BoxRec

Simple question

I think he's a good analyst. Is he slightly depressing to listen to? Yes but he knows his stuff I think. Especially in comparison to the guys they have in the studio who they have commentating from time to time.

I've never seen a problem with him personally. Comes in for ridiculous stick at times.

He was very good last night. You have to admire his honesty at times.

I'm not a massive fan but only as good as last fight you call.

He's still the best analyst for my mind. They all have their little foibles but Jim is The Don.

ThereByTheGrace wrote:He was very good last night. You have to admire his honesty at times.

I'm not a massive fan but only as good as last fight you call.

spot on

When he's on his man period, he's down on absolutely every detail and prefers to criticise someone's defence, rather than credit the man throwing the punch.

Glass half empty commentator.

He makes some insightful comments sometimes, but then proceeds to ruin them by repeating the comment over and over ad nauseum.

hes average better than mcCrory .. but his scoring is pretty suspect.. the poll is a bit narrow.. there should be ..hes ok i can deal with him...

ajwesty13 wrote:hes average better than mcCrory .. but his scoring is pretty suspect.. the poll is a bit narrow.. there should be ..hes ok i can deal with him...

Agree, I would of voted if that was one of the choices

Sometimes annoying and see's a fight through rose tinted glasses when he gets something in his head. Knowledge is good and I think when he is in the right mood, and un-bias, then he is good.

He's relatively good.

No commentator is terrifically incisive, free of bias, and eloquent, but I think Watt's analyses are generally superior to those of most commentators.

crusader wrote:He's relatively good.

No commentator is terrifically incisive, free of bias, and eloquent, but I think Watt's analyses are generally superior to those of most commentators.

His analysis is alright, but he picks the fighter he thinks will win and scores it towards them. He even managed to score the 11th of Froch-Kessler to Froch, despite him being rocked to his boots by a Kessler right hand and losing the round clearly.

I like Watt overall but the thing that irritates me is when he goes off on one for 2-3 rounds repeating himself endlessly about how one guy is doing great and the other shit whilst completely ignoring what is going on in the ring at the present time. Halling then feeds off that by highlighting everything good being done by the fighter Watt is praising whilst completely ignoring the other guy. Round 5 last night e.g. was quite close but you'd have thought Beltran was putting Burns through a meat grinder the way they went on.

expe wrote:

crusader wrote:He's relatively good.

No commentator is terrifically incisive, free of bias, and eloquent, but I think Watt's analyses are generally superior to those of most commentators.

His analysis is alright, but he picks the fighter he thinks will win and scores it towards them. He even managed to score the 11th of Froch-Kessler to Froch, despite him being rocked to his boots by a Kessler right hand and losing the round clearly.

You think he's bad in regards to that though, then watch Teddy Atlas!

No one's perfect and I don't always agree with him but Jim is an ex-world champion who is intelligent, articulate, and doesn't have to be prompted for insight. I like him.

Trojans44 wrote:I like Watt overall but the thing that irritates me is when he goes off on one for 2-3 rounds repeating himself endlessly about how one guy is doing great and the other poo whilst completely ignoring what is going on in the ring at the present time. Halling then feeds off that by highlighting everything good being done by the fighter Watt is praising whilst completely ignoring the other guy. Round 5 last night e.g. was quite close but you'd have thought Beltran was putting Burns through a meat grinder the way they went on.

I had Burns in front at the time of the stoppage against Gonzalez, because I'd convinced myself that he'd gone off on one and the fight was a lot closer than they made it sound.

His commentary in the last few years has been pretty good. I remember I think the Eesham Pickering v Michael Hunter fight years back getting to me a bit and a few Carl Froch fights but to be fair I think it's been years since I'v got annoyed with his commentary.

I see him get a lot of stick, but he doesn't bother me at all.

brokenbiscuits wrote:He makes some insightful comments sometimes, but then proceeds to ruin them by repeating the comment over and over ad nauseum.

this for me, nails it.

he knows his stuff, often spots things that i don't see. but he does tend to go over and over the same point, in an almost told you so fashion.

i have found before, that he's started picking up on someone not performing well and as the fight has changed he sticks to his critisism of the same fighter despite it swinging.

but you have to appreciate that he doesn't hold back from critisising british fighters, which many analyst wont do.

Fighter A defiantly got that fight done the better work etc.. Fighter B gets the decision " We'll you can't Argue with that the right man got it some on them rounds was close"
Imo He is Shiit.. I don't like him..

He's an intelligent & knowledgeable man & knows the game better then most but my gripe with him is when he dont like somthing or someone he negatively moans & drowns the bout with his discontent which has resulted in me muting him

Jim's good, his passion comes through in the fights he calls. Can;t say that about alot of UK commentators

Repetitive

Same repeated clichies in every fight, picks his favourite and sides with him, usually ignoring the other fighters work and his suspect score cards reflect this!

Ruins the fights for me, i tend to watch with sound down