BoxRec

What does everyone think about the massive difference in atmosphere, matchmaking, variety, & program production?

ITV BFL up to the mid '90s is fondly remembered by most of us. Are we being sentimental? Or were the good ol' days with Reg and Jim just the dog's bollocks?

Good question VM,

In my opinion some of the coverage is better now than it was back then. I don't think for example Hobson vs Maccarinelli 1 and some of the undercard fights shown would have been shown 10 years or so ago.... ITV used to just focus on the main event, mind you - their coverage usually was only 1 hour long.

Presentation isn't a patch, Jim Rosenthal and Barry are about as good as they were 10 years back... however Jim and Reg were the master team and certainly scored a fight better than McKenzie and Rawling.

Take tonights fight for example.... McKenzie had Mitchell 4 points up by the half way stage, now that was acceptable. However, according to McKenzie - Ashie only won one more round than Mitchell beyond that (as he gave it to Mitchell by 3)..... No chance.

Gary Newbon was the king of the interviews, and there seemed to be less ad breaks and better promotion (ad's in the weeks running to the fights).

And I still don't like the Music.

So better showcase, but poorer presentation than 10 years.

Rawling and McKenzie's drivel drives me to distraction. I actually preferred Jim Rozenthal's effort at commentary.

rawling and mckenzie are not fit to lace jim and regs boots

harrygreb wrote:rawling and mckenzie are not fit to lace jim and regs boots

Agreed, outside of Ian Darke I can't think of a good English commentator that's still active. As for Duke, I like to see an ex-pro and genuine guy making some money but ITV should try and get Richie Woodhall.

I think they could easily convert Bob Mee to main commentator on a network and he'll do an excellent job.

Its Duke who and his strange scorecards that are the most annoying thing about the duo. I think Richie would be an excellent acquisition, Spencer Oliver, Nicky Piper, Johnny Nelson,and maybe even the likes of Billy Schwer, Glenn Cately and Jim McDonnell would do a better job than Duke.... Just stick Barry to the analysist role.

Is Reg definately retired, or just not needed. I've seen him crop up plenty of times doing presentations on boxers on ESPN classics - and he seems quite sharp with a good clear voice still. Quite how he'd cope nowadays in a live fight is a different story I suppose.

He was also interviewed about 2 years ago on Channel 5, when the channel did a special series of programmes on Eubank vs Benn. Reg was waring an old ITV sport t shirt, with the 1980's logo.

I also have the same question about Dickie Davies, who seems to have recovered from a stroke remarkably well on the basis of his performance on the Best of World of Sport, recorded and screened last year. I can never say that I thought Jim Rosenthal's commentary was terrible - no Reg or Harry, but better than the current crop (Darke excluded)... Wouldn't it be great to see Jim on the commentry and old Dickie doing the presenting.

stujones wrote:Good question VM,

In my opinion some of the coverage is better now than it was back then. I don't think for example Hobson vs Maccarinelli 1 and some of the undercard fights shown would have been shown 10 years or so ago.... ITV used to just focus on the main event, mind you - their coverage usually was only 1 hour long.

Presentation isn't a patch, Jim Rosenthal and Barry are about as good as they were 10 years back... however Jim and Reg were the master team and certainly scored a fight better than McKenzie and Rawling.

Take tonights fight for example.... McKenzie had Mitchell 4 points up by the half way stage, now that was acceptable. However, according to McKenzie - Ashie only won one more round than Mitchell beyond that (as he gave it to Mitchell by 3)..... No chance.

Gary Newbon was the king of the interviews, and there seemed to be less ad breaks and better promotion (ad's in the weeks running to the fights).

And I still don't like the Music.

So better showcase, but poorer presentation than 10 years.

Well they did used to show the undercard fights now and then... but what is beyond dispute is that the main events used to be vastly better and more competitive than what we generally get today, and as for the presentation dont start me up on that!... :x :x :x

Bob Mee hasn't got the charisma to be a main commentator. I doubt he's a, for example, radio trained type. I don't think he'd be able to keep on talking, as the main ones have to. He can slip in expert information, that's what he's there for.

rawling and mckenzie are about as pro - home fighter as you can get, it borders on propeganda sometimes imo.

headhunter wrote:rawling and mckenzie are about as pro - home fighter as you can get, it borders on propeganda sometimes imo.

I think it goes beyond borderline IMO

It really ruins the show for true boxing fans, so much that sometimes we have to turn the volume off since it really is shockingly bad at times.

There are a few fights where they are ok but in general they just aren't good enough (or get paid too much to be biased beyond belief ) .. Almost as bad as NFL commentators, now they are quite amusing to listen to.

Rawling and McKenzie seem to have no idea what's going on half the time. Rawling's late change of heart in Williams/Skelton 1 (crap one round, a modern classic the next) sums him up perfectly... And how Duke McKenzie managed to get a commentary gig is beyond understanding.

Flump wrote:

harrygreb wrote:rawling and mckenzie are not fit to lace jim and regs boots

Agreed, outside of Ian Darke I can't think of a good English commentator that's still active. As for Duke, I like to see an ex-pro and genuine guy making some money but ITV should try and get Richie Woodhall.

