Time for my rant!

The sky commentry team is absoloutely shocking i know it has been said many times on these boards but tonight topped it for me Halling and Watt completely ignoring groves hitting froch and crediting froch even when he hadnt connected with groves. I had froch up by 1 round before the stoppage but the way they were talking you would get the impression froch was winning every round.....pure disgrace!

It was awful. Firt two rounds were uneventful and could go either way or a draw. 3rd and 4th were clearly Groves who landed some big shots the Watt was blind to. 5th and 6th were Frochs. 7th Groves.

I couldnt believe how blind they were to Groves simply boxing a more cautious and measured 12 round approach. Its like because he wasnt bashing Froch all over the ring that he was therefore losing badly. Nonsense. He landed loads of good shots. More than Froch overall probably. You would think Watt had money on a Froch win.

If this had of been the first fight they would probably be saying Groves was boxing great. Mailgnaggi was disappointing. Barely heard him at all in between Halling and Watt talking out their arses.

I was in a pub where you could just about make out the commentary. I was blown away by the snippets of commentary I was hearing. So ridiculously one sided.

I had Groves ahead by 1 after the 7th. Some of the exchanges looked like Froch was bossing them, but the Slo-mo clearly showed clean punches landing for GG. I appreciate that commentators/judges can't see this, so it would be fair enough to give Froch the swing rounds. I also agree the Froch just looked to be bossing the fight for the most part. However, that fight was on a knife edge up until the KO. I'm blown away by how an ex-boxer and experienced commentator (Watt) can get it so wrong.

I think Jim Watt had a Carl Froch T-Shirt on during the whole of the fight lol.

Watt just seemed right from the off to be favouring froch i remember a few of us saying it at the time on here, halling.....well what can you say really

That's the problem with scoring it's instinct on what you see for the first time not what you see in a slow mo replay. Had it 5-2 froch with Groves on his way to winning the 8th.

Personally i had it 3-2-2 to Groves, 1st couple rounds fairly even bar a few flurries really that being said could have easily been given either way to make it 3-4

Well like i said i had froch 1 up but i felt watt and halling were even for their standards totally biast and obviously so

I watched it in a packed bar so couldn't hear any commentary but had it 4-3 Froch going into the 8th. One of my mates had it 5-2 Froch without hearing commentary so I can see how it can be seen fairly differently.

Jim Watt might as well had a sticker on his head saying i heat carl froch

I have to agree Watt was pretty bad tonight, just got in and was hoping others felt this was also the case, had George one up but it really was a tight hard fight to score though it did look to be going George's way up until the KO, which was incredible, I give full credit to him. But I did feel like Froch was starting to become frustrated and Groves was in the ascendancy.

Yep agree with OP

Seemed like a SKY Froch broadcast. Even when Khan stated that Groves was in front Watt and his mate seemed genuinely shocked and confused.

Even aside the scoring, the whole interpretaion and analysis was ass backwards. Groves would land a solid jarring right and there wouldnt be so much as a mousefart from Watt. Froch lands a glancing jab and "hes looking the boss in there".

In the Jim watt bingo thread, I put 'I just liked his work better'. He just gets it into his head that someone is bossing the exchanges. I've defended him before but he was awful tonight. Nick should F off back to us football.

As was said above, froch initiated exchanges but how much landed. Be interesting to see the correlation between those that had froch ahead and those who had maidana beating mayweather.  

Looking at the comments, though, those who wanted froch to win had him ahead, those that wanted groves to win had him ahead.

I just thought groves was pacing himself, which a lot of people, me included, had suggested he should do... He looked to be getting on top when the tables were dramatically turned on him.

I just find it amusing how Frochs "amateur and awful style" can knock you out twice back to back....one of the out cold.

Can't be THAT bad of a style surely George?

Well done mm8 for resisting the temptation to say KTFO... Especially on an occasion, where you could argue a damn good case for it 

But Watt was the opposite in the first fight. Ignored everything Froch did.
Ultimately it doesn't matter as there was no doubting the ending.

I agree sugar, it's like groves was doing better than expected in the first fight, so Jim bigs him up and makes it look like a pasting. In the return, because groves doesn't hunt him down.. It's all down to froch being up for it and dictating the pace.

Ha ha Milky, was really tempted a little earlier but I'll leave that for later in the week.

In all seriousness though, BBC Sport had Groves winning all but one round?! Along with Steve Bunch.

2 Judges had Carl ahead.....

Thing is if you have a lot of similar rounds you're likely to score them all the same way, it's why we get such disparities on cards... Well that and hometown bent officials of course!

The first four rounds in particular were pretty close I thought... Hbo scored them all to groves. Watt gave 3 of them to froch.

The amir khan interview between rounds was quality... But sums it all up really.

I thought khan was way off the mark, I had froch winning comfortably. Maybe 5-3.

