Sky Sports boxing commentary.

BDF

Watching Wladimir Klitschko V Sam Peter on Sky Sports the other night I noticed how unprofessional the commentators (I think it was Darke and McCrory) were when discussing Klitschko. First it was the comment "He is known as Dr. IronFist not Dr. Ironchin, that's the problem", then one of them made a snide remark about how the referee was all over Peter but not reprimanding Wlad, saying, "Klitschko must be blameless, completely blameless", which was obviously a reference to the infamous Klitschko - Haye negotiations, and then came the line, "if Klitschko doesn't make the fight with Haye, who else is out there for him?", implying that it is Wladimir who doesn't want the fight!!

We also had Johnny Nelson say Wladimir has a glass chin on that Ringside programme and they couldn't stop going on about how he had been down 11 times in his career, not a word on how Haye was knocked down by a blown up super middle or that he was stopped by a geriatric!

Now normally I wouldn't give a sh*t about biased commentary, but this is taking the piss in my opinion.
This is the kind of thing I expect to hear from fans on boxing forums not paid professionals. What irks me even more is how they hype up there own fighters and never say a negative word about them. Can you imagine them ever describing Haye as glass chinned for example?!

Does anyone else find these guys painfull to listen to?

raven136

BDF wrote: »

Watching Wladimir Klitschko V Sam Peter on Sky Sports the other night I noticed how unprofessional the commentators (I think it was Darke and McCrory) were when discussing Klitschko. First it was the comment "He is known as Dr. IronFist not Dr. Ironchin, that's the problem", then one of them made a snide remark about how the referee was all over Peter but not reprimanding Wlad, saying, "Klitschko must be blameless, completely blameless", which was obviously a reference to the infamous Klitschko - Haye negotiations, and then came the line, "if Klitschko doesn't make the fight with Haye, who else is out there for him?", implying that it is Wladimir who doesn't want the fight!!

We also had Johnny Nelson say Wladimir has a glass chin on that Ringside programme and they couldn't stop going on about how he had been down 11 times in his career, not a word on how Haye was knocked down by a blown up super middle or that he was stopped by a geriatric!

Now normally I wouldn't give a sh*t about biased commentary, but this is taking the piss in my opinion.
This is the kind of thing I expect to hear from fans on boxing forums not paid professionals. What irks me even more is how they hype up there own fighters and never say a negative word about them. Can you imagine them ever describing Haye as glass chinned for example?!

Does anyone else find these guys painfull to listen to?

they were commenting on a Klitschko fight yeah?

So what was unfair about saying he had been down 11 times in his career etc.

Not everything is about Haye and the English commentators and people need to realise that.Every tv company that is invested in a fighter bigs him up etc.RTE,Hbo,Sky etc all do it and i imagine the German tv station that shows Klitschkos do the same.

Whats the big deal?

cowzerp

They where overly critical of Wlad, the ref warned wlad for holding on many occasions and they made out he was'nt..

Haye is a bottler, he wants no part of the Klitscko's and wont till there past it..

Wild_Dogger

It's nothing new with Sky , but I think Jimm Watt is the most biased and more importantly the most influential commentator amongst fans . He takes sides straight from the first bell .

I often wonder about his proximity to the judges table ,
because if they can hear Watt and his team , then surely they feel a little pressure to comply with what is being aired on the TV channels .

Any indifference a judge shows against the views of the commentry team will cause contraversy .

It's one to ponder

Syferus

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

It's nothing new with Sky , but I think Jimm Watt is the most biased and more importantly the most influential commentator amongst fans . He takes sides straight from the first bell .

I often wonder about his proximity to the judges table ,
because if they can hear Watt and his team , then surely they feel a little pressure to comply with what is being aired on the TV channels .

Any indifference a judge shows against the views of the commentry team will cause contraversy .

It's one to ponder

While I think the OP is being pedantic at best on this particular fight, you hit the nail on the head with Watt and to top it all off I've always noticed a distinct patern when it comes to how Irish fighters in general are threated by him and it's certainly not that he's rooting for them!

megadodge

I have to disagree with the opinions expressed on Watt. I really like his commentary and always have. I've always found him to be quiet fair and he's not afraid to express his doubts about a British fighter if there are potential banana skins there.

I haven't noticed any anti-Irish bias.

With regard to Klitchko, the guy has a glass chin, so why not mention it?

gene_tunney

Wild_Dogger wrote: »

It's nothing new with Sky , but I think Jimm Watt is the most biased and more importantly the most influential commentator amongst fans . He takes sides straight from the first bell .

I often wonder about his proximity to the judges table ,
because if they can hear Watt and his team , then surely they feel a little pressure to comply with what is being aired on the TV channels .

Any indifference a judge shows against the views of the commentry team will cause contraversy .

It's one to ponder

Agreed. In the Pacquaio Cotto fight he kept saying early on "Pacquaio won't be able to take Cotto's power" and we all know how that one panned out. He picks one fighter as the clear favourite and then sees everything that happens as proof of his analysis.

megadodge

gene_tunney wrote: »

Agreed. In the Pacquaio Cotto fight he kept saying early on "Pacquaio won't be able to take Cotto's power" and we all know how that one panned out. He picks one fighter as the clear favourite and then sees everything that happens as proof of his analysis.

So, he was wrong. So what?

He wasn't the only one and I can't think of any commentator that has got it right every single time in terms of favouritism.

gene_tunney

megadodge wrote: »

So, he was wrong. So what?

He wasn't the only one and I can't think of any commentator that has got it right every single time in terms of favouritism.

I don't have a problem with him being wrong, I have a problem with him taking sides from the opening bell.

megadodge

Well, if he stated beforehand that he thought Cotto would win because of his belief that Pac couldn't take his power, why should he not mention that at the start. He was giving his reasons why he thought fighter A would win and fighter B would lose, I don't think it's necessarily "taking sides".

Obviously if there's a British fighter involved he will give the viewpoint from a British angle, as 99% of people watching Sky will be wanting a British perspective.

He was very happy when Ricky Burns won last week and why wouldn't he be, as a fellow Scot, but as far as I was aware beforehand (like most) he didn't fancy Ricky's chances.