Just watched the Alvarez-Trout fight- talk about BIASED commentary

Starting from where the knockdown happened- they couldn't stop going on and on about how Trout was "controlling" the round after Alvarez punched himself out- get REAL, Alvarez KNOCKED him down AND hurt him again later that round; so what if he got on his bike for a bit, that's barely any grounds for making it go from 10-8 to 10-9

later on they were talking about activity levels and I couldn't help but think about the arguments on here how people often say "work rate aint **** if you don't connect" well that's what was happening in this fight:roll:


Thirdly it was irritating how one of the commentators got frustrated that Alvarez was backing off in the 12th because both corners had been told the score, inferring that he wanted Alvarez to engage to make it "interesting" but really it appeared as if he wanted him to risk getting KOed by Trout. Don't hate the player, hate the game

 

Malignaggi is biased towards fighters who have a slick style, Tarver would have been more neutral.

 

Paulie was the most...

He actually had Trout Walking Down Canelo in the 7th round when CANELO KD him.. like really bro your this stupid.. Canelo beat that ass in that round.

paulie is good but he is biased as **** sometimes.

 

Except for the fact that Alvarez was much more slick than the one people were expecting to be slick

 

Yup, he was actually slicker than Trout but he has more of a hybrid style.

 

paulie was spot on a told it like it was the whole fight. from canelo fighting in spurts and being tired. from a better fighter taking advantage of admiring your work or not doing little to nothing 1min 30 secs of a rd. i dont know what you seen but me i seen what the magic man seen. showtime is never has bias as hbo excluding rjj, surprised someone dislike showtime. i though most of the commentary was spot on.

 

he was admiring his work too much, trouble is, trout had nothing to admire himself... nothing.

 

So what if he fought in spurts? some fighters simply pot shot all night and get wide decisions despite a wide disparity in work rate. Trout's "aggression" was simply put, INEFFECTIVE

 

he's cleary biased because he's bla...
oh wait..

 

who said anything about race? why are some people always so sensitive to that ****

biased is biased- professionalism has little room for it; when people hate on HBO for being biased, expect the same grading scale for showtime as well

 

The showtime commentary was spot on.


Stop bitching

 

if it was Roy or Tarver we already know what the deal would be...
anyways, he did a good job, and for him being the only one on the panel who's ever laced up, i think he has a right to state his opinion..
he scored Cotto-Trout a draw.. was he biased for him then?

 

i agree he was biased whole fight

funny that trout lost though he must feel like a ****ing idiot hahahhaa

 

This sounds more like a misinterpretation. It was more a criticism of open-scoring and how it takes the drama out of the fight. It was the situation and not Alvarez they were hating.

 

Paulie was overrating Cotto that night because he'd fought (and lost) to him before. Many fighters tend to overrate past opponents to make their defeats at their hands seem more justifiable, or if they have a win over the guy, make their win seem more impressive.

Paulie's commentary during the Cotto-Trout fight was a clear instance of that bias coming into play. Anyone in any situation is biased to some degree, but what the biases are depends on the circumstance.

Paulie likes light-hitting boxers like him, but he also has the self-serving bias when discussing past opponents almost every boxer demonstrates at some point or another.