BoxRec

Sorry, I'm going to have a long, drawn-out moan about Sky Sports boxing coverage.

I think they have some good commentators coming in, but I don't think the unit as a whole functions properly. It's like there is a domino effect in opinion. One of the ex-pro's invited as a guest will give their opinion, and more likely than not they will be interrupted by Barry McGuigan if he doesn't agree.

He talks over everyone, including the host Paul Dempsey. Whether he does it out of bad habit, bad manners, or simply because he believes his opinion should trump all others doesn't matter, it's really irritating when you're trying to follow what they're saying and McGuigan starts interrupting, then all the voices intermingle and you don't hear fornicate all.

The sad thing is that the ex-pros often get intimidated by him, or are 'walked over'. Either way, how many times have you saw someone end up saying 'yea, yea, yea' after McGuigan has said his piece, as they timidly agree with him. Even if he is the lead pundit, the producers really need to have a word with him about his conduct.

But the problem is more than just McGuigan, the panel as a whole never really functions as a forum. If you watch HBO coverage of boxing events, Larry Merchant, Foreman and Lampley never hold back with their opinions, and, more importantly, stick to their guns and make an attempt to argue their side. When have you ever heard Glenn McCrory disagree with Ian Darke? When have you ever heard Ian Darke disagree with Jim Watt?

Jim Watt... I'd be very interested if someone timed how long he was on the mic compared to Ian Darke, during DLH - Sturm. He makes up his mind on a certain point early on, and repeats it for the next 35~ minutes. Sometimes his insight is cutting and incisive, as when he picked up on Chavez's sore hand in the Morales fight. Other times, this technique is irritating and downright misleading.

He became so worked up due to DLH being in a close fight that he was blatantly ignoring his body-combos, and the way Sturm was constantly picked off with a counter-right inside. He rightly highlighted that DLH was constantly caught with a stiff jab and the occasional semi-solid shot. But what happened to balance? I imagined I was listening to Watt on the radio as I watched the fight, and I pictured it as a fornicating white-wash for Sturm, and that just simply was not the case.

It wasn't just Saturday night. In the Pacman - Marquez fight, he rightly (IMO) recognised that Marquez pulled it back. But I couldn't believe the way he ignored some of the shots Pacman was landing, okay it was the occasionaly solid left hand to Marquez's sweet counter-combos. But those punches of Pacman's were scoring punches, and again, if you listen to him without watching the fight you'd think it was a fornicating shut-out 120 - 106 for Marquez.

I think it's impossible by-default wishing for a commentary team that everyone likes, because of the subjective nature of 'commentary'. However, debate featuring differing opinions is lacking a tad in Sky's coverage, and while I can't stand some of the cheesy American commentators, the lone fact that they sometimes have conflicting opinions makes the coverage feel more rounded to me.

8)

The Devil In Roy Jones wrote: Jim Watt... He makes up his mind on a certain point early on, and repeats it for the next 35~ minutes.

Totaly agree. I've noticed the same thing - he'll make a point early, and often a good one, but will then spend the next hour convicing everyone he was right - by picking up on the same thing, over and over again.

Someone should tell him - he used to do the same thing on ITV as well.
And while Reg Gutteridge was an excellent commentator, he would NEVER disagree with Jim either. And I can understand why, because Watt is so convinced of his own opinions you'd end up in a full scale argument if you did.
Still, at least he's the only one who will talk OVER McGuigen, which makes a nice change

Yes i also noticed some repetition from Jim throughout the night, can't remember the exact point he was making which is a surprise considering he made it five times.

and why is derek williams on there? Not being rude to Derek Im sure he knows his stuff but he just doesnt have the linguistic capacity to finish a sentence let alone give post fight analysis.

Like I say got nothing against him but he is painful to listen to sometimes.

They couldn't stop talking about Oscar during Mosley vs Oscar 2. They just ignored any of the hard shots Shane was landing, it pissed me off at the time.

Again, during JMM vs Pacman the comms kept mentioning how great JMM boxing is and how one dimentional Pacman was. They just handed JMM some of those rounds and ignored much of Mannys work. What does it matter if your one dimentional if the one dimention of your game is so outstanding the other guy can't deal with it.

I think we should be greatful though, compared to most of the US TV stuff Barry and Jim are excellent. Barry's knowledge of the current champions and the world and domestic scene is second to none - I'd be quite happy if Barry was the only analysist.

Jim does have a dendancy to repeat a point, but as has been mentioned it is with good reason. He's only re-emphisasing his interpretation of the fight, if the fight changes - so does he (re - his Lazcano vs Castillo commentary). Jim points 9 times out of 10 are spot on. While I agree with your points (TDIRJ) in the examples, Jim did say who he was scoring the rounds to - also, compare that to the US commentary of Pacquiao vs Marquez who (apparently) didn't pick up on the comeback and scored it heavily to Pacquiao then we should be greatful for his insight. Although, I admit he was poor in the DLH vs Straum.

Look at the Jim's score card in some of these so called highly contensious decisions (Scored the Medina vs Tapia fight a draw, scored the first Castillo vs Mayweather bout for Mayweather). Now, these were alot closer to the actual cards than the American TV, who scored them to Medina and Mayweather by a landslide. These were undoubtedly close fights, the UK commentators were the only ones to acknowledge this.

Derrick Williams is, I think, improving alot as a commentator, there seems to be a lot of respect there between himself and Paul Dempsey which suggest that Williams follows the domestic scene intensly.

The only commentator I would bring over on to sky would be Teddy Atlas, he is exceptional, Gill Clancy also (but I'm not sure he still commentates).