SKY sports commentary team reach an alltime low !!

Certainly seen some bad commentary (Chick Hearn, Al Bernstein, Marv albert) back home growing up and some excellent commentary...Gil Clancy, Tim Ryan take a bow..

However I can honestly say last night reached an alltime low.....

Halling : Anthony Joshua basically conquered scottish hearts by beating a useless moron who's claim to fame was losing to another useless moron in 9 rounds.......41 years old 20-15 and despite the attempts by Hearn sympathisers to say it was a good test anybody with sense knew he'd be after a payday and a comfy spot to lie down......You'd have thought he'd beaten Tyson..........Pathetic from Hearn's top PR man..

This guy's job is supposed to be to commentate .....Not just flag up the work by Hearn's fighters and ignore the work by the opponent.. The guy is terrible..........He's a Hearn put up job...and even worse than Bunce !

Watt : This guy is just pathetic isn't he ?/.......Shouldn't be commentating on Scottish fighters................Apparently  Burns jaw was hurting all night not that Burns mentioned it !! (though he might start when he watches the coverage)........Apparently Crawford was a letdown from the first round on....though he and all the rest picked Burns to win !!...(WTF??)............Apparently Burns never fights on the back foot when his jaw isn't hurting.....Guess I've been watching a different Burns all these years !!........And of course If Burns had confidence he'd whup Crawford (Sort of thing I said as a kid when a Red Sox player was missing and we were losing..)

Also Watt is seemingly brown-nosing every English Olympic pro knowing where his meal ticket is.............Stop the press a Scottish guy wanting English guys to win....

These two are awful..............They forget they are not on the radio and we can see pictures..........

Alltime low !!.........................

I lost count of the amount of times Jim Watt mentioned Burns' jaw last night.

I'm taking the Hearn Freeloaders comment is aimed at the boxing writers, you come across as so bitter it's unreal. I guess Dave Coldwell and Frank Warren gave us press passes just so they didn't look bad

Yeah very good..............Very mature ...

Not really much point in discussing anything with you...I'm afraid you write these days like you've been bought and paid for my friend...

Tell us what you really think sometime on British fighters !!...........In the meantime I'll await with baited breath your next "Joshua faces real test" when he faces his next opponent..who'll probably be 10-26...

Me I'd rather be bitter !!   But at least my views are my own ..  

Bought? Haha, you're obviously referring to the press releases that we use on the journal. Those articles help drive traffic to the site and raise our profile. I've not once said they are my work, don't worry about getting your facts right though.

Enough already.....

I never mentioned articles my friend........However Joshua and Fury's last two tests have been excellent choices since Warren and Hearn have had their hands in their pockets...

Let's not argue........If I wanted to argue with Eddie I'd go on his twitter..

Typical Truss, an American fighter gets criticised and he attacks everybody around him!! Haha

Hampo, there's as much truth in the writers being bought as there is in me apparantly writing Frampton threads ad nauseam. Now I'm supposed to be writing articles called "isn't Fury wonderful" I must have been on the bath salts when I wrote these cuz I can't remember.

(Truss' World)

* Guerrero was number 4 P4P

* if a fighter loses once then that means they are rubbish and should retire

* Salido can't beat Lomo (even tho he did)

* Jim Watt deserves to die for criticising Crawford

Watt is an absolute car crash. His commentary and bias is incredibly irritating. Sky need to axe him asap. I had to put the tv on mute from round 4 of the Burns fight. Watt was desperate to find an excuse for Burns getting taken to school & finally settled on using the jaw.

Cant stand the bloke. Totally inept and doesnt add anything to the coverage.

I do agree that the commentary was terrible last night

Truss would have never written this article though had not an American fighter been criticised

In Trussworld any non-American who does well is an 'overachiever' or a 'protected bum'

Haito wrote:Watt is an absolute car crash. His commentary and bias is incredibly irritating. Sky need to axe him asap. I had to put the tv on mute from round 4 of the Burns fight. Watt was desperate to find an excuse for Burns getting taken to school & finally settled on using the jaw.

