BoxRec

Furey wrote: 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.

stujones wrote:

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.

Furey wrote: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.

brian13 wrote:

Furey wrote: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.

Didn't he have Froch up by two or three going into the eighth. I remember his commentary was terrible for that fight aswell and he would never let Paulie have any say or disagreed with the majority he said.

los2 wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:
It's always the same with Watt, makes his mind up before and then does all he can to call the fight that way.

every time......froch-groves 2 should have been his last.......sky need to get rid of the old fart.....

Autobarn wrote:watt did his best work with "blow-by-blow" commentators reg gutteridge and ian darke. darke really was outstanding.
.

stujones wrote:Yeah, I remember thinking Jim's getting it wrong re Macklin vs Moore. If memory serves, Jim had Macklin ahead but was pretty confident Moore would get to him and Macklin wasn't fighting the right fight. I originally thought that also, but then started to think that time was running out for Moore and Macklin might see it through.... then bingo and it was fatigue as much as anything that made the KO so conclusive.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:When he gets it right, it's insightful and very impressive - however, sometimes he makes his mind up what the outcome is going to be, and then when reality doesn't match up to it, he just ignores everything that countermands his opinion - and that is very poor commentating - it's fine to have an opinion, but you've got to actually talk about what is happening in the ring, not just the bits of it which support your assertion.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
He was dreadful in the first Froch v Groves fight too - ignored pretty much everything Froch did, until the round where the ref stepped in. Once he saw that Groves was doing better than expected, he had made his mind up, that Carl was finished and Groves was kicking his arse.

Without the commentary, it really is a different fight. I've watched it a few times now with the sound off, and Carl is doing far better than they would have you believe.