BoxRec

Now, then. From what certain people on this board tell me, Adam Smith is not only a great guy, but he really works hard at his profession and makes an effort to be knowledgeable about the sport -- far more than other media types involved in boxing, and, indeed, from what I hear, certain so-called boxing experts.

Based on that, I don't really want to criticize the guy.

But his commentary for the Mayweather Marquez swimming contest on Sunday morning was awful. He spent literally the whole fight fawning over Mayweather as if he'd been briefed before hand by Leonard Ellerbe.

The obsequiousness was toe curling, and it was made worse when he occasionally punctuated it with some patronising cliche about Mexican heart and how Marquez just wouldn't quit.

Oh, dear God. Surely we can do better than that?

Surely I don't have to listen to a quivering Smith ooh-ing and aahh-ing like he's just drank a Lafite Rothschild for the first time every time Mayweather lands with a quicksilver lead left hook?

In my view, Smith's performance was also symptomatic of a troubling trend where commentators often favour one fighter over another. If it's a close match, they often don't. But often, they get it into their minds that one man or the other is winning, and hype up that person's performance, and, not only that, but don't really commentate on what the other guy is doing.

I'm sure that it's not deliberate, and that it comes from the conscious or subconscious desire to praise good performances as well as criticise poor ones; however, what happens is that they make a decision early, and then stick to that, often irrespective of how the fight unfolds. Also, sometimes it's not as clear cut as they think, and actually they're favouring one guy, when the other is holding his own.

The sad thing is that if one wants the atmosphere and the commentary, one has to put up with it, and I genuinely believe it has an insidious affect in one's ability to objectively judge a fight.

I'm not sure whether this is borne out of the increasing need -- especially after Sky entered the fray -- slather unhealthy portions of hype over everything until it drowns an event like too much processed cheese and mayo on a burger, but wouldn't it be nice to get back to the days when the commentator (what the Americans would call the blow-by-blow man) commentates on what's happening, and the co-commentator (the colour man) adds analysis?

I was oohing and aahing over Mayweather's performance too and don't think a commentator doing likewise is doing anything wrong - that was a spectacular exhibition by Mayweather, and if that's how Smith saw it too, what's wrong with him saying so?

oliverfennell wrote:I was oohing and aahing over Mayweather's performance too and don't think a commentator doing likewise is doing anything wrong - that was a spectacular exhibition by Mayweather, and if that's how Smith saw it too, what's wrong with him saying so?

Because he did nothing but from early on, and did it with tired cliches, the cardinal sin of anyone involved in communicating with the English language.

He also ignored the occasions when Marquez landed -- patronisingly writing them off as "Mexican courage" or "Marquez's warrior heart" -- and failed to highlight that this was as much a fight about size as it was skill.

Meantime, what about the commentator as impartial? If anyone needs to have a verbal orgasm over the Pretty Boy's performance, it's Jim Watt, as the colour man.

Carbo wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I was oohing and aahing over Mayweather's performance too and don't think a commentator doing likewise is doing anything wrong - that was a spectacular exhibition by Mayweather, and if that's how Smith saw it too, what's wrong with him saying so?

Because he did nothing but from early on, and did it with tired cliches, the cardinal sin of anyone involved in communicating with the English language.

He also ignored the occasions when Marquez landed -- patronisingly writing them off as "Mexican courage" or "Marquez's warrior heart" -- and failed to highlight that this was as much a fight about size as it was skill.

Meantime, what about the commentator as impartial? If anyone needs to have a verbal orgasm over the Pretty Boy's performance, it's Jim Watt, as the colour man.

Admittedly I didn't see the Sky broadcast, so therefore didn't hear Smith's commentary. As it happens, I haven't really rated him in the past anyway. I agree he resorts to cliches a lot. However, surely being impartial doesn't mean you can't be impressed by something, and say so when you are?

6 of one and half a dozen of the other, but I lean towards agreeing with the OP.

The way he and Jim Watt were patronising Marquez was terrible IMO, Money was bang on it for sure and praise where praise is due, but they were off.

This has been done already.

Smith was pathetic. As paying Sky customers we deserve more. Ian Darke should be doing these fights, not smith.,

Carbo wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I was oohing and aahing over Mayweather's performance too and don't think a commentator doing likewise is doing anything wrong - that was a spectacular exhibition by Mayweather, and if that's how Smith saw it too, what's wrong with him saying so?