The commentary was poor and Halling summed the Sky team up perfectly when said to Malignaggi "I don't know if you've experienced anything like this?" and Paulie had to remind him that he was on the Hatton undercard in front of 55000

Im not sure how much boxing knowlege halling has

wheelchair1991 wrote:Im not sure how much boxing knowlege halling has

Neither it seems do his employers at Sky. It was as bad as the person who interviewed that American guy at the Olympic Boxing and didn't know it was Holyfield.

Most of the press seem to be dismissing Groves out of hand too. Reading the reports you'd think Groves was KO'd without contributing anything to the contest. Still, to the victor the spoils and history being written by the victors etc. Groves showed he has enough to warrant a place at the SM table and it's simply a question of how his career is managed from here on in. He can definitely come back.

Most galling sight of the night though had to be Degale revelling in a KO loss that he had no part in...closely followed by Lee Froch acting like he'd just won the title himself.

I mentioned this last night but I'll say it again.
Jim Watt and Nick Halling are awful. I understand that scoring is subjective,it's the gift and the curse of the sport,but Watt and Halling always insist one fighter is dominating and one doesn't know what he's doing and I hate it.
Sometimes fighters throw punches and mix it up a little in rounds,that doesn't mean Groves was in trouble,and it doesn't mean Froch is getting frustrated and losing his way.
I prefer HBO commentary,as they usually describe the action and reasoning behind punch combinations and not the unnecessary 'hes all over him/he looks lost out there' nonsense.

They always pick a favourite and the other fighter has to do something special to win the round away from them...

First fight it was Groves
Second fight it was Froch

Think they dropped Groves after he signed with Sauerland and moved to the rival Boxnation.

BoxingFan88 wrote:They always pick a favourite and the other fighter has to do something special to win the round away from them...

First fight it was Groves
Second fight it was Froch

Think they dropped Groves after he signed with Sauerland and moved to the rival Boxnation.

Yeah, I've often wondered if they get instructions from the boss men on who they should favour.

Commentary was dreadful and Watt and that other bloke should be ashamed. So biased and they just refused to credit Groves with anything for the first 6 rounds.

Personally I had Groves up at the time of the stoppage but can see why people had Froch ahead. The stoppage was legit this time so no complaints but the commentary should be raised.

Nothing knew I know for a team to have their favourite (normally Mayweather is heavily brown nosed in the fight) but it just annoyed me this time.

I think Watt must have watched the tape of the first fight and tried to even it up this time..

In fairness Jim had it 5-2 like me...and probably like me felt frustrated by Groves lack of engagement..

He's crap but he's not as bad as backside sniffer Halling.

It sounded to me like Watt expected a repeat of the first fight with Froch coming on late to wear down Groves. When the fight didnt fit his expectation he decided it must have been because Groves was doing nothing right.

Halling is just there to tow the line and try to add in some colour and cliches in between Jim Watt Bingo.

I watched it in a pub in Fulham and couldn't hear the commentary. I had Groves 3-1 up after 4 rounds then a couple to Froch and the 7th to Groves. In saying that Froch fought tentatively to begin, when he did open up he just looked physically stronger than Groves and I thought it was only a matter of time before he ground George down.

Halling is galling and it's time for Watt the Scot to take a trot.

Halling is jim's yes man.

Watt was really contradictory about what he expected from groves. Personally I'm not sure how you're meant to fight like he did in the first fight, but pace himself and be more defensive. But that was jim's advice. He might not be much of a commentator but thank god he's not a trainer.

The first fight completely threw Watt I think. You get the feeling if what happened in the second fight was actually how the first fight went then they would be saying how tentative Froch was, how he was struggling to impose himself on Groves, how Groves movement was great, how the Groves right hand was effective and so on. But having seen the way the first fight went it seems like they expected all that and more from Groves. Higher expectation from Groves and lower expectations from Froch.

Watt clearly can't analyse a fight properly and instead masks it by sticking faithfully to what he thinks should be happening, rather than analysing what is actually happening.

Sky could save themselves a few quid in travel expenses by getting Jim to do the in-fight analysis from his garden shed a few days before the fight takes place. It would be roughly the same.

BoxingFan88 wrote:They always pick a favourite and the other fighter has to do something special to win the round away from them...

First fight it was Groves
Second fight it was Froch

Think they dropped Groves after he signed with Sauerland and moved to the rival Boxnation.

Great shout. Yeah I agree with the OP. Froch did seem to be comfortable and boxing well behind the jab - Groves was landing some good shots though although Froch had the centre of the ring and was backing up Groves in the few exchanges they had. Can see why Froch was ahead but Groves still looked well in the fight until he got poleaxed.

Terrible stuff from the Sky commentary team. The Kahn interview was just ridiculous , they even tried to correct him when he said Groves was in control.

I'd have tried to correct him too...

