Who is the worst big-name television boxing analyst out there?

In the U.K. we have somebody called Adam Smith as the main commentary for sky who is so bad it is ridiculous. He teams up with Karl Froch, though an ex champ, he’s just not offering anything more than casual fans even though less prestigious former fighters like Mathew Macklin and Paul Smith are often available and more insightful and better readers of a fight.

Sky basically screens one stable of fighters. Adam cheer leads the house fighters from this stable like you would not believe whilst ignoring the opponent even if the underdog takes over and begins to win rounds. He will eventually acknowledge the truth when it’s all too late. he’s too desperate to scream out exciting lines too. Often choosing the wrong moment to get excited. It’s like he’s doing an impression of a commentator. He’s just horrible. I recognise he feels a responsibility to build new stars for the network but he’s often cranking up the hysteria in a too obvious way.

 

Pacheco was bad, and Colonel Bob Sheridan did not belong in any boxing broadcast role. I used to loathe everyone involved with Best Damn Sports Show's ventures into boxing, specifically Tom Arnold.

Does anyone miss Antonio Tarver as a great analyst for Showtime?

 

Yep--I was just getting ready to type something about how that DKP productions shill---Bob Sheridan---was not mentioned up there with the worst. Actually the guy probably would have made a better announcer in the professional wrestling circuit.

 

Jim Lampley.

Has been watching boxing fights for more than 50 years, yet still doesn't know anything about boxing.

He speaks well, has excellent voice, but his IQ is too low to understand the art of boxing.

 

I agree 110% about Pacheco, but I can't quite give you a "Like" because I'm not so tough on Foreman. I think he knew something about boxing. His tenures as lineal heavyweight champion spanned three decades! I do acknowledge that you don't have to like his work as an announcer, however!!

I rate Cosell a "Zero" as an analyst, about on a par with Pacheco. I respect him for the way he treated Ali, however, at a time when a lot of people were belittling him.

 

I like pretty much any accomplished ex pug... Foreman, Paulie, Roy, Bobby Czyz... even Norton and Quarry from the old days. Tho not polished or broadcast pros, and perhaps a bit excitable, they all tended to have a level of insight not available from even the best of commentators.

 

He was a play by play man more than an analyst, which is why I didn't name him.

 

I think it was Bob Sheridan that had one of my favorite lines. During the Hector Lizarraga vs Welcome Ncita fight, between rounds the camera followed the ring card girl for a long time. Bob said We do that because we've found that most guys that like boxing like girls too."

For some reason that cracked me up at the time. That was a pretty good fight, too.

 

Pacheco has to be the worst. The John Madden of boxing commentation... A complete imbecile. A total moron. A bumbling idiot.

I can't believe he went that long fooling people into thinking he knew his ass from his elbow regarding boxing. They dont come any worse than he does.

Bobby Czyz is a wonder to me; a MENSA member, which means he has a very high IQ.
His analysis and commentary is on the level of a functional ret*rd.
I literally cannot believe someone who is supposedly so smart gets DUI's regularly and sounds like such a dumb f*ck... He should come off way smarter, but he doesn't. He offers very little in the way of insight every time out.

Between him and Pacheco, Showtime had themselves a couple of monkeys trying to f*ck a football in the commentary booth and nobody said a thing for years...

Someone should have put a stop to that immediately.

 

Disliked- Pacheco, Lennox Lewis,

Liked- Bernstein, RJJ, Quarry, Foreman (for the WTF? moments)

Loved- Steward, Gil Clancy

 

Yes, that's an important distinction. The play by play guy is there to call the action and increase the drama of the spectacle; the analyst is there to provide the real insight.

 

I always found Cossell amusing because you could tell the guy was so self important. “I’m going up!” He was such a personality it didn’t really matter that Howard didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. The guy was unintentionally hysterical. To be that bad, at least he was funny. Of course he didn’t like boxing either.

 

Tom Arnold ventured into boxing commentary? LOL - I definitely missed that!

 

As a general matter, I don't believe an athlete who is at the top of his profession must always be knowledgeable about his craft. I can cite legions of athletes who were not merely the best of their time, but in the conversation of best ever in spite of their lack of mastery of their own craft. Sometimes nature has endowed them with such ridiculous gifts that they literally need to do nothing. A fairly analogous case to Foreman in boxing in judo, for instance, is Teddy Riner. He's been undefeated in nearly a decade at the maximum weight, and yet he is a topic of ridicule among judo purists, and it's not an exaggeration to say that he is technically deficient relative to every opponent he meets on the international stage. Yet, he wins, simply because there has never been a judoka who is 6-8, 300, and with his body composition. An even more transparent case is Hong Man-Choi, who dominated the Korean version of sumo before he became an MMA freak. Choi was just as pathetic in Korean sumo as he is in MMA; and yet he beat everyone because he was so goddamn big (especially for a Korean) that nobody could put him down. Likewise, I think Foreman's dominance had more to do with natural power and not much else.

 

I actually liked Steward somewhat. He was insightful, albeit a bit too highfalutin at times.