Cant stand the bloke. Totally inept and doesnt add anything to the coverage.

Afternoon Haito............I think he certainly needs to be kept away from commentating on Scottish boxers......He was so lopsided it was a joke.....

Steffan and I agree on something..........   

"I don't want to keep going on about the jaw........but.......but......."


Jim seems to have lost control of his ability to filter the ruminations flying through his head.  

He really does need somebody at Sky giving him the que to button his lip when the inane mutterings go into overdrive.

"He's warned Crawford twice..The good news is he could take points off !!"...

Disgraceful !!!!!!!

The commentary was ok up to the Burns fight. Joshua got a great reception to be fair and looked excellent so you expect a bit of hyperbole.

The Burns fight was awful. Excuse after excuse. You would think the performance from Burns was a surprise as opposed to the same thing thats been happening for ages now - Burns getting whipped.

Newsflash Jim, Crawford is much better than Katsidas and Mitchell, thats the reason Burns looked so ordinary.

All this being said as if it was new.

Watt is as biased as any other commentator when it comes to commentating on a home fighter, team etc.

Watch a premier league team play in the champions league and you get biased views.

Only difference between Sky and HBO is the Likes of Lampley etc are bought by Arum so they cream over his fighters. Like Bunce on Boxnation.

It is what it is. Why people get so strung up on commentators is beyond me. Try focusing on the fighters, turn the volume off etc.

Jim Watt was absolutely useless last night, I won't argue with you there.

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:All this being said as if it was new.

Watt is as biased as any other commentator when it comes to commentating on a home fighter, team etc.

Watch a premier league team play in the champions league and you get biased views.

Only difference between Sky and HBO is the Likes of Lampley etc are bought by Arum so they cream over his fighters. Like Bunce on Boxnation.

It is what it is. Why people get so strung up on commentators is beyond me. Try focusing on the fighters, turn the volume off etc.

Exaclty, HBO were creaming themselves everytime Chavez threw more than 2 punches.

They were saying how much he resembles his father, give me a break his father could have probably knocked Vera out!! Haha

No way is HBO as bad as that.....

"They make take points off..Which is good news !!"

They'd get buried If one of them said that....

That is shocking..

Commentators don't need to be impartial Truss and to be honest Lampley has been kissing Pacquiaos butt for years now.

It's not on the same level but I found Larry Merchant a wee bit short sighted when he was going on about how Mikey Garcia had handled Salido with so much ease in comparison to Lomachenko.

Garcia is outstanding plus he had 30 times as many fights before facing Salido than Lomachenko did!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Commentators don't need to be impartial Truss and to be honest Lampley has been kissing Pacquiaos butt for years now.

Never said they had to be..........But you can over egg the pudding....

and last night was a case in point........Foreman correctly hammered Lampley for Hamed-Barrera.......

For me............."The good news is he may take points off"..........Is too far.......But you can feel free to disagree.

Foreman had his favourites as well, his commentary during the Hopkins/Trinidad fight was pathetic, was giving BHop no credit while stating how dangerous Tito was throughout.

Funny but I can't remember putting any HBO commentators down as good commentators at the top of the thread.....

Clancy and Ryan were CBS back in the day..........Clancy may have freelanced ...

However openly wanting an opponent to concede points from foul play is pretty low wouldn't you agree...

I don't like overly biased commentary now and I didn't then.......

I hear Burns jaw was in a bad way... Gotta give him credit for sticking in there.

And Hampo, if it's any consolation, I don't even read your work - so I don't think you're a free loading money hungry capitalist who owns a rather comfy piece of real estate in Hearns back pocket...

Hahahaha King

The amount of times that line came out last night was beyond me.

Waa ridiculous

You're too busy bench pressing 308 with 15 inch arms..