Because he did nothing but from early on, and did it with tired cliches, the cardinal sin of anyone involved in communicating with the English language.
.

i thought i would be over the moon watching this fight, but it turned out I was as sick as a parrot. but then, you win some, you lose some, right?

Counter-puncher wrote:

Carbo wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I was oohing and aahing over Mayweather's performance too and don't think a commentator doing likewise is doing anything wrong - that was a spectacular exhibition by Mayweather, and if that's how Smith saw it too, what's wrong with him saying so?

Because he did nothing but from early on, and did it with tired cliches, the cardinal sin of anyone involved in communicating with the English language.
.

i thought i would be over the moon watching this fight, but it turned out I was as sick as a parrot. but then, you win some, you lose some, right?

You've hit the nail on the head with that blinder.

Why wasn't he saying:

Why isn't Mayweather trying to stop an older, smaller man, who has bloated himself to get to welter, and whom Mayweather has already dropped?

Why weren't they questioning Marquez's credentials above 135-pounds?

Did they bring up Payweather not even making the CATCHweight of 144 pounds, which would have perhaps made it a fair fight?

Autobarn wrote:Why wasn't he saying:

Why isn't Mayweather trying to stop an older, smaller man, who has bloated himself to get to welter, and whom Mayweather has already dropped?

Why weren't they questioning Marquez's credentials above 135-pounds?

Did they bring up Payweather not even making the CATCHweight of 144 pounds, which would have perhaps made it a fair fight?

Because they were too busy tossing on about how Mayweather's speed was awesome, and isn't it amazing that Marquez is being made to look ordinary by this remarkable fighter, yada yada.

Autobarn wrote:Why wasn't he saying:

Why isn't Mayweather trying to stop an older, smaller man, who has bloated himself to get to welter, and whom Mayweather has already dropped?

Why weren't they questioning Marquez's credentials above 135-pounds?

Did they bring up Payweather not even making the CATCHweight of 144 pounds, which would have perhaps made it a fair fight?

I totally agree with your first comment, as great as floyd is it would've been nice to see him turn up the heat and produce a more aggressive eprformance and finish Marquez. We all know it was possible, and Marquez didnt have the pop to hurt or even stagger floyd.

I don`t really regard what Smith and Watt did on this fight as commentating. They were merely voicing opinions rather thna actually commenatating what was happening in the fight. It was very subjective, although I agree that mayweather was a class act.

Are there any decent British commentators around? Smith tries hard, but he gets dragged down into a theme and has problems breaking from it.

The Setanta guys were decent.

forcefraser wrote:I don`t really regard what Smith and Watt did on this fight as commentating. They were merely voicing opinions rather thna actually commenatating what was happening in the fight. It was very subjective, although I agree that mayweather was a class act.

Are there any decent British commentators around? Smith tries hard, but he gets dragged down into a theme and has problems breaking from it.

The Setanta guys were decent.

Darke is excellent.

And I quite like Watt.

What I'd like to hear more off is technical analysis as the fight goes on. What boxers are trying to do, the traps they're trying to lay. I want the colour/co-commentator to say the things that a trainer would try to say to his fighter in between rounds, if you know what I mean.

To reiterate, Smith never has a link to boxing or broadcasting, he got the job through the old school tie network, and despite the fact he has been in the job years he has not improved at all.
Apparently he tries hard and is a nice guy though.

The Sky commentating (Watt as well) was awful on Sunday morning. It made it much harder to enjoy the fight. They make the mistake of talking all the time. Sometimes silence is good.

Carbo wrote:
What I'd like to hear more off is technical analysis as the fight goes on. What boxers are trying to do, the traps they're trying to lay. I want the colour/co-commentator to say the things that a trainer would try to say to his fighter in between rounds, if you know what I mean.

Woodhall the obvious one for that ?

