Did the Commentary contribute to the general view of GGG-Jacobs?

[T.M.K]

Hi all,

I watched the first 4 rounds via a replay which had American commentary. When that went up the wall I switched to a version which had UK commentary...... I was amazed at how the UK mob were scoring the fights and had to do a double-check on the scorecards at the end to see if I was in-line with any judges over the first 4 rounds.

At one point Barry Jones said "definitely a Jacobs round!" and I had already marked it to GGG: I had to check afterwards if I was in line with the consensus scoring. These sorts of things can make undecided people score a round a certain way, which in a close fight can change their card/winner.


Has anyone else found a blip in which version they watched and the scorecard they turned in?

Cheers


"T.M.K"

[crusader]

I watched on the UK stream and the team was definitely pro-Jacobs. Barry Jones was talking about him bossing the first three rounds, which is utter nonsense. They took the 'an upset is brewing' angle and ran with it virtually from the start.

[Freedom2013]

I first watched a video of the allegedly telecast, and I thought they were ABSURDLY biased in favor of Jacobs. But although I scored it for Golovkin, I imagine some people who are not familiar with Rawling and Jones would have been misled by those two fools.

John Rawling is the very worst boxing commentator I've ever heard.

I watched a 1080p video of the HBO version of the fight last night, and I thought the commentators were more fair and objective.

[Enlightened-One]

Put it this way, the two official judges who believed that Golovkin was victorious by the same 115-112 margin both had fairly different scorecards. They couldn’t agree on who deserved to win the 2nd, 3rd, 9th & 12th rounds.

Barry Jones, from Box-Nation, awarded the first three rounds to Danny Jacobs. Whilst Harold Lederman, from HBO, also gave Danny the first two rounds. The aggregated scores of the judges, however, awarded Golovkin two of the first three rounds.

I could be wrong, but didn’t Max Kellerman say during the post-fight interviews that the HBO team had the fight all square going into the final round, which they awarded Golovkin, but two of the official judges gave it to Jacobs. I think that Box-Nation also awarded the final round to Jacobs.

If you aggregate all three official judges’ scorecards, Golovkin and Jacobs both won six rounds each.

I really don’t think it matters how you watched the fight, because all the various scorecards differ greatly, regardless as to whoever people believed won the contest.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Box-nation commentary was bad. I was thinking of turning the volume off..

They were very pro Jacobs and pro Rungvisai

[Oiky]

U.K. Commentary was a joke

[Kootenay47]

TV boxing commentary is seldom objective . Al Bernstein and Barry Tompkins made a good team that was the most objective I've listened to , this was back in the 1980's when boxing was on regular tv and there wasn't the need to hype fights by pay-per view networks who would try to promote one champ to increase PPV numbers .

The next time a PPV fight is on between two talented boxers turn the volume off for the actual fight and score it punch by punch for each round . Remember that watching a fight on tv is not going to be the same fight the judges see up close .

For the Golovkin Jacobs fight I think the judges got the scores right , Jacobs looked flashy and had his moments in a close fight but Golovkin was the more effective aggressor in a highly technical fight . Jacobs use of angles and retreating tactics were challenging for Golovkin .

Jacobs almost looked more like he wanted to outbox rather than take the belts ie. if he stood and traded more he would have got hit more but also probably won more rounds with his faster hands. Still it was a close fight . Golovkin the smaller man with a shorter reach out-jabbed Jacobs by a large margin that and some highly effective uppercuts had the bigger Jacobs stunned from .

Golovkin is a rare fighter , a stalker who is very good defensively. The double right hand that put down Jacobs was damn good .

[Blodhemn]

I watched on the UK stream and the team was definitely pro-Jacobs. Barry Jones was talking about him bossing the first three rounds, which is utter nonsense. They took the 'an upset is brewing' angle and ran with it virtually from the start.

Lol.. UK commentary always does that, creates the narrative from the opening bell and never strays from it. Haven't listened to that pompous garbage for quite a while. Would rather not even watch boxing if that's all I had.

[davie]

I watched on Facebook and switched stream every round, either because I was watching a good stream that got pulled or I was on a poor one and went off at the interval to watch another.
I think I probably watched about 4 rounds of HBO and BN each, a couple which I think was from Mexican families living room and I'm not sure what else, but it was foreign language anyway.

The difference between the BN and HBO teams scoring was glaringly obvious and they were reading the fight completely different.

With this balanced coverage I ended up scoring it one round to Jacobs. I wasn't swayed by the commentary IMO
Not to say I didn't score the fight badly of course

[davie]

I watched on the UK stream and the team was definitely pro-Jacobs. Barry Jones was talking about him bossing the first three rounds, which is utter nonsense. They took the 'an upset is brewing' angle and ran with it virtually from the start.

Lol.. UK commentary always does that, creates the narrative from the opening bell and never strays from it. Haven't listened to that pompous garbage for quite a while. Would rather not even watch boxing if that's all I had.