310 dammit!!! I've corrected you at least five times... Surprised you can type at all given your disproportionately large arms, though... so kudos for that

How can they be proportionately large.......49 inch chest and 171/2 arms means If anything the arms are too small !!..

When you start weight training you'll find that out..

but 210 lbs at a decent body fat percentage means your arms shouldnt be bigger than 16.5... Ergo disproportionately large.... But then again, your claiming a fifty inch chest... and 17s at 210lbs... you either have really small legs... A flare for figure/truth economic... or are fat...

According to the boxing hall of fame peak Norton had 16s... 48 inch chest... and he came in at 216... You must be a particularly fine tuned physical specimen to boast such asymmetric stats

Steve Reeves had measurements for chest, biceps, legs etc based on wrist, angle and hip size etc. The measurements were designed to provide a physique of perfect proportions.


Giving measurements without body fat percentages is a bit meaningless.

kingraf wrote:but 210 lbs at a decent body fat percentage means your arms shouldnt be bigger than 16.5... Ergo disproportionately large.... But then again, your claiming a fifty inch chest... and 17s at 210lbs... you either have really small legs... A flare for figure/truth economic... or are fat...

According to the boxing hall of fame peak Norton had 16s... 48 inch chest... and he came in at 216... You must be a particularly fine tuned physical specimen to boast such asymmetric stats

Arnold had 20 inch arms at 225lbs ripped.

1) Arnold weighed in at 239lbs at his peak
2) You've joined the debate late, Strongy, but for a rundown... I'm not the one arguing the possibilty of a disproportionate physique, Truss is. I just find it amusing that he denies its possibility when he possesses one...

Halling is utterly atrocious. His jingoistic commentary is a disgrace.

Watt seizes upon a storyline and refuses to let it go - no matter what plays out in front of him.

kingraf wrote:1) Arnold weighed in at 239lbs at his peak
2) You've joined the debate late, Strongy, but for a rundown... I'm not the one arguing the possibilty of a disproportionate physique, Truss is. I just find it amusing that he denies its possibility when he possesses one...

Didn't mean to get in the middle of your debate .

On Arnold he was lighter for the 1975 Mr Olympia in South Africa as he had to reduce his weight for the filming of Stay Hungry and when he built back up he only got to 225lbs.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Haito wrote:Watt is an absolute car crash. His commentary and bias is incredibly irritating. Sky need to axe him asap. I had to put the tv on mute from round 4 of the Burns fight. Watt was desperate to find an excuse for Burns getting taken to school & finally settled on using the jaw.

Cant stand the bloke. Totally inept and doesnt add anything to the coverage.

Afternoon Haito............I think he certainly needs to be kept away from commentating on Scottish boxers......He was so lopsided it was a joke.....

Steffan and I agree on something..........   

Oh like US commentators aren't biased towards US boxers you mean? Or how about Harry Carpenter excitedly yelling 'Get in there Frank' in one of Bruno's fights. It happens.

Personally don't have a problem with commentators being biased.

Try to form my own opinion on each fight and understand that like everyone else the commentators will have favourites. This rings especially true when it is a UK fighter vs an overseas fighter, I guess they are under pressure from the fans watching as impartiality would seem like they dislike the UK fighters and get a lot of complaints.

Think it is human nature to warm to fighters you know and like. When watching any sports I tend to do the same thing and what I see in a fight if I like fighter A would be different to a fan of fighter B, well unless it was a one punch KO with the first punch thrown.

Watt was utter rot, genuine disgrace.

Rest of the OP is just Truss being a tool again though.

In any case I watched it. At least Watt was being correct/unbiased with his scorecard unlike a few US judges known to exist. Watt did say many times Crawford was way ahead. The fact he kept on about Burns broken jaw was an opinion to explain Burns inept performance no more no less.

Opinion?

More like excuse.