I'd actually like to see Nigel Benn as the ex-pro. When you see him interviewed he's opinionated but, despite his image, quite anylitical.

nigel would be quite good in my opinion. but then so would a few ex-boxers.
what we really need for televised boxing is LESS TALKING. why people seem to think, and an earlier post by visciousmoussa confirmed this when he said some commentator wouldnt be able to talk all the time, that every piece of action needs to have an accompanying comment is beyond me. i watch boxing from previous eras and there is often silence from the commentary team for most of the round, just the sound of the crowd and leather hitting skin. and guess what...there is no loss of excitment or interest!!!
my advice to modern boxing presentations on TV?
SHUT THE F... UP!!!!!!!!!

well lets be honest there isnt much variety on itv now its all calzaghe, williams, khan, skelton.you never see any of the undercards.

Terence wrote:McKenzie is consistent, he was crap on the Beeb also. When Toney fought Jirov and put him down with one of the most deliberate combinations you could see McKenzie watched Jirov go down, waited a few seconds then started screaming "he is gone! He is down!".

As boxing fans we really need that type of clarification.

I pretty much tune the ITV commentary out. I do not turn the sound off as I like to hear the crowd noises.

Having heard the despicable HBO commentary, I enjoyed Rawling & Duke's take on it: irritating as they can be, at least they had the right guy winning.

In fact, HBO were blatantly propping up Jirov, on the basis of him coming forward and having his best shots slipped & blocked.

Then to add insult, when Toney was declared winner, Steward changes his mind and proclaims Toney "an all time great". With badness like that going around, Rawling & Duke are harmless.

I had Toney winning 8-4 or 7-4-1; on top of that the two points against Jirov for the foul and getting dropped. Toney was way ahead, definitely (or deserved to be).

Sky's report had Toney being a bit lucky, but that's shite.

Its Reg and Harry for me all the way. I cant remember the other American guy that used to commentate in the Howard Cosell era, but they were both good. Never too much talking just enough to keep things ticking along. As for Darke and Watt, I must be the only one that cant stand them. Darke comes across as so f,uckin smug to me, and the other geezer with that horrible nasal twang drives me nuts when he keeps saying over and over and over again " He needs to use the jab more " or something f,uckin stupid like that as though we cant see it for ourselves.

The answer is shockingly obvious.There is one man out there,hard up for a bit of readies that IMO would be willing to take up the role of co-commentator......MR.Chris Eubank!!!!

I remember a few years ago watching some late night boxing(can't remember who was fighting mind you)and all the way through the fight the commentators were saying how great the fight was,and when they went back to the studio,the anchor and another guy were saying it was the fight of the year candidate.They then asked their expert analysist for the evening what he thought.
The expert happened to be Eubank,whose first words were something like..'I fail to see how anyone can get excited by that bout!' which completly shot everybody down!!!! Fvcking classic!

Hell,if we are going to listen to someone spout shit,why not get someone in who will entertain the viewer regardless of what he is saying!!

ITV are pretty shit really. They work with one promoter ( ) and the end product has really suffered on occassions. Warren should take a lot of the blame as well. This is how he wants it so he can keep his boxers out of risky matches more often than not.


Sky are always going on about "push the Red Button" and wonderous things you can do with it, well PLEASE, can we have a red button for boxing where it just gives you the noise from the arena !? They could easily implement it.

yiddo14 wrote:The answer is shockingly obvious.There is one man out there,hard up for a bit of readies that IMO would be willing to take up the role of co-commentator......MR.Chris Eubank!!!!

I remember a few years ago watching some late night boxing(can't remember who was fighting mind you)and all the way through the fight the commentators were saying how great the fight was,and when they went back to the studio,the anchor and another guy were saying it was the fight of the year candidate.They then asked their expert analysist for the evening what he thought.
The expert happened to be Eubank,whose first words were something like..'I fail to see how anyone can get excited by that bout!' which completly shot everybody down!!!! Fvcking classic!

Hell,if we are going to listen to someone spout shit,why not get someone in who will entertain the viewer regardless of what he is saying!!

just as long as they dont expect him to commentate on a fighter called Cecil Smithson we should be ok.

viciousmaussa wrote:What does everyone think about the massive difference in atmosphere, matchmaking, variety, & program production?

ITV BFL up to the mid '90s is fondly remembered by most of us. Are we being sentimental? Or were the good ol' days with Reg and Jim just the dog's bollocks?

Good question.

I've not really thought about it.

I think it was better back in the late 80's & early 90's, simply because there were better fighters about then.

I fondly remember staying up until 5, 6am, waiting for Tyson, only for him to destroy his man in about 95 secs! I also remember the great, Watson, Benn, Eubank & Collins occasions.

There just seemed to be a better vibe back then.

They're trying to replicate that with Calzaghe now, but I think it's too late.

Collins was on SKY.

Taki... wrote:Collins was on SKY.

I thought his fights with Eubank & Benn were on ITV.

My mistake!!!

Nah, you can tell when Eubank went to SKY because he went money mad and managed to shoe-horn 5 title fights into 7 months, and promptly lost to Collins straight after that insane little run.

I think that boxing as a major, popular spectacle on TV faded rapidly once sky started to dominate coverage at a time when very few people had a sky subscription. It removed the sport from the public eye, and its never really come back, despite ITVs recent efforts and that of BBC a few years ago.