Jim Watt from Sky Sports was notoriously bad for it. I just watched a re-reun of Hatton vs Tzsyu and his position never change, regards Hattons recklessness. Even when Hattons recklessness was winning him rounds and breaking Tszyu down, he kept saying it. The other commentator (can't remember who) would point out that Hatton was having success and Jim would go straight back to "He can't keep coming forward like this, in straight lines, he's taking too many chances, there needs to be more structure to what he's doing, he'll run out of steam and Tszyu's heavy more accurate shots will start to take their toll".
I think he was still rambling away like that when the other guy stopped him to tell him Tszyu was retired in his stool

[jezzamundo]

Yep, the UK commentary was very pro-Floyd in the Pacquiao fight too. I watched the fight in a noisy pub and had Manny edging the 2nd and 3rd rounds, but later watched it with UK commentary and they were talking like Floyd had clearly swept the first three rounds, when the reality was rounds 2 and 3 were actually very close and could have reasonably been given to either fighter. They did the same thing in the first round of Lewis-Holyfield too, saying "Lewis won the first round beyond question" while I saw it as a close round that Holyfield probably edged - and I was rooting for Lewis!

TBH I don't think the UK commentary was too bad after the first three rounds in the GGG-Jacobs fight.

[p4p1]

I thought the commentary on allegedly was pretty bad and very bias. I do believe a lot of people who are screaming robbery may have watched that telecast. For me Golovkin was the aggressor and much more effective. Some Fans and commentators seems to have got it in their head that if you're moving around a lot and throwing good combos despite being out landed and out worked that you're out boxing the other guy. Sadly a lot of GGGs(among others) subtle defence gets totally lost on these people who only see it large movements and/or flashiness.

I think anyone with a brain knows that some people got swept up on GGG not dominating the fight like he was expected to and gave Jacobs some points because he performed above their expectations. It's probably what makes a judges job the hardest IMO.

[jimcook]

i tend to watch the russian streams as i cant understand a word. it lets u get on with watching the fight instead of listening to all the crap. when i do listen in english, i think the majority of the comment is shite. if i hhad a choice i would listen to roy jones or malignaggi, as both seem to make informed and intelligent comments.

[caldo2025]

I'd really like to see these Boxing commentators and TV presenters stop predicting how they think the judges are scoring the fight. it's ridiculous because Boxing's rules are so loose and undefined that they really have no idea how these judges are going to score the round. We've already discovered that judging is 90 percent subjective so why even try? These commentators then focus so much on Lederman's scores, it changes the narrative on the fight and the subject matter that announcers should be focusing in on.

One of the posts above proves my point. The HBO crew not only got it wrong that it was even going into last round, they apparently got the 12 round winner wrong. I don't know how any judge could come close to giving the 12th to jacobs because he barely made it out of it but whatever. I've stopped trying to figure out this sports scoring shiitshow.. Just announce the action in the ring and don't worry about who's winning. We're smart enough to know if it's a close fight or not.

[Tanzio]

Commentary always contributes to "the general view" of major boxing events similarly to divergent commentary contributes to general political views. I have only viewed this fight on my phone without commentary, so far. The judges appear to have gotten it right.

When I view it big screen the commentary will be turned down. The only time that I view big events with the commentary is when I have guests, or I watch at a sports bar. Usually at a bar the crowds reactions are more influential than the commentary.

[Blodhemn]

I watched on the UK stream and the team was definitely pro-Jacobs. Barry Jones was talking about him bossing the first three rounds, which is utter nonsense. They took the 'an upset is brewing' angle and ran with it virtually from the start.

Lol.. UK commentary always does that, creates the narrative from the opening bell and never strays from it. Haven't listened to that pompous garbage for quite a while. Would rather not even watch boxing if that's all I had.

Jim Watt from Sky Sports was notoriously bad for it. I just watched a re-reun of Hatton vs Tzsyu and his position never change, regards Hattons recklessness. Even when Hattons recklessness was winning him rounds and breaking Tszyu down, he kept saying it. The other commentator (can't remember who) would point out that Hatton was having success and Jim would go straight back to "He can't keep coming forward like this, in straight lines, he's taking too many chances, there needs to be more structure to what he's doing, he'll run out of steam and Tszyu's heavy more accurate shots will start to take their toll".
I think he was still rambling away like that when the other guy stopped him to tell him Tszyu was retired in his stool

Comical crap. I always remembered the obligatory "That's better from Hatton." observation from Watt, even though it was the exact same sequence that took place throughout the entire fight.

[NateJR]

I watched the fight in a foreign language. Had Jacobs winning by 3 rounds.

[boxing_rocks]

I watched the fight in a foreign language. Had Jacobs winning by 3 rounds.

I had Maidana beating Mayweather by 3 rounds.

[NateJR]

I thought the fight was close. Alot of very close rounds. I can see how people could have had GGG winning, but liked Jacobs work better in most rounds. I felt Jacobs deserved the nod, but doesn't mean it's a conspiracy and I had alternative motives or didn't understand what I was watching..

Personally I think there are so many GGG nuthuggers that they aren't objective and theyre the ones with the motives.

[NateJR]

I watched the fight in a foreign language. Had Jacobs winning by 3 rounds.

I had Maidana beating Mayweather by 3 rounds.

I don't agree, but it was close fight. You seem mad.