Page 2 of 2
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 07:39
by Kilburn
I think it's fair to say we saw Kelly's limitations against Mahmutov and Pacheco. I don't see one easy champion at fly/super fly.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 09:14
by DIRT SUGAR
119-109... That was a fornicating disgraceful card... I mean, that card says Kelly kicked his arse and sorry but I know who looked like the winner.
I felt Booth's aggression were superior to Kelly's in-and-out boxing and if Booth had showed a bit more fire and applied a bit more pressure and fired a few more overhand rights, he would have stopped Kelly.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 11:49
by Kilburn
Hurrah!
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 11:55
by jamesmcdonnell
The Gaffer wrote:When the BBC show England football matches they quite often give you the option on interactive of changing the commentary.
As far as I remember the choice is either normal, no commentary or radio 5 commentary. This is pretty handy as it gives the option of not having to listen to Lawrenson babble on inanely for 90 minutes.
Obviously Sky couldn't give them same options with the boxing, but they could easily give us access to the live feed without commentary.
Mind you they only really seem bothered about using the full potential of thier interactive service on football, or huge events like the Ryder Cup. They haven't even got interactive coverage on the cricket at the moment, which is quite sad because cricket is the perfect sport with which to use the service.
Boxing is a sport which can be incredibly dull with no commentary. Also it gives sky a chance to talk up incredible mismatches as jaw-dropping spectacles, and one sided pastings as dynamite performances.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 12:28
by celticwarrior
jamesmcdonnell wrote:The Gaffer wrote:When the BBC show England football matches they quite often give you the option on interactive of changing the commentary.
As far as I remember the choice is either normal, no commentary or radio 5 commentary. This is pretty handy as it gives the option of not having to listen to Lawrenson babble on inanely for 90 minutes.
Obviously Sky couldn't give them same options with the boxing, but they could easily give us access to the live feed without commentary.
Mind you they only really seem bothered about using the full potential of thier interactive service on football, or huge events like the Ryder Cup. They haven't even got interactive coverage on the cricket at the moment, which is quite sad because cricket is the perfect sport with which to use the service.
Boxing is a sport which can be incredibly dull with no commentary. Also it gives sky a chance to talk up incredible mismatches as jaw-dropping spectacles, and one sided pastings as dynamite performances.
This is true, have you ever tried to watch a fight with foreign commentary. For example I have Steve Collins fight with Sambu Kalambay on tape with Italian commntary and although it's not a bad fight you feel theres something missing without someone commentating in English.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 12:34
by jamesmcdonnell
Yes, unless it's a wildly exciting fight which needs no commentary, then it can be a bit devoid of atmosphere, the commentary sort of gives it focus, and highlights things you may not have drawn attention to.
I think good commentary definetly enhances the viewing pleasure.