BoxRec

columbo wrote:I think Watt's commentary was pro Froch in the second fight because he was seen to be pro Groves in the first.

He was pro Froch all the way up to the fight.

He was giving interviews and constantly picking Froch. Then when the commentary starts he is pro froch.

No harm in commentators having an opinion but they should be impartial and call the actual fight in the ring. Watt fails to do this consistently. It looks like Sky is an old mans club though and he'll keep his job no matter how bad he becomes over time. HBO got rid of Larry when he was underperforming but I doubt Sky have the balls to get rid of Jim if he consistently underperforms.

Watt is great.it's mcrory who is utter utter dead wood.he's had a payday for 20 years get new people in.

columbo wrote:I think Watt's commentary was pro Froch in the second fight because he was seen to be pro Groves in the first.

yes, I watched the first fight again last night. the commentators had to hammer home that groves - who'd been dismissed by froch through the entire build up - was worthy of his title shot. given the first fight's commentary was all about groves, perhaps for the rematch they had to balance it to be about froch. and froch did do something right, not taking horrific punishment from right hands, and by finding his range to destroy groves.

we know it's mostly rhetoric, increasingly so since the recession a few years back when sky sports commentators had clearly been briefed against saying anything negative about what's onscreen. the team probably are not allowed to be themselves, their voices filtered through corporate control.