BoxRec

I've got to admit, Showtime's is the only commentary I can stomach these days--& that's mostly just to see if Paulie loses it & calls someone a motherfucker. I'd rather have the commentating in Polish or Lithuanian, s'better for my blood pressure.

Datsue wrote:I've got to admit, Showtime's is the only commentary I can stomach these days--& that's mostly just to see if Paulie loses it & calls someone a motherfucker. I'd rather have the commentating in Polish or Lithuanian, s'better for my blood pressure.

Agreed. Showtime are very good and Paulie in particular. HBO are awful aswell.

Did anyone watch the fight with showtimes commentary instead of Sky's? If so, how did they score the fight?

Datsue wrote:-& that's mostly just to see if Paulie loses it & calls someone a motherfucker.

worth the subscription alone...

Said it for years...

Watt sides with a fighter, usually the favourite, very early on and then tries to justify it throughout the whole fight

columbo wrote:Did anyone watch the fight with showtimes commentary instead of Sky's? If so, how did they score the fight?

7-5 Brook... They were much more balanced in their commentary and gave Brook much more credit for his work, throughout the fight. Far superior commentary for the American team than from our lot.

columbo wrote:Did anyone watch the fight with showtimes commentary instead of Sk If so, how did they score the fight?

7-5 brook,they gave porter the 12th, brook won 4 of the first five on their card. They were very complimentary of brook throughout, was a good commentary actually.

I personally disagreed with Watt's view but I could see his interpretation.

Watt still miles ahead of anyone.

Incidiently, I normally like Barry Jones on commentary but was a tad disappointed that he didn't notice Firat Arslan slowing down before he actually noted it. He was clearly starting to slow down in the 8th and yet Jones was saying "Arslan looks so fresh" in that round.

On a side - Arslan vs Hernandez what a fight and IMO Arslan should have got the decision. Actually thought the rounds in which he stood back and mixed up his attacks (which seemed to be a forced tactic due to fatigue) won him the fight. If there is a award for world's hardest man I would nominate Arslan for it.

Datsue wrote:I've got to admit, Showtime's is the only commentary I can stomach these days--& that's mostly just to see if Paulie loses it & calls someone a motherfucker. I'd rather have the commentating in Polish or Lithuanian, s'better for my blood pressure.

Julio Cesar Chavez's commentary of the Rodriguez Vs Takayama fight was GOLDEN!

Show time was regularly praising Brook and had him a few rounds up, which proves he actually won fairly

I think you need 3 people on the job. Someone like Darke who has the right balance of drama and calm in his voice and a lead co commentator, preferably a top coach (because they can potentially give you more insight technically than an actual boxer! - think manny steward or teddy atlas) and then a relevant fighter (Froch, barker, Moore et al).

Darke, Booth (I said it!) and current or recently retired fighter relevant to particular fight. Ie on Saturday we would have had khan co commentating instead of being in a studio in isleworth!

To be fair, I listened to the first eight rounds of Showtime commentary today, and they were pretty much the reverse: giving all the credit to Kell, and barely mentioning Porter.... It's hard to strike the right balance and I think Bernstein and the Showtime crew are more partial to British fighters generally, due to the past connection with Nas, Hatton plus Al on CH5 too.

Anyway, enjoyed listening to them - Daniel Jacob was good too, and it was nice to hear an American commentary team so complimentary to a British fighter, but I think Sean Porter and co would have been a little pissed off as he wasn't getting much love at all

Sklar wrote:

revporl wrote:I scored it twice, once at the time and on a repeat viewing...

Props for having the tenacity to sit through that fight twice.

This. It was a very difficult watch.

Jim should just have a wankb4 commentating!! Kell coverd & got smotherd easily in the first 4 rds & jim just writes him off & makes you feel like saying fornicate it I'm turning it over!!!
Porter wasn't scoring cleanly & failing to bull his man about effectively in a very close fight. What people fail to forget is porter is the defending champion/house fighter/home turf, which does come into play

I think the OP has possibly overstated his level of disbelief at Jims scoring.

when you think about it, most have given this to Kell by a couple of points. given that Watt gave Porter the bout by a solitary point, a 3 point swing is hardly astounding and could very much just come down to, as Jim puts it, "A bit of what you like"

I gave one round to Kell that Jim gave to Porter and another 10-10 round on Jim s card i've just given narrowly to Brook. That's all it takes for a card to swing by 3 points.