It was just excuse after excuse. "This isn't Ricky" "Something must be wrong" "There's no other explanation for the fight going like this".

Basically anything to take the plaudit away from TC. Simple fact is, Watt just couldn't accept that TC is just better than Ricky and would most likely win a rematch whatever the circumstances.

Watts scorecard was about right. He was underplaying Crawford but I think he genuinely thought that something wasn't quite right with Ricky. Its hard to tell sometimes, how much is one guy under performing and how much is him simply not being allowed to look better.

All commentators  are repetitive, though I agree with haz that watt is like a terrier with a bone once he has a theory. I find it a bit annoying, but it doesn't wind me up to the extent that it does others.

Well that is how you see it. My view on it is that Watt has seen Burns fight many times. Granted in the last few fights Burns has been naff but that is so unlike his early four fifths of his career where he put on many impressive showings so obviously when ones standards drop dramatically it is only natural to look for explanations.

Me and Rowley are the only Wattites left on here. Stop hating on Jim, lads.

But there wasn't a standards drop. He just fought a better fighter than he had before and got beat.

I like Ricky Burn but he was never top drawer and on Saturday that showed.

I'm no Jim hater Chris. He formed (admittedly the lesser) part of a great commentary partnership with reg guttridge. Unfortunately halling is as far removed from reg as you can get and jim is gradually turning into a caricature of himself.

Toppy, you may well be right. I think Crawford is much the better all round boxer. For me the alarming thing though was watching a tough guy like burns visibly flinch and back pedal after bring caught by a stock jab (which he did a fair few times). Jim saw it too, but rounding shut up about it.

88Chris05 wrote:Me and Rowley are the only Wattites left on here. Stop hating on Jim, lads.

Must be me getting mellow as I get older, but Colonel Bob and Bunce aside I can't get myself too wound up with a commentator. Genuinely don't think any of the sky team are too bad. Like with the departed Grey and Keys on football I don't much care who is commentating, I choose what fights I watch on the basis of whether the match up appeals, not who is commentating.

I'm less bothered about commentators showing bias than I am about Jim Watt's constant need to shout and the fact that he's a one trick pony and labours the same point over and over again in his commentary.

Sorry, milky. Just me getting carried away in my little Azania moment and wanting to emphasise the point that I hold an opinion which goes against the consensus!

I had to record all of Saturday’s fights on Sky / BoxNation and C5, duck the results and watch them back on Sunday, and did so with the sound off apart from the minute in between rounds, which might explain why I’m a little slower to jump all over Jim’s performance behind the mic for this fight than some others are. Tend to do that if it’s a fight involving a Brit which is likely to go the distance.

I must have missed Watt’s final card – how did he have it? To be honest, I didn’t think there were any rounds that were too difficult to score, really. Had Burns 2-1 up after the third, but thought Crawford won ‘em all after that point without too much bother.

Think he might have given him the 10th Chris, in sympathy for not losing that rounds as emphatically as the preceding ones. Other than that, the same as yours. Personally, I could only give him the 2nd, myself. Had the first even.

John rawling is the one that gets my goat, but some like him. Ian darke the only decent uk commentator and sadly he's on the wrong network these days.

88Chris05 wrote:Sorry, milky. Just me getting carried away in my little Azania moment and wanting to emphasise the point that I hold an opinion which goes against the consensus!

I had to record all of Saturday’s fights on Sky / BoxNation and C5, duck the results and watch them back on Sunday, and did so with the sound off apart from the minute in between rounds, which might explain why I’m a little slower to jump all over Jim’s performance behind the mic for this fight than some others are. Tend to do that if it’s a fight involving a Brit which is likely to go the distance.

I must have missed Watt’s final card – how did he have it? To be honest, I didn’t think there were any rounds that were too difficult to score, really. Had Burns 2-1 up after the third, but thought Crawford won ‘em all after that point without too much bother.

Sorry we piled all over your Twitter account then, Chris!