BIGMARK wrote:i have never had a problem with Adam Smith as he seems a decent guy who is very passionate about the sport. Of course when he gets caught up in a fight and starts going overboard with his commentry i think its more to do with genuine passion as you can tell he is also a fan. He has worked very hard to get the postion he has and i think a lot of the negative stuff people write about him is more to do with him sounding far from working class and looking so well presented. In general people should lay off him and give him a break as he is only doing his best and towing the company line

You could think to have a premier commentating job with Sky you would need to do a bit more than 'do your best' and be a 'decent guy'.
Maybe him getting and keeping the job has far more to do with family connections!
He is often criticised on here and his defenders roll out the nice guy, and tries hard patter. However you don't get anyone saying he is good at his job and that he deserves his position

Coco wrote:

BIGMARK wrote:i have never had a problem with Adam Smith as he seems a decent guy who is very passionate about the sport. Of course when he gets caught up in a fight and starts going overboard with his commentry i think its more to do with genuine passion as you can tell he is also a fan. He has worked very hard to get the postion he has and i think a lot of the negative stuff people write about him is more to do with him sounding far from working class and looking so well presented. In general people should lay off him and give him a break as he is only doing his best and towing the company line

You could think to have a premier commentating job with Sky you would need to do a bit more than 'do your best' and be a 'decent guy'.
Maybe him getting and keeping the job has far more to do with family connections!
He is often criticised on here and his defenders roll out the nice guy, and tries hard patter. However you don't get anyone saying he is good at his job and that he deserves his position

Good points but I guess that is what Sky or television in general wants these days. Dramatic commentators, who cheerlead their signings (Sky seemed to really get behind Mayweather in the build up to this).

I kind of enjoy it when he commentates because he makes me laugh and cringe at his cliched nonsense.

Still, give me Sky over that pathetic lot at HBO.

Carbo wrote:The sad thing is that if one wants the atmosphere and the commentary, one has to put up with it, and I genuinely believe it has an insidious affect in one's ability to objectively judge a fight.

- I can usually tune out the commentary during a fight unless it's particularly grevious, then it's the mute button.

Wasn't Smith part of the Skye team for Fury/Tyson? According that team Fury never landed a shot on McD who looked like the reincarnation of SRRobinson.

As far as Mr. Money goes, the HBO team was usually slavish over him, ignoring all the so called "corner" retirements against fighters who never backed off him and put him under good, even tremdous pressure by winging shots everywhere. See Augustus, Chavez, and Bruseles for how that worked.

Need to face facts, this is prize fighting and usually the "house" fighter that can move into the next fight by gilding the most lillies wins the fight regardless of performance. Any scoring standards that exist are usually subjective and privately held by the varied commish and orgs, seldom subject to serious public scrutiny as are the inside bets wagered.

These broadcasts teams have become stars in their own right, marketed as part of the glitz of the entertainment package. Personally, I prefer the Don Dunphy style, a single broadcaster, usually OFF CAMERA, calling the basics with some surprise boxing icon in a guest supporting role to provide a current insider view and personality infusion.

Coco wrote: Maybe him getting and keeping the job has far more to do with family connections!

I've heard from pretty good sources that connections led to him first getting a gig at Sky (we went to the same university). I must admit that I've mellowed massively on him. I don't think he's a great commentator, but that's tempered by a growing recognition that he actually does love the sport and wasn't in the TV job purely to use it as a springboard to fame, which is what I was initially convinced of.
There are also far too many people on here who know him and say he's a nice guy for it not to be true.

Deserter wrote:

Coco wrote: Maybe him getting and keeping the job has far more to do with family connections!

I've heard from pretty good sources that connections led to him first getting a gig at Sky (we went to the same university). I must admit that I've mellowed massively on him. I don't think he's a great commentator, but that's tempered by a growing recognition that he actually does love the sport and wasn't in the TV job purely to use it as a springboard to fame, which is what I was initially convinced of.
There are also far too many people on here who know him and say he's a nice guy for it not to be true.

Yeah I definately think he is a nice guy, I don't think i've heard anyone say a bad word about him in that respect.
Be nice if we could all get lucrative jobs on the merit of being a nice guy though!

Coco wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Coco wrote: Maybe him getting and keeping the job has far more to do with family connections!

I've heard from pretty good sources that connections led to him first getting a gig at Sky (we went to the same university). I must admit that I've mellowed massively on him. I don't think he's a great commentator, but that's tempered by a growing recognition that he actually does love the sport and wasn't in the TV job purely to use it as a springboard to fame, which is what I was initially convinced of.
There are also far too many people on here who know him and say he's a nice guy for it not to be true.

Yeah I definately think he is a nice guy, I don't think i've heard anyone say a bad word about him in that respect.
Be nice if we could all get lucrative jobs on the merit of being a nice guy though!

This is true

I didnt really mind him I thought he did a good job Darkie is better but he does the job

I jsut get sick of hearing him say every f*cker has 'whipped themselves into great shape'