And a few of the rounds I scored to Kell, he was outworked and could have easily swung in favour of porter,
Equally rounds I gave to Porter for effort, could feasibly have gone the other way, as a result of the scrappy nature of Porters work.

Jims had a lot worse off days than that.

davie wrote:I think the OP has possibly overstated his level of disbelief at Jims scoring.

when you think about it, most have given this to Kell by a couple of points. given that Watt gave Porter the bout by a solitary point, a 3 point swing is hardly astounding and could very much just come down to, as Jim puts it, "A bit of what you like"

I gave one round to Kell that Jim gave to Porter and another 10-10 round on Jim s card i've just given narrowly to Brook. That's all it takes for a card to swing by 3 points.

And a few of the rounds I scored to Kell, he was outworked and could have easily swung in favour of porter,
Equally rounds I gave to Porter for effort, could feasibly have gone the other way, as a result of the scrappy nature of Porters work.

Jims had a lot worse off days than that.

It's not even Watts scoring that's the main problem. It's his commentary and tendancy to always ignore one fighters work.

DMA1987 wrote:

davie wrote:I think the OP has possibly overstated his level of disbelief at Jims scoring.

when you think about it, most have given this to Kell by a couple of points. given that Watt gave Porter the bout by a solitary point, a 3 point swing is hardly astounding and could very much just come down to, as Jim puts it, "A bit of what you like"

I gave one round to Kell that Jim gave to Porter and another 10-10 round on Jim s card i've just given narrowly to Brook. That's all it takes for a card to swing by 3 points.

And a few of the rounds I scored to Kell, he was outworked and could have easily swung in favour of porter,
Equally rounds I gave to Porter for effort, could feasibly have gone the other way, as a result of the scrappy nature of Porters work.

Jims had a lot worse off days than that.

It's not even Watts scoring that's the main problem. It's his commentary and tendancy to always ignore one fighters work.

To be honest though DMA, it seems that people here to tend to Watt bash a bit. The man scored it to Porter by a round (which I disagreed with) there were plenty of "good work here from Brook", "that's better from Kell" in his commentary. I agree on this occasion, I did think he was applauding Porter's work a bit too much and thought Brook won a close decision. However, I do think people at times just listen to one round of Watt's commentary and say "oh that's it he's favouring Porter etc". There were threads criticising his commentary and his "bias" on both Froch vs Groves fights before the contest was near conclusion. The "that's better from Froch" in his commentary of the first fight got completely ignored.

ironically, people seem to identify a trend in Watt's commentary early in the fight and stick with it, ignoring his better work as the fight goes on

Counter-puncher wrote:ironically, people seem to identify a trend in Watt's commentary early in the fight and stick with it, ignoring his better work as the fight goes on

Yep, that was my point! Or just the minute he praises one fighter twice ignore any praise he gives for the other fighter.

I'll maintain that he got the first Froch vs Groves fight spot on. Yes, I know Froch fans suggested he didn't offer any praise for Froch (which is wrong if you actually listen to the commentary) - but the main point was Froch was fighting how we are not used to seeing him and that was the main talking point of the fight. That and George doing well and surprising people.

Even Froch himself said he was unmotivated and fought like a crab for the most part.

stujones wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

davie wrote:I think the OP has possibly overstated his level of disbelief at Jims scoring.

when you think about it, most have given this to Kell by a couple of points. given that Watt gave Porter the bout by a solitary point, a 3 point swing is hardly astounding and could very much just come down to, as Jim puts it, "A bit of what you like"

I gave one round to Kell that Jim gave to Porter and another 10-10 round on Jim s card i've just given narrowly to Brook. That's all it takes for a card to swing by 3 points.

And a few of the rounds I scored to Kell, he was outworked and could have easily swung in favour of porter,
Equally rounds I gave to Porter for effort, could feasibly have gone the other way, as a result of the scrappy nature of Porters work.

Jims had a lot worse off days than that.

