Page 2 of 2
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 28 May 2017, 09:20
by Tarkus
Froch doesn't irritate me but his commentary inst too useful. As an expert commentator he supposed to be noticing things, telling me something I dont know. He doesn't do that. He should be reading the dynamic of the fight, who is winning, who has the momentum etc. He is all wrong. Yesterday he kept insisting Allen has this in the bag, he is winning this easy and shit like that. Plus his scoring is piss poor, one of the worst. I mean he might as well be scoring with his eyes closed.
I still prefer him to Bellew who is turning into a right asshole lately.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 28 May 2017, 09:40
by Ossyrules
boxingknockout wrote:Ossyrules wrote:boxingknockout wrote:
Are you serious? It has everything to do with boxing knowledge in so far as general knowledge of the fight game is concerned.
And not to even know the fighter's actual
Name despite commentating on a PPV fight that he must've or should've been properly briefed on is alarming.
He admits himself he doesn't follow boxing so I have no idea why he would be a choice to comment on a big fight.
As for co-commentator Smith; not only did Smith not correct him but he started to refer to Errol as ''Spencer' which implies he didn't even know what Spence's real name is.
Smith has recent form for this with his 'Ian Lewinson' commentary.
All Smith does is refer to a few other fights that were good (notice he referenced Wlaaaaahhhddddd vs AAAAAYYYYY JAYYYYYYYYYY last night) or mentions something the fighter's said in the press conference or build up.
No insight, no analysis, nothing of value to the viewer.
To clarify by boxing knowledge I mean what is happening in the ring. The technical aspects of boxing
I don't think any of its half as bad as you're making out.
Understood on technical side, but are you really suggesting that commentators should be given a pass for not getting the fighters' names right?
So to you it would be OK if Froch was talking about 70s superfights and referenced the 'Allen-Fritzell 3', thriller in Vanilla?!!
No that's poor I agree, I agreed with this on my first post re this
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 28 May 2017, 18:13
by Bricks
bigjack wrote:bigped wrote:Did use hear Amir Khan pre fright referring to spence as Thurman saying kell
Had a Tough fight in front of him
With Thurman lol
Yes that wound me up too,idiots they are
Khans dumber to amirs dumb so u can excuse the bolton hillbilly...but unforgivable by froch getting the name so wrong and it undermined the promotion i hope smith gave him a real talking to
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 06:36
by Terminator666
They should have used. malagnaggi- much better co commentator
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 06:40
by banjo
Malignaggi loves the sound of his own voice, and that New York accent is an abomination to human kind.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 09:21
by rhino222
to this day people call eubank eubanks
froch getting the name wrong is hardly an issue, at least he says it as it is and has no splinters in his arse.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 13:56
by boxingknockout
rhino222 wrote:to this day people call eubank eubanks
froch getting the name wrong is hardly an issue, at least he says it as it is and has no splinters in his arse.
Thanks for that insight rio334
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 14:14
by CaptainSpacerod
Can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted a list of the names of boxers he's promoted that FW is unable to pronounce properly, tickled me at the time.
Calzacky and Eubanks were two of the obvious ones, can't remember any more
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 15:08
by Boxerbeetle
rhino222 wrote:to this day people call eubank eubanks
froch getting the name wrong is hardly an issue, at least he says it as it is and has no splinters in his arse.
Hmmm good thinking, maybe Spence was actually originally called Spencer and decided to drop the r, similar to what Eubank(s) did.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 15:13
by crusader
I accidentally wrote 'Errol Spencer' in my Current Scene prediction contest entry; I knew the boxer was 'Errol Spence', but when writing I had a mental blunder and typed the nearly identical 'Spencer' instead.
It was sloppy for Froch to repeatedly use the incorrect name, but IMO not exactly a big deal given the high degree of similiarity. As an 'expert' commentator, his insight to the bouts is the main issue....
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 15:23
by coneye
He's there because he's a personality , no more no less , he did'nt earn his living being a sports pundit , and to be honest i've found quite a lot of boxers do not follow boxing especiely when they stop fighting themselves , the interest when there competing is generally in themselves
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 15:30
by Boxerbeetle
crusader wrote:I accidentally wrote 'Errol Spencer' in my Current Scene prediction contest entry; I knew the boxer was 'Errol Spence', but when writing I had a mental blunder and typed the nearly identical 'Spencer' instead.
It was sloppy for Froch to repeatedly use the incorrect name, but IMO not exactly a big deal given the high degree of similiarity. As an 'expert' commentator, his insight to the bouts is the main issue....
Making a typo on an internet forum is one thing, but Froch not bothering to do the slightest bit of research or preparation for his job was extremely poor. The fact that none of the Sky producers bothered to correct him was also very disappointing. This was a PPV show, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a professional presentation.
Oh yeah, and Froch's 'insights' were woeful as well.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 15:37
by bripez
CaptainSpacerod wrote:Can't remember which thread it was on but someone posted a list of the names of boxers he's promoted that FW is unable to pronounce properly, tickled me at the time.
Calzacky and Eubanks were two of the obvious ones, can't remember any more
Frank also calls Froch, Frock - I wasn't sure if it was genuine or just to wind him up!
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 29 May 2017, 16:02
by CaptainSpacerod
bripez wrote:
Frank also calls Froch, Frock - I wasn't sure if it was genuine or just to wind him up!
It is a funny one that. It's not like he hasn't heard a million people pronounce it Froch.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 30 May 2017, 02:37
by Autobarn
straali wrote:Carl Froch - great champion as a boxer but, my God, as a commentator he's the equivalent one of those Baltic state punch bags who get ko'd in a round. His reading of a fight is absolutely awful and he peddles the same line in "house-fighter" cheerleading as the utterly risible Adam Smith. Bonus farce last night was Froch's continual referencing of Spence as Spencer.
Adam Smith and Carl Froch: I contend there has never been a worse commentating duo in British televised boxing history.
And to think people on here used to moan about Jim Watt........
I remember George Foreman being repeatedly unable to say Cesar Bazan during Jose Luis Castillo's great WBC lightweight fight against Cesar Bazan on HBO.
Clearly hadn't done his research and wasn't listening to his colleagues, unless he didn't like Bazan.
Was annoying when the guy getting paid to commentate wasn't prepared enough to know the combatant's name.
Re: Froch as co-commentator
Posted: 30 May 2017, 02:40
by Autobarn
banjo wrote:Malignaggi loves the sound of his own voice, and that New York accent is an abomination to human kind.
yes it really grates
Malignaggi is a strange choice to me for commentating in the UK, as he has done, due to his terrible performances against Hatton and Khan.