as he sees it this time round - and yes he really does get stuck in a rut while commentating these days, no doubt about it, once he sees it one way, he pretty much stays on message.

I was in a loud pub, so not really following Sky's all star line up of clownish commentators & presenters, but would tend to agree with Watt if he had Carl ahead: while George was landing, to me it never looked like Carl was going to lose this one, after the tentative start, he looked in charge all the way.

Froch showed the stuff of real champions on Sat night, but George will be back no doubt about it.

Saturday was a tricky fight to score. Not many clean punches landed, lots of jabs fell short, not a llot of obvious action. I had Froch winning, but there were 4 rounds that were close enough to go either way.

Biased commentary in this country is joke, it spoils the fights, when Groves was hitting Froch, all I could hear was how Froch was in full control, I had it close, with Groves 1 round up, until the stoppage, Watt had Froch about 5 or 6 rounds up, ridiculous, only Malignagi and Khan got it right, the sky team were rubbish, Froch when he did throw combo's was mostly hitting groves arms, Groves landed the cleaner shots and hurt froch a few times, but Froch kept it closer with his workrate and taking the centre of the ring most of the time, the small ring helped Froch to force Groves onto the ropes, I remember thinking Groves is just in front, with Froch's championship rounds to come, was Groves pacing his self more to get the distance well, we will never know now.

Watt is an incompetent liar

Anzi wrote:Biased commentary in this country is joke, it spoils the fights, when Groves was hitting Froch, all I could hear was how Froch was in full control, I had it close, with Groves 1 round up, until the stoppage, .

liamlion wrote:
Froch didnt land anything significant in the first fight and was gifted the decision. Its as simple as that. :

oh, dear.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:Incompetent. The most frustrating thing for me was I was watching with mates who are only casual fans & were completely swayed by Watt's constant bleating about Froch. Watt is no longer fit for purpose.

x2

I watched it with a mate (casual fan) who thought Froch dominated the entire fight. He simply couldn't comprehend why I thought Groves was slightly ahead. I got bored of trying to explain that just because Froch is standing in the centre of the ring, it doesn't neccessarily mean he's doing the effective work.

Finally, just when Watt started to give Groves some credit he got knocked out!