It's not even Watts scoring that's the main problem. It's his commentary and tendancy to always ignore one fighters work.

To be honest though DMA, it seems that people here to tend to Watt bash a bit. The man scored it to Porter by a round (which I disagreed with) there were plenty of "good work here from Brook", "that's better from Kell" in his commentary. I agree on this occasion, I did think he was applauding Porter's work a bit too much and thought Brook won a close decision. However, I do think people at times just listen to one round of Watt's commentary and say "oh that's it he's favouring Porter etc". There were threads criticising his commentary and his "bias" on both Froch vs Groves fights before the contest was near conclusion. The "that's better from Froch" in his commentary of the first fight got completely ignored.

He was really awful in the first Froch v Groves fight. Groves did extremely well, but that seemed to purely blind Watt to everything Froch did. He was almost aggressively dismissive.

He wasn't as bad as that in this fight, but there is definitely a trend with Watt, and even if sometimes it's worse than others, it is still usually there. He seems incapable of just calling the fight in front of him.

DMA,

In my opinion there is a difference between calling a fight in terms of rounds etc and explaining the story of the fight. For me, the big story of the first Froch vs Groves fight was the lack of intensity (compared to previous fights) of Froch, the pawing of the jab, the KD and the effect (mentally and physically) it had and the surprise element of Groves.

Froch didn't make his mark into the fight and start throwing meaningful combinations on a regular basis until the 7th round. I know what you are saying, yes Froch did obviously land with some shots early doors that might have been missed by Watt - but I think the main difference here is that the public who Watt was commentating too knew and were used to seeing Froch on charges, leading the action, being on the Froch foot and not giving a damn about what is coming back his way. He had just won a pretty brutal second fight with Kessler by being first.

Froch wasn't fighting like that this time and that was the story.

What I don't want to see is someone who is just repeating the action as you see when Jim Neilly calls an "old type" amateur contest. "Oh that jab scores a point for Lewis, the counter right scores for Jones" etc. Watt calls the psychology of the fighter well and also calls a fight in comparison to others that he has seen of the fighters in action.

Now re Brook, aside from Jones we have never seen Brook really look close to losing a round. So I guess the main talking point of the first four rounds was how Brook was struggling to cope with Porter's style, something we were not used to seeing.

Similarly with Burns, Watt will often reflect on how Burns fought a couple of years ago and say "we never see Burns on the ropes, now we are seeing it". These, for me are the important things particularly if a successful fighter is not adopting their usual tactics.

Watt scores for the guy on the front foot, always....

His scorecard and commentary in Froch v Groves 2 was ludicrous, but is the latest in a long line of him ignoring QUALITY work.

stujones wrote:DMA,

In my opinion there is a difference between calling a fight in terms of rounds etc and explaining the story of the fight. For me, the big story of the first Froch vs Groves fight was the lack of intensity (compared to previous fights) of Froch, the pawing of the jab, the KD and the effect (mentally and physically) it had and the surprise element of Groves.

Froch didn't make his mark into the fight and start throwing meaningful combinations on a regular basis until the 7th round. I know what you are saying, yes Froch did obviously land with some shots early doors that might have been missed by Watt - but I think the main difference here is that the public who Watt was commentating too knew and were used to seeing Froch on charges, leading the action, being on the Froch foot and not giving a damn about what is coming back his way. He had just won a pretty brutal second fight with Kessler by being first.

Froch wasn't fighting like that this time and that was the story.

What I don't want to see is someone who is just repeating the action as you see when Jim Neilly calls an "old type" amateur contest. "Oh that jab scores a point for Lewis, the counter right scores for Jones" etc. Watt calls the psychology of the fighter well and also calls a fight in comparison to others that he has seen of the fighters in action.

Now re Brook, aside from Jones we have never seen Brook really look close to losing a round. So I guess the main talking point of the first four rounds was how Brook was struggling to cope with Porter's style, something we were not used to seeing.

Similarly with Burns, Watt will often reflect on how Burns fought a couple of years ago and say "we never see Burns on the ropes, now we are seeing it". These, for me are the important things particularly if a successful fighter is not adopting their usual tactics.