I remember Watt interviewing Groves before the first fight and he was praising him for the way he conducted himself leading up to the fight. I remember thinking at the time Watt had a soft spot for Groves. That was how the commentary in the first fight played out.

For the second fight Watt stuck to the Sky/Matchroom script.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'd have tried to correct him too...

If his name was floyd groves, you'd have had him pitching a shut out, for his accurate countering  

I'm always objective.....I only had Breland 20-14 after two against Honey..

... Was that because Lloyd was forcing the pace? I had that one 20-0. Richie woodhall had Lloyd 20-18.

Watched it back last night - obviously didn't have commentary in the stadium and thought I'd see if all the harsh appraisals of Watt and Halling's performance behind the mic were justified.

And they sure were.

Like most in the crowd, I thought there wasn't much in it at all over the first seven rounds, but with Groves certainly looking to have hit the groove in the few minutes before the knockout punch. Couldn't believe how differently Halling and Watt were trying to tell the TV audience the action was. Usually I don't go in for the idea that some commentators clearly go in there with an agenda and are looking to force-feed their 'opinions' on the viewers....But the Sky team's performance was so bad on Saturday that it makes me think twice.

I try to defend Watt on here when the issue of his commentary (his scoring is hard to stick up for even for me, mind you!) comes up, but I cannae manage it this time out. He was terrible, as was Halling.

Before a punch was thrown the brother and I were talking about Watt and how he changes his tune half way through the fight,Froch is on top,Froch is falling short with the jab,Groves is finding Froch harder to hit with the right hand,Groves is catching Froch,well done Jim your covering every angle of the fight so you can't get it wrong.
Time to retire Jim,or we'll start watching fights with the sound turned off,rubbish commentary team,and just as bad boxing pundits on Sky.

Makes me think twice about paying for a fight again if Watt and Halling will be calling it. What's the point in forking out nearly £20 for a fight and then having to turn the sound off? At the very least, Sky could introduce an option that allows viewers to listen to the crowd noise only (BBC have done things like that in the past for football - always a blessing when that d1ckhead, Mark Lawrenson is on).

Ah, a fellow lawro hater. Don't suppose you happen to despise Steve wright, or Stevie wrong as he's known in my household, and his cretinous sidekicks with their annoying factoids? Mrs milky has radio 2 preset in the car, which I can cope with generally... except when that forker's on... A serious test of my normally placid disposition. As you can probably tell from this off topic gratuitous rant.

milkyboy wrote:Ah, a fellow lawro hater. Don't suppose you happen to despise Steve wright, or Stevie wrong as he's known in my household, and his cretinous sidekicks with their annoying factoids? Mrs milky has radio 2 preset in the car, which I can cope with generally... except when that forker's on... A serious test of my normally placid disposition. As you can probably tell from this off topic gratuitous rant.

Swap Steve Wright for Jeremy Vine and you have my personal radio bête noir. I really can't stand that man, thankfully the guy who insists on listening to Radio 2 in on holiday for a week but after that I'll be tempted to punch a swan just to get the anger out.

Anyway, back to the thread, I genuinely found the commentary and subsequent newspaper reports insulting. Martin Samuels ("Sports Writer of the Year") has included a picture of Family Guy's Peter Griffin in a heap on the floor to emphasis the end of the fight. Class and tact I'm sure you agree...or don't.

Wouldn't you have to read the mail to know what Martin Samuel said? I hate the mail like I hate steve wrong.

Martin Samuel looks the type of man that can only masturbate whie in a state of asphyxiation.

Steve Wright is a colossal twuntslice.

Samuel is a capable writer, unfortunately now he writes for the Mail I will never get the opportunity to have that opinion confirmed or dismissed. With regard to Watt and Halling, Watt is not as bad as he often gets criticised for being, but is probably just a guy who should have got the picture of a Spitfire many a year ago. Halling is normally pretty good on other sports but has been something of a disaster as a boxing commentator. Might be doing him a gross disservice but I always get the impression he is blagging it a bit knowledge wise.

Think the Sky team generally could do with freshening up a bit, McCrory brings very little to the table. They could do worse than trying to get Darren Barker on the team, has always come across well when I have seen him.

Heard someone describe Steve Bruce's appearance at the FA Cup final as being that of a man who has just had a w@nk in the office toilets. McRory always looks the same on big fight nights.

I thought Malignaggi was an excellent loan in. Halling is absolutely abominable -- really poor (apparently he's brilliant at American Football -- the fans all want him to return to it); Watt's irritating but at least knows what he's talking about (most of the time).

I agree ref: Glenn. He's never really offered much.

McGuigan is our best pundit (but is otherwise engaged) and I've always had a lot of time for Woodhall and McKenzie (when Duke's not commentating that is..."HE'S GONE" etc.).

Channel Five pulled off a real coup in acquiring Al Bernstein. If he's not tied down, Sky would be well advised to snap him up. Classy pundit and commentator.