But it shouldn't have been that way should it? Shouldn't the narrative have been how brook was neutralising somebody like Porter effectively in a way that Alexander and Malignaggi couldnt? I mean he was a decent sized underdog to most.

As for telling the story of a fight, I get it, and there is room for it. I didn't mean a standard calling of a fight as in "jab landed" "left hook there" etc. Say somebody isn't being their usual selves, and why, but to use that as a reason to not mention their good work because they aren't upto usual standards is misleading really. Lots of people are swayed by the commentary, so if you aren't calling it fairly, you are actually robbing them of the full picture - which is what I think you are saying Watt gives.

All that does is add weight to those saying he should be moved into the studio as an analyst.

Watt's commentary is getting worse and worse.

His commentary & scoring of the Froch v Groves rematch was garbage as well. Very pro Froch during the fight, and yes Froch was the man who delivered the knockout blow and had his hand raised, but Groves had a lot of success himself which wasn't called.

It's as if he decides before the fight start who he's going to get behind, then just comments on every positive they do during the fight. No balance.

DMA1987 wrote:

stujones wrote:DMA,

In my opinion there is a difference between calling a fight in terms of rounds etc and explaining the story of the fight. For me, the big story of the first Froch vs Groves fight was the lack of intensity (compared to previous fights) of Froch, the pawing of the jab, the KD and the effect (mentally and physically) it had and the surprise element of Groves.

Froch didn't make his mark into the fight and start throwing meaningful combinations on a regular basis until the 7th round. I know what you are saying, yes Froch did obviously land with some shots early doors that might have been missed by Watt - but I think the main difference here is that the public who Watt was commentating too knew and were used to seeing Froch on charges, leading the action, being on the Froch foot and not giving a damn about what is coming back his way. He had just won a pretty brutal second fight with Kessler by being first.

Froch wasn't fighting like that this time and that was the story.

What I don't want to see is someone who is just repeating the action as you see when Jim Neilly calls an "old type" amateur contest. "Oh that jab scores a point for Lewis, the counter right scores for Jones" etc. Watt calls the psychology of the fighter well and also calls a fight in comparison to others that he has seen of the fighters in action.

Now re Brook, aside from Jones we have never seen Brook really look close to losing a round. So I guess the main talking point of the first four rounds was how Brook was struggling to cope with Porter's style, something we were not used to seeing.

Similarly with Burns, Watt will often reflect on how Burns fought a couple of years ago and say "we never see Burns on the ropes, now we are seeing it". These, for me are the important things particularly if a successful fighter is not adopting their usual tactics.

But it shouldn't have been that way should it? Shouldn't the narrative have been how brook was neutralising somebody like Porter effectively in a way that Alexander and Malignaggi couldnt? I mean he was a decent sized underdog to most.

As for telling the story of a fight, I get it, and there is room for it. I didn't mean a standard calling of a fight as in "jab landed" "left hook there" etc. Say somebody isn't being their usual selves, and why, but to use that as a reason to not mention their good work because they aren't upto usual standards is misleading really. Lots of people are swayed by the commentary, so if you aren't calling it fairly, you are actually robbing them of the full picture - which is what I think you are saying Watt gives.

All that does is add weight to those saying he should be moved into the studio as an analyst.

We'll agree to disagree DMA. As I said in my first post, people tended to ignore the "that's better from Froch" comments in the first fight. For me he spots when there is a general shift in the pattern better than anyone. For me he did call it fairly, that fight. I do think he over compensated with the rematch a tad - and I mentioned that elsewhere, but for me he got the first fight spot on. Froch himself said that he thought he was quite a bit behind at the start of the 7th in the first fight

Yeah this time around he could have said "at least he is doing better than Malignaggi did" but for me he wasn't winning the early rounds (although I thought he won the fight). If he would have said - Brook, he's doing alright but not winning the rounds.... probably the most fair reflection but I am sure would have drawn criticisms for some people. I thought he gave Brook some decent credit in the final few rounds.

I don't want to be critical of Hawling, but the co-commentator is just that - perhaps there were less criticisms of Watt when Darke was around because Darke wouldn't set him up so much to keep explaining the psychology of the fight. Sometimes Darke would stick in with a "well the other fighter isn't doing much also". Remember Darke did that effectively for Haye vs Valuev.